Political Identity Crisis

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't get it. Insurance companies were non-profit in your book?

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.

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.

Care to prove your assertion? 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%.

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. 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.

[qs] Canada has universal health care; as a result they spend one-sixth of what we spend per capita

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?

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.

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.

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.

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