House Passes "Health Care" Bill

[nova]

Interesting and massively incorrect points you both raised there. Let's have a look.

Says the deluded man...

If you had any idea what a socialist society might look like, you'd know that yes, even Portugal is NOT a socialist country. Socialism, for a start, demands direct democracy, which Portugal does not have. Socialism can not exist with a private banking industry, which Portugal has. Socialism also cannot exist with any privately owned means of production, which Portugal has. From your right-wing perspective, sure, countries in Europe may have socialist leanings, but that does not make them socialist countries.

Socialism light is still socialism. Its no bragging point to say you started down the path to hell but haven't finished yet.

Well it's not actually. If you think about it, the freedom you so desperately grasp onto isn't freedom at all because you cannot have freedom without equality. When there isn't equality, there's subjugation, something which capitalism relies on entirely. Libertarian socialism is based on the belief that humans can only be free when they're completely equal. The governing structure in a Libertarian Socialist society is the people themselves. Is that not what you're after? Less government? You seem very confused - you hate the very governmental systems you think are absolutely necessary.

You can never have 100% equality. Some people will always be smarter, stronger, better looking, or more capable giving them an advantage preventing true equality like you're talking about.

All you can strive for is equality UNDER THE LAW and ensure everyone's rights to life, liberty and property are protected equally.

The only gov't I hate is the overreaching, over bearing oppressive type. Gov't has one, singular legitimate purpose, the protection of the base rights of the individual, namely life, liberty and property. Not redistributionism to ensure "equality of outcome."

The governing structure is the people? Gimme a break. That little utopian idea of everyone playing nice for the greater good works great on the scale of a small village where social pressures can keep people toeing the line. Nobody in the history of the world has been able to get it to scale beyond that though. It always devolves into an authoritarian state because the only way you can get large groups of people to toe the line is to threaten to kill them, and even thats not 100% effective.

Not at all. Social awareness brought in those changes, and that social awareness came from the leftists, not from the conservatives. Conservatism is primarily concerned with conserving things as they are. The individual had no power, it was when they united that the power came.

Still delusional I see. If anything "social awareness" has served to tear down the success and opportunity for advancment that rights and primacy of the individual have allowed. The mechanisms implemented by "social awareness" are part and parcel designed to keep people exactly where they start in life. Thats why fewer people ever change income quintiles in Europe and of the one's that do, an even smaller percentage go up, the majority go down. The station in life you're born to is where you'll die. In contrast, here in the US, people move in income brackets all the time and we typically have more moving up than moving down.

You guys were still a bunch of SUBJECTS (not citizens but SUBJECTS) to a king when we took the ideas that the likes of John Locke and others had brought out of antiquity and actually implemented them. With the primacy of the state and society, there is very little incentive for any individual to use their own brains, innovation and hard work to advance anything at all. The enlightenment and the focus on the individual changed that such that individuals had incentive for advancement as they could themselves benefit without the state confiscating the fruits of their labor wholesale.

Socialists had ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with that as socialism turns that relationship on its head and gives the state primacy again.

Far from it. Socialism is a philosophy based entirely on reason. If you knew anything, you'd know that it has it's roots in the Enlightenment. It's conservatism that has no grounds in reason, in fact, it flies in the face of reason. Conservatism is based on conserving traditional practices. In other words, it's anti progression. So by taking that to it's logical conclusion, if our ancestors were all conservatives we would still be in a feudal situation, subjugated to unelected rulers.

Maybe in your ass backwards world, but not the real one. Socialism/modern liberalism is based on flawed reasoning that everybody can be convinced to play nice together for the good of all, which goes against the very nature of human beings.

I seriously love you're whacked out ideas of what modern conservatism is. Modern conservatism started out its life as classical liberalism, the movement that fought tooth and nail against things like feudalism and fought for the rights of man. The founders of the US were all classical liberals as am I, as are many many people.

Modern liberals/socialists are the intellectual descendents of the monarchists, continually trying to find a way to return to the quid pro quo of the primacy of the state. Everybody works for the state and the state provides, just like everybody used to work for the manor lord and the manor lord provided for their well being, at least in theory. Its exceedingly sad that a group so far divorced from the ideas of the enlightenment continually trys to claim it as their own. I suppose thats the only way you can hope to achieve even a minimum amount of legitimacy.

Everyone else's money? What on Earth?!!! Beyond hilarious!

The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.

Well progress would mean moving forward with change. That's the same for anyone. As for subjugated, socialism wouldn't be an authoritarian regime, it would be a system built by the citizens, controlled by the citizens, subjugated to no one.

Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny by an individual. If everyone is not on board 100%, then you are subjugating someone. Thats where socialism inevitably fails, you can't get everyone to cooperate so you end up threatening and killing people to keep them in line.

Out of interest, would you rather than be subjugated (which we all are in one way or another) by a government and a civil system you choose and run, or by private interests, who see you as nothing more than a slave?

Neither, I want small limited gov't that protects my rights as an individual to life, liberty and property and otherwise lets people do with their private interests as they will. If you can't break a gov't action down to protecting one of the three, then it is not for gov't to do. And the right to life, only prohibits the active taking of life, is does not require the gov't to infringe upon the property rights of others to provide you with life.

But when most people have social leanings, why would we need to go form communes? In Europe, and the US, portions of socialist thought have been included into our systems because the people want it that way.

Oh, maybe, because most is not all and you're amorally infringing upon the rights of those people who disagree in forcing them at gunpoint to pay into you're little socialist utopias.

Conservatives are a dying breed my friend. It's the conservatives that will have to leave and go form their own little capitialist societies where they can enjoy their inequality in their exploitative system.

Exploitive system? JFC gimme a break the more you talk the more like a ridiculous stereotype you sound.

Let me give you a hint as to why the socialists need to leave.

In the system I want, the gov't leaves us all alone, you can go do you're socialist thing, and I can go do my free market capitalist thing, nobody bothers either of us and we're both happy. My system is libertarian and allows all sorts of variety in how people live their lives.

In the system you want, I have nowhere to go. The gov't doesn't leave me alone, in fact it forces me into your system. If I try and resist and not participate, they will in fact send men with guns to kill me. You're system is inherently authoritarian and forces everyone to live the same type of life.

Do you see that? Do you get that simple explanation or do I have to break it down more?

 

[nova]

Socialism can nicely be defined as equal pay for equal work. Socialism demands contribution from all, and doesn't have time for leeches. You know, those leeches like bankers, share holders, stock traders, those people that contribute nothing and take so much from the working man. So don't talk about leaching until you understand who the true leeches are in society.

You really are a stereotypical joke, you know that. A fucking joke.

Equal pay for equal work? And who the fuck decides what is equal? Who makes the arbitrary decisions as to who's work is worth what? The answer is your authoritarian state.

The end result is either ludcrious or exactly what we have now. You either pay the floor sweepers and toilet scrubbers the same as the skilled professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers) who really build society (hey 8 hours work is 8 hours work right?), or you don't and we have the same distribution we have now, only dictated by an authoritarian state.

Bankers, shareholders and stock traders leeches? JFC are you ignorant.

You honestly think there's no value in a banker providng the service of holding money for individuals and lending capital to those that need it?

You honestly think there's no value in shareholders (owners) of a company and the capital they invest?

You honestly thinkg there's no value in stockbrokers providing the service of exchanging ownership of companies?

Yes, let's go back to the times when the privileged few controlled the masses, workers had no rights whatsoever. Let's go back to a time when working men could barely afford to feed their family. Ace!

No lets go back to where gov't intervened minimally and only to protect the rights of the individual. Lets go back to really growing wealth faster than the population so that everybody can be given the opportunity to rise as their ability takes them.

The reason that we can pay people more for less, is the simple fact that we have managed to become wealthy. The reason we have become wealthy, is that individuals have been able to benefit from the fruits of their innovation and hard work without fear of the gov't confiscating it. Before that, most of us were scrabbling in the dirt in subsistence farming, awaiting the hunger and misery that came with a crop failure. We certainly were all equal, equally poor and miserable.

That seems to be where you want to take us back to...

Leech off the success of the free world??!!! We're part of the free world! We helped create the free world! Are you mad? That's the most idiotic thing you've said so far my friend. Well done and top marks to you, sir!!

You readily admit to forcing some people to participate in a system they don't agree with at gunpoint. You readily admit to infiringing upon the property rights of the individual for the needs of society/the state. And yet you claim to be part of the free world, not hardly. Its what I call faux freedom. Bread and circuses to keep the masses off the backs of your rulling class.

Socialist societies can not exist unless they have a free society from which to draw innovation and capital to feed their needs because productivity and advancement eventually stagnates without individual incentives beyond pleas to "work for the good of all."

Also, is that like the recent collapse caused by unbridled capitalism and unelected people with far too much power created by the system you love so much? That kind of collapse? Yes, free market capitalism works!! Who suffered? Not the people responsible, thats for sure.

I haven't seen a collapse buddy. We have had a bad recession but it is most certainly not a collapse.

On top of that it was a recession caused almost completely by abnormal incentives created by idiotic and unjust gov't interventions in the market. The sub-prime mortgage mess was entirely created by moronic meddling by our gov't due to the stupid belief that "everyone is entitled to own a home." When the gov't tells lenders they have to loan money to bad credit risks or they'll impose sanctions, thats kinda fucked up. Ultimately it was a socialistic "its good for society" argument that caused this mess.

Actually, why don't you read it? You really need to. It's NOT universal coverage, there are many qualification points meaning people fall through this system. It helps for sure, but it's incomplete. Plain and simple.

Duh huh Captain Obvious. Its not fucking meant to be universal. Its meant to be a solution for those unable to provide for themselves, not a solution to provide for everyone. If you are not indigent, you can provide for yourself and the state has no business intervening in your life.

Actually, yes you are kicking people when they're down. Have some compassion man, compassion for those less fortunate than you. Empathy and compassion are traits that separate us from other animals. Shame so many people like yourself are lacking in these qualities.

Uh, no I'm not. I allow for the existence of public assistence for those that truly can't provide for themselves. The fact that I expect the able bodied non-indigent of the population to take responsibility for their own well being does not indicate I lack compassion and empathy. It just means I'm not a big gov't statist socialist.

As for the liberty of the individual, liberty of the individual cannot exist without equality. Equality cannot exist with subjugation. Monetary subjugation is one of the building blocks of capitalism. So you can rattle on as much as you want about the liberty of the individual as you want, but its irrelevant because it cannot exist when people are essentially slaves to the capitalist profit machine.

Yet again, you are a stereotypical joke.

The only equality that can ever exist is equality under the law because someone is always, smarter, faster, better looking, more capable etc. Nothing gov't does can change those things.

Capitalism is the absense of an organized machine. Its a collection of voluntary associations and interactions amongst individuals. Nobody forces you to do any business with anybody. People involve themselves in these interactions because they're better off for it.

I'm good at engineering, therefore I engineer for money to buy my food, shelter, etc. The alternative is to try and subsist on my own which is a damn hard life, which is why people leave that life just as fast as capitalst wealth comes a calling.

Thats why Nike can't beat workers off with a stick at their factories in the third world despite paying $5/day. The alternative is back breaking subsistance labor in the rice paddy for <1$/day and oh by the way, you starve if the crop fails. There's no force involved, they offer something that makes people's lives better.

There are plenty of places you could go and plenty of activities you could partake of to quit all capitalist interaction whatsoever if you really wanted to. But again, those are really hard lives that most people don't wanna live.

Capitalsim does not preclude the liberty of the individual, in fact its the ultimate expression of individual liberty.

 

[edgray]

Retro I thought we'd moved on?

Re: Portugal, just calling yourself something doesn't make it so. I could say I'm a doctor as many times as I like. But I know people who live there and own private businesses. That wouldn't happen if they were truly socialist. They're similar to the Labour Party of the UK.

Re: Anarchy. Yes, thats another name of Libertarian Socialism. I can highly recommend reading some Chomsky to learn all about this fantastic system. Fair enough though, if you believe in a bare bones govt I think there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Alien Allen]

ok well that just seems backward to me - surely they should've figured out how much could be afforded and exactly how the money would be raised before the plan was drawn up?

Of course it is backwards. That is the liberal ploy. Prey on the weakness of the populace who are easily duped and ignore how to pay for it. The ends justify the means. Take a look at the projected costs for medicare in the beginning and then after major changes. Not only does the govt under estimate but never figures how to pay for it. Obamacare is a hideous abortion of a bill that will make the cost projections look like medicare on steroids. And not even cover everybody. Going from the estimated current coverage of 85% up to projected coverage of 95%. Typical nutso bull shit from DC.

 

[edgray]

You really are a stereotypical joke, you know that. A fucking joke.

And it's at that point where the argument is won. Thank you and goodnight!

 

[nova]

Hell, the only reason they can claim this bill is deficit neutral is the cuts to Medicare contained within.

Cuts which they're planning on reversing in another concurrent bill, to side step the CBO grading process since the CBO only looks at the current bill..

 

[nova]

And it's at that point where the argument is won. Thank you and goodnight!

Really? Seriously?

Here's a couple numbers for you to show you that equality of outcome will never happen unless we're all equally poor.

The world GDP sits about about $60 Trillion US. There are ~6.5 Billion people on the planet.

If you divided the entire value of all the goods and services produced worldwide evenly amongst everyone, it would be about $10k US/year, not nearly enough to really live on unless we all happen to be dirt poor farming to eat, in which case we wouldn't have $60 trillion in goods and services to distribute...

So keep striving for you're impossible goal. Little things like reality and math never stopped the liberals of the world before so why would it now...

 

[edgray]

Actually $10k per year, for 90% of the planet, would be a huge increase. An astronomical increase for a substantial portion of the planet.

 

[retro]

Retro I thought we'd moved on?

Re: Portugal, just calling yourself something doesn't make it so. I could say I'm a doctor as many times as I like. But I know people who live there and own private businesses. That wouldn't happen if they were truly socialist. They're similar to the Labour Party of the UK.

Re: Anarchy. Yes, thats another name of Libertarian Socialism. I can highly recommend reading some Chomsky to learn all about this fantastic system. Fair enough though, if you believe in a bare bones govt I think there's nothing wrong with that.

Nobody had moved on, but since you've been proven incorrect and can't back up your argument, I can see why you'd want to move on from that argument.

So wait, first you say that Libertarian Socialism isn't anarchy, and now you say that it is. You're hilarious.

 

[edgray]

sorry when exactly did I say that?

 

[nova]

Actually $10k per year, for 90% of the planet, would be a huge increase. An astronomical increase for a substantial portion of the planet.

Doesn't change the fact we'd all still be poor, some people would just move up from dirt poor to poor, while a whole other segment would go from wealthy to poor. YAY EQUALITY!!! :sarcasm

 

[edgray]

well yep I can't actually argue with that. If the wealth of the world was to be divided equally then many in the western world would be taking a cut, and those in nations like the US would be taking a sizeable one.

 

[nova]

Yep yep yep...

The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers - Reason Magazine

Proponents of so-called reform—it's not really reform unless it makes things better—have shamefully avoided criticism of their proposals. Often they just dismiss their opponents as greedy corporate apologists or paranoid right-wing loonies. That's easier than answering questions like these:

1) How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices? Econ 101 teaches—without controversy—that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.

2) How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices? Medicare already does that. Once the planners' mandatory insurance pushes prices to new heights, they must put even tougher limits on what we may buy—or their budget will be even deeper in the red than it already is. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, government cannot really reduce costs. All it can do is disguise and shift costs (through taxation) and refuse to pay for some services (rationing).

3) How does government "create choice" by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their "minimum" coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.

4) How does it "create choice" by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let's call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what I mean by choice and competition. Rep. Barney Frank is at least honest enough to say that the public option will bring us a government monopoly.

Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that's impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won't talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?

 

[Accountable]

Well actually I've got a question about how it's being paid for.

Clearly this bill is going to take some serious funding to firstly set up and then manage and maintain.

How is that tax going to be raised? Is it via income tax? Is it a percentage of the person's income? Or a flat rate?

Theories are bouncing around about bringing in a VAT - a huge mistake IMO. One of the favorite smokescreens is to start raising income taxes now but not starting the service for another three years (after the next major electoin of course), so that it shouldn't start losing money for possibly 10 years. That'll be plenty of time to get the camel's nose under the tent and start claiming that it's too big to let fail. *searching for a smirking smiley*

 

[edgray]

As you're all painfully aware by now that I support universal HC systems, but I must say I don't think that Obama's administration has done a particularly good job at handling all of this. I would've thought all the numbers should have been sorted BEFORE the bill was even announced...

 

[Accountable]

Ah, maybe you're coming around. One would think that they would want to do it right if they wanted to do it at all, eh? Maybe it's not really healthcare per se that they're really interested in. Maybe it's a cover for something else?