National Health Care

[!!xooo]

Wow, Jim. Would you kindly get a towel and start mopping up? You're dripping disdain and sarcasm all over the floor.

If when you say that YOU would be willing to pay for the "security" of not having to worry about loss of job or healthcare, that YOU are willing to pay for YOUR OWN insurance to that end, then yes, you are right in being indignant when that is called a socialistic tendency. If you mean that you don't mind VOLUNTARILY paying for SOMEBODY ELSE's security, as long as they pay for yours when you need it, then that's also not socialistic. However, if you mean that you support the idea that all persons required to pay for another's security, regardless of desire, then that DOES come under the heading of "socialistic tendencies."

The first listing in the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "socialism" in the following way:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of gooRAB.

So let's apply this. government would have "ownership" (see the above definition,) his public healthcare option, government would be responsible for the 'administration the means of producing' this healthcare, and government would be responsible for the "distribution of gooRAB." The gooRAB in this case being the money (tax money) and healthcare service. Wow, that fits the definition of socialism pretty dang well.

Yes, liberalism is closer to socialism than conservatism ever was to socialism.

Socialism (and to a large extent Liberalism,) believes that the government should take care of many details in a person's life, such as whether or not the populace have jobs, healthcare, etc. The definition is even found in the names of the two platforms! The political term "liberal" means a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT (for liberal, see abundant, large, plentiful), with wide-spread (one may also insert the word 'liberal' here,) influence.

Conservatives believe that government should be "conservative" (see minimal, sparing, small) and exist for the reasons that Locke lays out in chapter i of his second volume of "Two Treatises on Government." (A book which almost all of the Founding Fathers read avidly.) In chapter i, Locke defines political power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property. What does he mean by "regulation of property"? Later in that chapter, he states that a man in this original state is bound by the laws of nature, but he is otherwise able to live, act, and dispose of his possessions as he sees fit. NOT AS THE GOVERNMENT SEES FIT.

Now of course, for a government to exist, there must be SOME mandatory tax to cover the overhead. But Locke insisted that government did not exist to force men to be "good", just to make sure they didn't infringe one another's rights. As a conservative, I do not believe that government should FORCE us to be charitable to the poor. I DO believe in charity; I give away 12% of my income to charities OF MY OWN CHOOSING. I, like you, am willing to give others a bit of security simply because I believe it is right. However, I do not believe that it is right for government to force this on us. Governments can and should offer incentives for such charitable organizations to form, and, according to Adam Smith, founder of our capitalist economic model, they will form. As Reagan stated, "The government does nothing as well or as efficiently as the private sector."

Beyond any arguments (extremely valid though they are,) that the government will be creating a conflict of interest by competing in the private sector, the biggest, I think is that this public option is going to be cheaper, and will succeed by subsidizing it from OUR TAX DOLLARS, and WITHHOLDING FULL PAYMENT from Doctors and Hospitals, which will further strain an already harried healthcare industry. We can't afford this "cheaper" and more socialistic option.

[~L.O.V.E~]

Not to the extent the other provisions benefit private insurance. Besides the "public option" was supposed to be more expensive anyway so it only allowed insurance companies to get more costly members...something they didn't want to begin with.

[shorty_2_us]

At this point I'm not disagreeing (YET) But again (Where) I have not read it all yet but if you can supply the actual location i can skip ahead. I am not willing to take anyones word on it. Verify,Verify, verify!!!

[odd1_4ever]

Tort reform will never happen. The Senate bill imposes penalties (withdrawal of funding) on states that put caps on malpractice suits...protection of trial lawyers is of the utmost importance to the government. They contribute a lot to the campaign funRAB.

Worth repeating.

That's not wordy. It is worthy.

...every coin must have two sides...

[alexthegreat]

It's been estimated that Tort Reform would cut costs by ~$54Billion over the next decade. But, it's true cost would be the campaign contributions to Democratic politicians, so they aren't about to shoot the goose that lays their golden eggs. :xcensored

[starlove2]

Geez, that was wordy.

*whew*

Sorry for the length there.

[*Pickles*]

Sorry, I'm not reading the entire socialist manifesto.

[14T]

No, the American way is called "charity", but being a self-centered atheist, the concept is probably lost on you. :xcensored

[Nich!]

For those that think it's "Personal Responsibility," when it comes to Health Care, I hope the rest of the country doesn't decide the same applies to, our Military, Police and Fire Departments and Education. Talk about calamity when everyone has to figure out how to hire their own policeman, fireman, teacher and even a soldier or two! Maybe social isn't a bad word like some people would like you to think, seeing as how the human being is a social creature. Capitalism is a great way to reward people for producing, but it's not the be all and end all for the citizenry. There has to be a sorting out of priorities that will best serve the neeRAB and priorities of most people when it comes to Social Programs, and they cannot be measured in Profit & Loss Statement.
CEO's have a responsibility to the stock holders to generate as big a profit as possible. If they don't, there usually out, as perhaps they should be. When it comes to our Military, Police / Fire Department and Schools, we want the most bang for our bucks, and obviously the goals of Corporate America and Social America are exact opposites. Maybe, just maybe it's time to consider elevating National Health Care to a status equal to Military, Police/ Fire Department, and Education for the good of all.

[schoolhater1995]

Yes what chaos! Imagine, worse still, if everybody had to buy their own food - and CLOTHES! Horror! Only an omnipotent government that treats its citizens as children and makes all decisions on their behalf can save us from the TERRIBLE CHAOS of making CHOICES about what to buy! Save me guvment im too stupid to buy for myself!