Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Picasa Photostream
About Me
- BATS RIGHT, THROWS RIGHT ***
- Minnesota ***, United States
- batsrightthrowsright@gmail.com *** The goal of Democrats is too increase number of social programs, there by increasing the dependency on social programs. *** Affirmative action illustrates the gross bigotry of liberals. *** If you're not a liberal at 20, then you were never indoctrinated. If you're not a conservative at 40, then you never over came your indoctrination.
Followers
Blog Archive
That picture is brilliant!! It lays it out so plainly. Screwed up the A$$.
ReplyDeletesays it all my friend!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'll take a bullet instead.
ReplyDeleteOK, I get it. You're against ObamaCare, you're against socialised medicine. It's all right to have an opinion but please don't confuse the facts. ObamaCare and real socialised medicine are two different things. ObamaCare is essentially a series of unfunded mandates on private industry with an optional social insurance program. True socialised medicine is where all hospitals/clinics are owned by the government, doctors are paid a salary rather than fee-for-service, and there is no "insurance" model. You just show up like you would at a public library or school, perhaps having to show an ID to prove you're a legal resident of the country. The British National Health Service is the best example of socialised medicine. Most other European countries and Canada have social insurance, not socialised medicine. In the United States, socialised medicine already exists for two groups of people: military veterans and American Indians. Expanding the Veterans' Administration and/or the Indian Health Service to cover all Americans... now *that* would be socialised medicine, which I'm *for*, by the way. ObamaCare is only a stopgap and a compromise, not a real solution.
ReplyDeleteJohn
ReplyDeleteI'm confusing no facts. You left out Medicare and Medicaid, which are two expamples of failed socialized medicine in this country.
The VA? I have know problem with taxpayers subsidizing medical cost of the men and women who have served our country, just as I have know problem with the taxpayers subsidizing their tuition for college.
American Indians? How many get free health care, and other government payouts, despite the fact they can afford their own.
What Obama is proposing is the largest expansion into socialized medicine in history. This is "real" socialized medicine, make no mistake. It doesn't matter if hospitals are owned by corporations, non-profits or goverment itself, if the government is paying the bill it is socialized medicine.
Medicare and Medicaid are not socialised medicine. They are social insurance programs. They fail because they are based on the "insurance" model. It doesn't matter that the government is paying for it. It is the *model* itself that is the problem, and no, social insurance is *not* the same as socialised medicine. It is because of the controversy over Medicare and Medicaid that social insurance has been conflated with socialised medicine in the minds of most people in the USA. In other English-speaking countries the two terms have the clearly different meanings I have stated above.
ReplyDelete@John
ReplyDeleteFirst, both medicare and medicaid are going bankrupt because of the government. They are not like insurance companies. They reimburse the doctors much less than the insurance companies do. The reason they are going bankrupt is because of fraud and abuse within the system The same type of system that this health care bill is promoting. Plus, Republicans have wanted to reform both medicare and medicaid for years instead of letting the prograns go bankrupt like the Democrats are letting happen.
@Second,
If you actually read the bill, it has nothing to do with lowering our health care costs or giving others better access to health care. Only 5% of the total bill is related to health care. The rest allows for such things as opening the borders to illegal aliens and government coming into homes and telling parents how to raise their children. This is tyranny being forced upon the people. This is the biggest power grab in history ever, all so that the government can take away our freedom and liberty.
So, keep on living in a cave and burying your head in the sand like a good little Obamabot who can't think for yourself, and who keeps on following your comrades. Enjoy the health care, while it lasts. Because if this bill is passed, health care will be scarce, and a luxury.
@Theresa
ReplyDeleteHa! I'm not an "Obamabot", I criticise him as much as you do, just from the Left rather than the Right. I am a *real* socialist, not a phoney "liberal" like Obama. I *agree* with you about Medicare and Medicaid, and that Obamacare is just more of the same, and that's not good.
As to opening the borders, maybe we should go back to the way things were in the 19th Century when *anyone* who wanted to enter the U.S. legally could. A "market solution" to the number of immigrants....
As to government telling parents how to raise their children, if you mean government stopping abusive child-raising practices, I'm all for it. If you mean government breaking up families over parental lifestyle issues when the children do not in any way feel abused by them, then yes I am as against that as you are. I think that foster care should be abolished, the Child Protection system diminished, and public boarding schools should be established for children who don't get along with their parents. The children *themselves* would have the choice to move there. Again, a "market solution" (albeit a government-subsidised market) to family dysfunction.
I do think for myself, and I don't "follow" my comrades. In fact, "following" someone is exactly the opposite of what being a comrade means. I personally don't give a flying flip about health, and probably won't use the health care when it comes anyway.
John
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, social insurance is socialism. Any expansion of social insurance is an expansion of socialism.
Second, regarding the open borders of the 19th century, those people were not given free health care. They came here and it was sink or swim; they didn't show report to the welfare office and ask for a check.
Here's the dictionary definition of socialism. Social insurance does not fit that definition. Now, as a socialist, I agree that social insurance is a valuable stepping stone to socialism, but that's *all* it is.
ReplyDeleteAs to open borders, I agree you are right about the difference between the 19th Century and today. I only disagree about which is better....
so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
John, stepping stone you say?
ReplyDeleteI if socialism is "the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism", then what is the stage between capitalism and socialism?
Moonbatism: The movement from capitalism to socialism?
Marxist-Leninist theory posits a sudden revolutionary change (which, contrary to popular belief, doesn't have to be violent) from capitalism to socialism. Socialism with a small "s" = Communism with a capital "C". Communism with a small "c" has never been achieved anywhere, except perhaps on Star Trek and similar futuristic shows. Small "c" communism is that perfected society where equality has become so natural to mankind that the state withers away as it is no longer necessary. I personally consider that to be like absolute zero or the speed of light, approachable but never fully achievable, but still a worthy goal.
ReplyDelete(Continued from last comment)
ReplyDeleteNon-Marxist theories of socialism exist, such as Fabianism, which was the guiding ideology of the British Labour Party. Fabianism posits that socialism can be voted in gradually and that neither a revolution nor the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary. While I don't consider myself a Fabian, I recognise as valid attempts to bring about socialism by such gradual means and wish them luck. I would say social insurance is a stepping stone in that sense.
Part of the conflation of socialism with the welfare state (a.k.a. social democracy) comes from the Fabians and part of it comes from the fact that real Marxist socialist parties in Europe, such as the Social Democrats in Germany and Scandinavia, watered down their demands during and after World War I, essentially settling for a welfare state as a substitute for socialism. However, these parties never changed their names and in fact, once in power, they called their new system "socialism" even those it was really a distortion of the original meaning of the word.
And don't even get me started on why "National Socialism" isn't socialism at all, contrary to some ill-informed people's belief....
John, very good use of Wikipedia to educate all of us "i11-informed" conservatives on the differnces of: communism/socialism, C/c, S/s ... blah, blah, blah.
ReplyDeleteNational Socialism was born of Hitler's Nazism and today the name is used by neo-Nazi's. As a conservative, I find it to be even more vile than socialism or communism. The level of hate is equal to the KKK or the Nation of Islam.
I've read your bio. You had a tough upbringing, but as Don Henley says - GET OVER IT.
Your parents are dead and so are mine. My parents were far from perfect, but looking back I think they were doing the best the could. You seem to indicate that your parents never had you best intersts in mind. Did you ever consider that they kept looking out for you as an adult, and had you institutionalized, because they loved you?
Now that your parents are gone, has government and society become the scapegoat?
You suffer from mental illness, and for that I truly have empathy. Laurism? Being that this is your creation and you lead this pretend "church", the term grandiosity comes to mind.
Your politial platform in running for mayor was mostly about state or federal issues. Outside of elimanating the 72 hour parking ordinance in Minneapolis, your campaign didn't due much to appeal to the needs of the city - needs that RT Rybak has ignored. Ask yourself, did you run for mayor for any other reason except to get attention.
Finally, what is wrong with capitalism? Have you ever tried to get a job and work hard? You seem like an intelligent guy, keep your thought of Lauraism and the state of Edgerton to yourself, and you may find yourself as a productive member of society who is well rewarded by our system of capitalsim.
I've decided this will be my last comment on your blog. No offence intended, but I have more important things to do with my life than argue with people who've already made up their minds.
ReplyDeleteMy parents *aren't* the ones who had me institutionalised. They in fact, wanted me out, but under *their* control, not as a free man. I was caught between a rock and a hard place, being abused in institutions but fearing worse on the "outside".
I have been a Communist since age 14. I have been a Lauraist since age 15. I have hated society and the concept that people should have to be "socially acceptable" literally as long as I can remember. My views are not substitute scapegoating because my parents are gone.
My dream is to build a *new* society where the things that happened to me will *never* happen to anyone else. Whatever you think of Lauraism, I hope you realise that religions are the best tools in the world for building and guiding societies. Even the Founding Fathers of America knew that. Most of them really weren't religious, but they thought society would go off the deep end without religion. That said, treating my church as "pretend" is highly offensive to me. I am fully serious about getting organised to preach my message in the next few years.
As to my mayoral campaign; yes, my goal was to get attention *for my cause*, not for myself. You are correct that the campaign was disorganised and didn't raise enough local issues, but I regard it as mostly a "practice" campaign anyway, the first installment of a planned perennial candidacy through 2034. I definitely plan to have more resources and do a better job next time I run.
What is wrong with capitalism? Very simply, it hurts people. It may provide mathematical efficiency, but at great human cost. I actually read "enemy" literature like that from the Cato Institute and the Von Mises Institute. I even agree that some of their ideas are good. I believe that some of the concepts can be incorporated into a socialist state.
I wish you luck in forwarding your ideas to the public. I think fair competition in ideas is important. Have a nice day.
Earth to John: 99.99% of the population would dimiss your cause of Lauraism as pure lunacy. Good luck in finding someone to "argue" with who hasn't already made up their minds.
ReplyDelete