Thursday, August 23, 2007

Socialized Medicine

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." ~ Groucho Marx

After my last post on National Health care, it became obvious there were some who disagree with me that National Health care is just basically re-packaged Socialized medicine.

So I create this post to explain why I believe National health care is synonymous with Socialized medicine. This post began as an addition to my comment section, but it grew to the length of a full blown blog entry, therefore I decided to just create a new post. Here is is:

I defined the reason I call "National health care" socialism in my post when I said the concept embodies Marx's main principle, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs".

Socialized medicine, or, if you prefer, "National health care" does exactly that. It is intended to take from those who have in order to provide medical care for those who have not. That is the perfect definition of socialism.

The very word socialism, according to Mr. Webster, means:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Once again, as I mentioned, the process by which the Libs intend to own and control health care in the "community" that Conservatives call the Republic of the United States of America, is to raise taxes.

Effectively, that takes money away from the haves to give free health care to the have nots.

So there you have it. The dirty little secret that the Libs don't want us to know about is this:

Their concept of National health care embodies the concepts of Socialism, which is the transitional stage to their ultimate goal of Communism.

Socialism is Marx's theory of a transitional stage between capitalism and Communism. Communism is the ultimate goal of knowledgeable Liberals in this country. I use the term, "knowledgeable" to differentiate them from those non-thinking lemmings who just parrot the Lib bumper sticker phrases rather than thinking for themselves. Those who are knowledgeable know that the ultimate goal for Libs is, in reality, Communism.

Therefore, national health care, which is just an innocuous code word for Socialized medicine, is a concept of Socialism, which leads to Communism.

Communism, for those of you with short memories, is a bad thing. Now. Do I have to explain to you why Communism is a bad thing, too?

It's a shame I have to spell it out so that a child of 5 can understand it. How is it some people don't seem to grasp the obvious? Is it because those who refuse to agree that Socialized medicine is a bad thing can't see the connection or because they won't see the connection?

52 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Mark pointed out that a tenet of soicalism is:

"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs".

I might point out that this is also a tenet of Christianity...

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
...
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)


That being the case, can we argue in favor of calling this healthcare plan Christian Medical Plan? ("You mean you're opposed to a Christian Health Care plan!!?? Shame on you!")

My point has been and remains: Don't try to demonize the plan with a name that you think many will find offensive. Talk about the plan on its merits or lack thereof.

Mark said...

One huge flaw in your argument, Dan:

In Acts, the people VOLUNTARILY gave. they didn't have them stolen from them by government taxation.

In America, the Libs want to TAKE funds from the haves to distribute to the have nots. Tell me again. How Christian is stealing?

mr know-it-all said...

Matthew 25:
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Those are the words of Jesus, Dan, not a description of how the early disciples chose to handle their affairs.

Nice try.

mr know-it-all said...

Dan, based on the verses from the Bible that I just qouted to you, would you say that a "take from the poor, and give to the rich" policy could be called "The Christian Welfare System"?

(Since we have aparently decided to qoute Bible Verses out of context...)

Abouna said...

Dan Trabue: There is a huge difference between the Socialist/communist; "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs", and the Christian:

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
...
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)

The first is by force or coercion, and the second is done out of mercy and kindness because one wants to not because they are forced to.

Socialized Medicine, National Health Care or Universal Health Care, IS Socialism which is one step below Communism.

mr know-it-all said...

And Mark...

You know that it isn't stealing if a majority of the people vote to do it...

That's just crazy.

If there were five men and two women in a room, and they decided to vote on whether or not the men should be allowed to rape the women, and the majority voted to rape the women, then it really wouldn't be rape then, would it?

Mark said...

It made it, Mr. KIA, I have to moderate comments because of an evil troll who can't take a hint. I wish I didn't have to but Liberals have no respect for anyone but each other, so....

mr know-it-all said...

Okay, thanks.

I was looking for some way to delete that last one...

Mr KIA...

I like that!

Dan Trabue said...

No, in fact, when The People vote to set taxes upon themselves, it is not stealing. Not unless you think that all taxes are stealing. And you don't.

Instead, that is a way of demonizing a positing instead of just arguing against it based on some legitimate grounds. Sorta like calling it socialism.

Again, the point is, if you want to debate a policy, do it on its benefits and downsides. Don't try to pretend that it's stealing or socialism, when you don't even believe that yourself.

And that's the last time I am saying that. If y'all choose to continue demonization as opposed to adult discussion, then you'll have only your own selves to discuss the matter with.

The People will choose to continue to discuss policy based upon its points.

Mark said...

Some go fetch a child of 5, Dan still can make no sense of it.

If Congress votes to take money from me to give to people who don't need it or abuse it, against my will, it is stealing. The key phrase that makes it stealing is "against my will".

You want to know the benefits and downsides? There are no benefits. The downsides are plainly stated in my last post on National health care. But if, for some reason you didn't see them, I'll copy and paste for you here:

"Socialized medicine causes overcrowding of hospitals, over regulation, delayed essential medical operations and procedures (which are a consequence of over regulation), incompetent or substandard medical care, and the enabling of unscrupulous politicians who abuse the system to enrich themselves through graft and bribery".

There are undoubtably more downsides, but shouldn't these be enough to prove my point? Geeez, Dan, you'd argue black is white just to be contrary.

Mark said...

By the way, it is possible to get free health care in this country without having Congress pass a law requiring higher taxes to pay for it.

I don't need to Demonize anything. The concept of a national tax subsidized health care system demonizes itself.

In my area, a local doctor saw a need for health care for people who did not have insurance. He used his own money to establish a fund, and encouraged other people to voluntarily donate their time and money to the cause. The result is a free health clinic that is totally free of Government subsidy. Doctors, Dentists, Medical personell, and rven pharmacies donate their time and resources, and the health care is free to anyone who doesn't have insurance. That is something I would gladly donate my money (voluntarily) to.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"...The People..." Dan.

Which people?

Harry Reid?

Nancy Pelosi?

Dan Trabue said...

"If Congress votes to take money from me to give to people who don't need it or abuse it, against my will, it is stealing."

sigh. Mark, this just isn't true.

I'm opposed to Congress taking 1/2 my tax money and spending it on the military. They are taking it from me against my will and against my religion. Does that mean they are stealing my money?

If you answer, "Yes," you're being consistent, but you're wrong. In the legal sense of the word, taxation is not stealing. I might have a stronger case than most in that I have taxation with no representation - there is no one in congress representing my belief system because the electoral process is not such that the Green Party can run with a legitimate chance.

If you answer, "No," you are correct - taxation is not stealing - and some of the main points offered here by you and Mr KIA (killed in action?) have been wrong. Feel free to correct your wrong points...

Mark said...

Dan, your question is:

I'm opposed to Congress taking 1/2 my tax money and spending it on the military. They are taking it from me against my will and against my religion. Does that mean they are stealing my money?

Yes, and might I add, the reason the American colonists rebelled against England, among other things, is because they were being taxed without representation. If you are being taxed to pay for things you don't think are right, your point of view is not being represented in Congress, so you have the legal right not to pay taxes.

But try telling the IRS that.

Gayle said...

Okay, I'm not going to get into another debate with Trabue... he always manages to give me a headache. (Sorry, Dan.)

Mark, I agree with you. "National Health Care" is simply another word for "Socialized Health Care" but that's the way the liberals work. They change words whenever they want to pull one over on the general population. They believe we are all stupid, and if this plan is ever implimented in this country it will prove them right. :(

Dan Trabue said...

Well, your opinion, notwithstanding, it is not legally "stealing" to tax folk.

I think we can make all sort of philosophical statements about taxation, equating it to stealing. That we're taking money and spending trillions of dollars on weapons of war and failing to feed the poor is stealing from them! Purchasing a second, third, fourth! car for one's self when there are hungry children in the world is stealing! (What you've NOT done for the least of these...)

These are points I'd agree with on one level. But I'm not mistaking my analogical use of the word "stealing" in my examples above with actual legal stealing.

Words have meanings. Taxation is not stealing.

Henry said...

"I'm opposed to Congress taking 1/2 my tax money and spending it on the military."

LOL

Maybe you should do some studying on where our tax money actually goes.

For the past four fiscal years, spending on Health and Human Services has exceeded DOD spending by 10-15 percent. And neither one of them makes up 1/2 of the tax dollars collected by the IRS.

mr know-it-all said...

Dan:"there is no one in congress representing my belief system...

I need absolutely no more proof of the existance of a loving and compassionate God other than that.

mr know-it-all said...

Dan, (here we go around this mulberry bush again...)The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to take over and manage the healthcare system.

Taxing people in order to fund programs for which no constitutional authority is provided is stealing.

There is no way to debate this with you on the merits of the issue because you characterize any objection we offer as a "demonization".

Show me the specific wording from the U.S. Constitution which empowers the Federal Government to meddle in the healthcare system in any way, or admit that I am right.

Do not muddy the water with irrelevant examples of how the Government has already overstepped it's authority, do not accuse me or anyone else of name calling or demonizing the program, do not re-direct the discussion.

Put up or shut up.

Gayle said...

We recently painted our barn roof. Because of ariel photography our taxes went up. Some of our money is being used for really stupid things, such as funding artists who have no earthly idea of what art is. For example, a naked chocolate statue of Christ! I'm fed up with being punished by our Government for improving my property at my expense! We have 80 acres here and each and everytime we do anything to improve it our taxes are raised and we are retired folks! I absolutely do not want to pay for a National Health care system (Socialized Medicine) which will only further raise our taxes and we will have absolutely no idea of where the money is really going, just like we don't have any idea of where it's going now! Our infrastructure in this country is in horrible shape simply because the money that is meant to improve our infrastructure isn't being used for that purpose. The Government, both Federal and State, needs to have more accountablity as to how our money is spent because it is our money, not theirs.

My husband and I have never taken anything from the Government and never will, unless they continue to tax us to death. If they would leave us alone we could live for the next hundred years (if that were possible) on what we have managed to save for our retirement, but they won't leave us alone. We're sending our granddaughter through college at our expense, and still have to pay taxes on a public school where we have no children attending. It goes on and on.

National Health care? Socialism? Yeah, we really need that, don't we? My husband and I started out dirt poor and never took anything from anyone. We've been taxed out the kazoo for being smart enough to make a decent living for ourselves. Now we're being taxed out the kazoo because we made a decent living for ourselves.

I also talk with people who live in Canada who absolutely detest the socialized health-care system they have up there. The say that the "care" part of it is an oxy-moron. They wait for weeks and sometimes months just to get an appointment. Many Canadians come to this country to see a doctor because they're really sick and can't afford to wait that long.

"Give me liberty or give me death" but absolutely DO NOT PUSH OFF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE ON ME!

Sorry for the rant. I'm fed up!

Henry said...

I feel your pain, Gayle. (That's my BJ Clinton impersonation)

The wife and I have been smoldering for weeks over the fact that socialized medicine will be paying for stuff like this, or this.

Grrrrr

Lone Ranger said...

Yeah, that's the ticket. Put the government in charge of health care. Because they are SO efficient in everything else they do.

Dan Trabue said...

Show me the specific wording from the U.S. Constitution which empowers the Federal Government to meddle in the healthcare system in any way, or admit that I am right.

Show me the specific wording that prohibits it, first.

Gayle said...

I think you need to learn a bit about socialized medicine, Dan. Here's a link to an editorial written by a Canadian Doctor:
IB Editorials

"GRRR" is right, Henry. Thanks for the links.

mr know-it-all said...

Yeah, that's what I thought, Dan.

Okay. Here you go.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


You want some more?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


The ONLY way that Socialization of the Medical System would be Constitutional would be if it were done on a state by state basis.

Federal Socialized Medicine is Unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mark,

Its Sheila... lol I'm working very very hard. I'm happy! I'm still im Mighigan and this place hasn't changed.

Your Place hasn't changed at all. I heard a great phrase this last year. "The far right and far left can see their reflection in each others eyes".

Christianity should not be right or left. it should be Christianity. Take Care!

Mark said...

Wow! Great seeing you again, Sheila! How long has it been, a year or more?

For the benefit of my friends who don't know Sheila, she is my favorite moderately progressive Liberal.

Great quotre by the way, it's food for thought.

Erudite Redneck said...

WTH does the Fourth Amendment have to do with anything?

The Tenth Amendment doesn't apply because power IS appointed the Congress explicitly by the Constitution:

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce ... among the several States."


So, actually, state health insturance -- state, rather than national -- is fine and dandy. But national health insurance, being a damned business, i.e., commerce -- is absolutely explicitly regulatasble by the federal government -- a point that says nothing about whether it's as good idea or not.

But this whole "it's unconstitutional!" "it's COMMUNIST" argument BS needs some work.





.

Erudite Redneck said...

Hey, Sheila!

mr know-it-all said...

Those Ammendmants have as much to do with the issue as Dan's misguided "promote the general welfare" argument.

Do you not think it is a bit of a jump to conclude from the phrase "The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce ... among the several States..." to "The Congress shall have the power to manage and operate the healthcare system, and shall fund it by direct taxation of the citizens"?

It is a safe assumption (if you care at all about the framer's intent) that the founding fathers of this country wished to give the Federal Government no more power than absolutely necessary.

I do however agree with you on your last point, ER.

"Is Not!"..."Is Too!" is getting tiresome.

Like I said before. Like arguing with a five year old.

Marie's Two Cents said...

Socialized Medicine?

NO!!!

I'm not waiting 6 months for a check up.

I will stick with my own insurance thank you.

Tonto said...

Mark -- here in Los Angeles we had a hospital that let people die in the hallways with cameras watching in a primarlity poor black neighborhood recently. They finally shut it down.

It has started talk about National Health Insurance again.

Here was an interesting article. I was wondering what you thought of it.

http://www.laobserved.com/boyarsky/

This issue is hard for me because I see medical care differently than welfare or any other tax funded venture.

But I do NOT think the government in any way would be able to efficiently run any type of health system.

If health insurance companies could be sued maybe we could get somewhere because right now they are the only blemish in our medical system.

Michael Moore makes only one redeeming good point...Insurance companies have a conflict of interest...they owe the shareholders by law that they have to act and make money in the shareholders best interest but that is the antithesis of what a patient needs which is for them to spend money on the patient with the doctor calling the shots.

Mark said...

Brother ER is playing semantics again.

The issue is with national health care, not health insurance. National (or socialized) health care would be a health care nightmare where everyones health care is completely paid for by the government. I've already outlined the problems inherent with that idea.

National health insurance would be different. That title implies that every individual would be, at least in part, responsible for some of the health care bill. But if the government ever gets involved with that industry, the costs of health insurance would likely skyrocket to the point where it would most likely be more affordable to just pay your entire bill yourself. I mean, the politicians will have to get their cut, won't they?

Personally, after witnessing the efficiency of the governent's involvement in other industries, I doubt sincerely if the government can do anything but make things much worse.

I think Governemt should just stay out of the health care business altogether.

Government controlling Health insurance would create the biggest fubar situation since state governments started meddling with automobile insurance companies.

Mark said...

I still think we are attacking the issue of affordable health care from the wrong perspective.

The best way to make health care affordable is to somehow lower all the costs of health care dramatically, not giving health care to everyone for free.

What if an office visit only costs ten bucks without a co-pay? What if the pharmaceutical manufacturers sold their product at only 2 1/2 percent markup instead of whatever they charge now to make that obscene profit?What if a medical procedure was priced at costs plus 10?

I know there has to be a more equitable solution to affordable healthcare then allowing the government to get involved.

Henry said...

How did I know Dan would have no response when called on his BS claims about where tax monies are spent?

Typical "progressive"....

Dan Trabue said...

I know not of which you speak, Henry.

Are you asking why I didn't respond to KIA's allegation that "socialized health plans are unconstitutional"?

Where in the Constitution would you like me to point to to show you that a ban on a national health plan is not there? (ie, how exactly would you like me to prove a negative?)

There is no constitutional ban on the people deciding to have a national health plan. I can't show you what isn't there. You'd have to show me where the ban is. No one has done so.

Thanks for playing, though.

Mr Know-it-all said...

Well then, Dan...

Let me remind you of what he speaks.

Dan:"I'm opposed to Congress taking 1/2 my tax money and spending it on the military. They are taking it from me against my will and against my religion. Does that mean they are stealing my money?

And then the subsequent response from Henry:"I'm opposed to Congress taking 1/2 my tax money and spending it on the military."

LOL

Maybe you should do some studying on where our tax money actually goes.

For the past four fiscal years, spending on Health and Human Services has exceeded DOD spending by 10-15 percent. And neither one of them makes up 1/2 of the tax dollars collected by the IRS.


That's what Henry was talking about.

You also ignored my question about the "Christian Welfare System".

(Not that anyone expected you to answer any of that. We all know that when you are backed into a corner, you simply redirect the discussion. Which you did.)

Dan Trabue said...

Ya know, kia, your snotty attitude doesn't lend itself to dialog. We've had many statements made here, and I have managed not to hang on every single word, as I have a life.

I am interested in honest dialog, if anyone else is, but simple questions and answers would be a more adult way to have that conversation.

You asked about this statement of yours:

based on the verses from the Bible that I just qouted to you, would you say that a "take from the poor, and give to the rich" policy could be called "The Christian Welfare System"?

In reference to Jesus' parable of the talents. There are many possible ways of taking that. The traditional one has been that God is represented by the rich landowner who "reaps where he has not sown," and that this God would take from he who has little and give it to he who has much.

I prefer Ched Myers' take on it, which flips the traditional teaching on its head, saying that God in the Bible is NOT described as likely to take from he who has little and give it to he who has much. That would be inconsistent with the message from the Bible as a whole.

That would be one possible explanation of that passage. And no, I don't think your interpretation (that God would have us take from he who has little and who did not invest the money at high interest rates - a practice which God has forbidden in the Bible) as a good parallel for assistance for the poor.

Does that answer your question?

Dan Trabue said...

And thank you, KIA, for helping me out with what Henry was speaking of.

Henry asserted:

For the past four fiscal years, spending on Health and Human Services has exceeded DOD spending by 10-15 percent. And neither one of them makes up 1/2 of the tax dollars collected by the IRS.

I was speaking of our discretionary spending. The US budget is made up of discretionary spending - money that Congress and the President have some say on how to spend - and other funds such as Social Security and debt repayment (some of the debt coming from military overspending) which are separate from moneys available for general gov't operating funds.

You can see on a chart here [source: Whitehouse Budget office], that our proposed discretionary spending in 2006 was:

$419 Billion - DoD
32 Billion - Homeland security
391 Billion - everything else

(We ended up spending a good bit more on our military last year).

More explanation can be found here.

And for you, too, Henry, if you wish to have an adult conversation, just make your point and ask your questions. No need to talk down to your fellow citizens.

I have studied where our money goes. Have you?

Erudite Redneck said...

Mark, I was not "playing semantics." It was a brain fart. National health care. ExSCUSE ME. I've never in my luife had a single medical procedure done that wasn't tangled up in insurance. Health care and health insurance are melded together in my mind because their melded together in my life. SorRY.

You just couldn't give me the benefit of the doubt.

mr know-it-all said...

And I have a snotty attitude...

I am not surprized that you would seek out a "Bible" Scholar who would say that the Bible didn't really say what it sounded like it said...

I guess that was just a blooper.

You asked if we should label a communist system "Christian" based on the second chapter of Acts.

I reversed the question based on the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew.

Seems like dialog to me...

(Unless your definition of "dialog" means that everyone agrees with you, and doesn't ask you to explain your kooky ideas in very much detail.)

The truth is, Dan, that I have become used to you now to the point that I have no interest in debating you on anything, because you are misguided, and gleefully and proudly so.

So now, it's more fun to just help you look stupid. (which isn't much trouble.)

And as far as any statistics that you post from now on (such as your Apples/Oranges attempt at misdirection of the discussion by comparing "Tax Money" with "Disgressionary Spending)... I will consider them, but with a grain of salt.

You only see whatever it may be that you, personally, are looking for. (Which is why you see the Bible and Christianity advocating Communism based on the book of Acts.)

You may have studied where our money goes, but you did so with the intent of supporting your own point, rather than finding the truth.

By the way, Dan...

Feel free to correct your wrong points...

Show me the specific wording that prohibits it, first...

Thanks for playing, though...


And then this...

And for you, too, Henry, if you wish to have an adult conversation, just make your point and ask your questions. No need to talk down to your fellow citizens.

Dan, I promise you that I will give you back as good as you yourself give, wherever I see you on the Blogosphere.

I will meet idiocy with ridicule, condescension with snottiness, and self righteousness with examples of your own hypocrisy wherever we meet. (I saw that load of beef by-product over at your site about how, try as you might, you could not find a rude, snotty Liberal Blogger... I'm showing you one right now.)

Look forward to seeing you!

mr know-it-all said...

War Resister's League?

Are you kidding??

Thata may be the funniest thing you've done yet, Dan!

LOL!!

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"And for you, too, Henry, if you wish to have an adult conversation, just make your point and ask your questions. No need to talk down to your fellow citizens."

Pot...Kettle, Danielsan.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"I will meet idiocy with ridicule, condescension with snottiness, and self righteousness with examples of your own hypocrisy wherever we meet.

MR Know-it-all

Yes, Yes, Yes! He gets it!

A full-time job with Dan, KIA!

Dan Trabue said...

"I will meet idiocy with ridicule, condescension with snottiness, and self righteousness with examples of your own hypocrisy wherever we meet."

No, I don't think you will. Rather, based on what you've done here, I suspect that you will twist my words, build up and then knock down strawmen and call me and others you disagree with names. Good luck with that.

But anytime that you think you have an actual argument or a point on which I'm actually hypocritical, I will nonetheless, invite you to point it out to me as a favor. But, if you prefer to continue behaving as an ill-mannered 11-year-old, you'll be talking to yourself.

Peace.

Mr know-it-all said...

LOL!!

Dan, you are SOOOO Full of yourself!

Point out one example of where I have called you names, of twisted your words, or of even one single straw man!

You don't like it when your own tactics are turned on you, and the really funny thing about it is that YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THAT THIS IS WHAT I AM DOING!!

You want an example of twisted words?

Here you go.

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

That being the case, can we argue in favor of calling this healthcare plan Christian Medical Plan? ("You mean you're opposed to a Christian Health Care plan!!?? Shame on you!")


(That actually is a pretty good example of a straw man as well...)

So put your fingers back into your ears...

There's no need to pay attention to the snotty, ill behaved 11 year old who has no life...

LOL!!

Mr Know-it-all said...

As good as you give, Brother.

Dan Trabue said...

KIA said:
"Point out one example of where I have called you names, of twisted your words, or of even one single straw man!"

Calling names:

I know what Dan's problem is... Either he has no reading comprehension skills, or someone is reading everything for him, and then telling him what it said.

The term is "pooled" resources, not "pulled", genius.

Could you POSSIBLY be that short-sighted and dense?

Twisting words:

KIA said - "I want you to tell me why your Healthcare is anyone's responsibility besides your own.

What else do you believe the world owes you?"


When in fact, I had not said that I believe Healthcare is anyone's responsibility but their own, nor that the world owes me anything. In fact, I have stated repeatedly that I had no strong opinion on nationalized healthcare thus far. I was protesting the strawman argument of saying "it's communism!" and dismissing it based upon that.

Strawman:

Speaking of strawman arguments, denouncing nationalized healthcare as socialism and then arguing against socialism is a strawman argument.

Here's another example:

Liberals read into the Constitution what it can be MADE to say.

You're making the argument that Conservatives believe the constitution and liberals try to twist it to support their beliefs. In fact, Both groups believe in the constitution and interpret the way that makes sense to them.

The very fact that you have insisted repeatedly that the constitution forbids a nationalized health plan shows that you're reading into it something that isn't there.

Your argument is a strawman argument, based upon a demonization of Liberals. Discuss the issues at hand, if you wish, but do so based on the arguments.

But, based upon your behavior thus far, I don't think you're really interested in conversation or in anything but demonization of the Other. Good luck with that.

Mr know-it-all said...

Dan, was the Constitution written in order to EMPOWER Government, or to LIMIT Government?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
(James Madison, Federalist Paper 45)

It is not up to Conservatives to find how the Constitution prohibits anything.

The Constitution prohibits EVERYTHING except what it spells out specifically.

This is neither a straw man, nor a demonization of anything or anyone.

This is your problem, Dan. You see each and every point anyone makes against your argument as invalid in some way. It's a "straw man", or a "demonization" or we "aren't discussing the issue on it's merits", or some other such nonsense.

So, okay...

Let's discuss the issue on it's merits Dan.

What, in your opinion, Dan, are the merits of a Nationalized Health Care Plan?

mr know-it-all said...

And as far as my behavior thus far...

Your's has been absolutely no better, and that has been my point all along.

Dan Trabue said...

I don't know enough about it to speak to the issue. Which is why I've never said that I was in support of Nationalized Health Care. I do know we have problems with the current system.

I have already indicated one reason to support it, if it is reality, and I don't know that it is:

IF we, as a nation, could save money by handling things differently, then that might be one reason.

IF we could provide better healthcare and thereby improve the common lot (thereby helping everyone), that might be one reason.

I suspect a case could be made for these two points, but don't know the details.

Henry said...

First, I apologize to Mark. I should keep my comments to the topic at hand. I shouldn't be wasting his blog space pointing out Dan's inadequacies.

I see that I'm not the only one noticing Dan's convenient back peddling to quibble over discretionary/mandatory spending. It's just semantics: at one point in time, the "mandatory" spending was discretionary, and can be so again. If the legislature voted it in, they can just as well vote it out.

That excuse is as feeble as my local city council spending millions on "public art" projects (that only 42% of citizens find important or somewhat important) while neglecting to hire new fire or police personnel for 15 years (then wanting to increase taxes, making the citizens cover their mismanagement or public funds), all the while claiming that the 2% of City capital improvement project moneys they funnel into these projects is mandatory. Since they voted to approve the "mandatory" spending in 1991, they can also vote to shift that spending into more important things, such as fire and police services.

I was actually impressed that Dan used government stats to argue his point, but then following it up with propaganda from the War Resister's League, negated any credibility he'd built up.

For someone to emphatically claim they've studied where government spending goes, then point to Social Security as mandatory spending of taxation revenues is laughable. Social Security is a wholly separate system. The money is collected and disbursed completely outside the income tax system. FICA anyone?

That's as pathetic as Dan Quayle telling a 2nd grader how to spell potato.

Yeah yeah Dan, I know I'm not at mature as you... blah, blah, blah.... We're all a bunch of ill mannered 11 year olds... yada, yada, yada.... Sure sure, you have a life, and by implication we don't.

"Progressive" humiligen accusations have lost their impact. Thanks for playing, Dan.

As fun as it is, as Mr. KIA puts it, making Dan look stupid (which isn't much trouble), I will refrain in the future.