ExRx.net

Looks like we are coming to an understanding where the opponents don't understand the Bill.

1) They think socialism is evil;
2) They think everything that's not ultra right-wing fundamentalism is socialism
3) They think health care is worse than terrorism
4) They think health care is forced upon you at gun-point (please reference in the Bill where it will indicate that). Have you read the news lately? Looks like the ones holding the guns are the opponents of the Bill not the administrators of the Bill.

Yes all laws are enforced by force - so what? That's irrelevant.

Charity is done by request, socialism is done by force.

1 - certainly
2 - ridiculous
3 - ridiculous
4 - no, the taking of property from some is done at gun point.

You can get into some moral questions whether theft is justified to save one's life etc, if there's no other option. But there are other options. Theft should not be the first choice.

I guess my point is that you have enforce laws somehow. People aren't entitled to do whatever they want. If it hurts others, they should pay a price. Generally we concede they shouldn't be killed so we charge them money. This allows people with different wants to get what they want and also repay society for choosing things the larger society does not want.


If you want to affect the society so selfishly that in order to repay your debt to society we have to take your property, then that is justified. You don't DESERVE a spot in society, you are in a contract with everyone to play by certain rules. If you break the rules, there are penalties.

I don't see what charity has to do with anything. Nobody wants to do away with charity. However, charity is highly uncertain and variable over time, so we want something more stable underneath.

At this point you aren't making an argument against the health care bill. You are throwing out this totally other topic of charity which is completely irrelevant.

A tad on the hyperbolic side, but you're pretty much right.

Saying that increased socialist taxation is irrelevant to charity is a big problem, I see. Socialists apparently tend to dismiss (or not think about) the fact that punitive taxation has an impact on charity. Money taken in taxes aren't available for charity, so socialism crowds out charity. And charity always works better than socialism, which is part of why socialist nations stagnate and fail.

Uh, yea that's what I said. You are the one that is bringing it up.

charity and taxation is apples and oranges. You are also conflating socialized/partially socialized with socialism. Then you conflate all socialism with totalitarian pure socialism. Stop conflating.

Anything and everything the government does is partially socialized by definition. We have a socialized military for example. The library is socialized. All infrastructure is socialized.


Let's see I can conflate anything right wing with fascism, which Nazism is a form of, so then I can go on to say Republicans want to wipe out the Jews. Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?

There are plenty of nations further to the left that are doing great. Better than us. They are not socialist, but YOU would think they are. Enough with the hyperbolic, specious, conflated bull$h1t already.

A lot of Health-care opponents state Canada as a socialist state. A lot of people who live here certainly don't think Canada is evil. We are highly taxed (as compared to the resulting low out of pocket health care cost incurred by individuals).

Also known amongst Canadians is that per capita we are the highest donors to charity amongst other citizens of the world.


Given these answers of yours, by logic you should have no problems with Health-Care.

Where in the Health Care bill states that something will be taken from you at gunpoint? In fact, the bill bans insurance companies from withholding their coverage from you. That's theft prevention.



Then Iraq and Afghanistan must be socialist now that GWB imposed liberty on them by force.

Its good up here in Canada, I have no complaints but I think europe has it better.(Not all of EU just Switzerland or w/e lol)

Frogbyte I am perplexed by your continual appeal to the statement "socialism is done by force". All societies, short of unspoken anarchy, involve enFORCEment of laws.

Would you be okay if I broke into your house and took your stuff? I assume you would be opposed to someone using force to stop me based on your enormous distaste for mandating people pay their taxes.

Besides that major flaw in what you keep repeating, you also seem tied to this more recent tangent about charity being superior to "socialism". Obviously, right now, charity is not getting the job done. You have provided no evidence otherwise and have now simply stated your capitalist ideology "Charity would work better than socialism" which is great, but there is no reason I should believe you.

OK, guys. I'm not going to get into if socialism is bad, good, indifferent. We have medicare, medicaid, social security, public education, etc, which ALL are socialist to an extent, and it's NOT a bad thing. What I have against the law that just got signed in, is that they're still finding things in that 2000 pg document that we, the people haven't heard about. The IRS is going to be in charge of enforcement through tax filings, bouncing your expenses of WHAT your buying vs the plan that you have, etc, etc. What really burns me is that if I choose, or can't afford, or can't get subsidized for, a health insurance plan, the GOVT has the impowerment to fine or imprison me. That's one reason the States are filing on grounds that it's unconstitutional. Another reason they're filing is because of the mandates now coming to light AFTER they've had enough time to examine the document, is that the STATES are being mandated for certain expenditures that they can't afford in relation to medicaid in particular. I doubt that these filings are going to get to the supreme court until someone gets jailed for failure to comply, and that might take a few years as some of these items won't kick in for 4 years. I'm not really certain as to what really is in the document, as are about 99% of the American public. What happened to the public transparency that the Adminstration inisted on having while campaigning, and then denied while the process was being carried out. Brian Lamm of CSPAN pleaded to get his cameras and crews in there. What happed with all the closed door bribes and kickbacks (Louisiana purchase, Cornhusker kickback)? And what about Nasty Pelosi's statements of "just pass it, then we'll find out what's in it" statement?
I'm really pissed about this whole thing, and it has nothing to do with socialism or whatever. It's because the majority of the public don't toitally what's in the bill, don't fully understand all the ramifications, voiced their opinions of same, and through dirty politicing, got the bill rammed through regardless. What happened to Representation?. It's obvious the elected representatives were NOT representing their electorates.
OK, off the soapbox
Tim

Good points, TimD, and sad indeed. Though when calling out Pelosi specifically, it's worth noting the Republicans weren't much better 9 years ago rushing into the Patriot Act.

That's ridiculous - the military is not socialism. Military budgets are not welfare payments, they're salaries for a service.
Again so wrong - the extreme "right wing" is not fascism, it's anarchy. "Nazi" translates from the German as "National Socialist" - it's extreme left.

Also you can't "impose" liberty. Liberty is the default in the absence of tyranny.

And yes lots of things are done by force. Some good, some bad. That's irrelevant to the point that socialism is done by force, and charity is done by request and choice.

You guys should get your terminology together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

Frogbyte wrote
Good points, TimD, and sad indeed. Though when calling out Pelosi specifically, it's worth noting the Republicans weren't much better 9 years ago rushing into the Patriot Act.
End
Well, I'm not in love with either party right now. When the Republicans were in charge, partriot act aside, that's a different topic, they did nothing to enact reforms on health care; i.e. regulating costs, etc, so they sure as heck aren't blamless in this.
Tim

I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this debate but I just had to mention- the majority of the American public was opposed to the Iraq war and Bush went through with it. Both sides have done major undertakings without much public support. And if that is a foreshadowing of things to come perhaps we are in trouble with this bill.