Health Care Upheld - Welcome to Socialism

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correction:

And I clearly did not "flip-out". But if it makes you feel better to think people "flip-out", like you do at times, I'll pretend I had roid rage or something.

No. That's not what happened. People were making the Obama = Hitler comparison, other people (with sense) were scoffing at that and asked what he did that was equivalent to the Night of the Long Knives, LSZ said possibly the drone strikes, and then there was this exchange:

Originally posted by inimalist
if the drone assassinations were targeting Obama's political opponents in an effort to consolidate his own power...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Does "using that kill as part of a setup up for a second election" count as consolidating his power?

Originally posted by inimalist
In a way that makes it comparable to the Night of the Long Knives?

no

It doesn't matter that you got an "answer to a question you didn't ask", because you came into an ongoing discussion about that question you didn't ask. If you're going to do that, then pay attention to what's already being discussed.

Don't be surprised if you barge into a conversation, completely ignore half of what was being talked about, and then people call you on it, because it's annoying as shit when things get derailed by people who don't want to read back more than two posts.

Originally posted by Peach
No. That's not what happened.

That's very kind of you to say (if I am understanding you correctly, you are telling me that I did not "flipout"/"roid rage"😉.

Originally posted by Peach
It doesn't matter that you got an "answer to a question you didn't ask", because you came into an ongoing discussion about that question you didn't ask. If you're going to do that, then pay attention to what's already being discussed.

Don't be surprised if you barge into a conversation, completely ignore half of what was being talked about, and then people call you on it, because it's annoying as shit when things get derailed by people who don't want to read back more than two posts.

I did read the conversation and I had no interest in entertaining the idea that Obama is like Hitler: that's just dumb and not worth entertaining (Sorry, Lord Z, I do not mean to offend...I have lots of ideas that most people think are dumb so do not take offense please). I only wanted to comment on the notion that Obama was not trying to consolidate his power and bolster his run for a second term. That's why I quoted that particular portion of that post and that's why I posed that rhetorical question. I did not even take that portion of the post out of context.

Besides, don't you think it is a waste of time to continue to talk about the Hitler comparison? I certainly did. We can talk about other things concerning this law and Obama's bid for reelection without losing some of the content of that "Hitler" debate.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
So because I'm drawing comparisons between them, you don't like it?

sort of. I don't like the comparison because it doesn't hold up to even cursory examination (and you really haven't provided much evidence that it is valid), but even more so, I feel the comparison hurts your own point. Look, I don't like Obama either. The problem is, by trying to take his flaws and fit them into the model of the-worst-person-ever, you just make your criticism look silly. The drone program is bad for reasons that have nothing to do with Hitler, as are all the issues you brought up. Your point is weakened when you make the comparison, not strengthened.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I have said that he is not overt in what he does, it's more subtle, he's not going to go around parading in military uniform gesticulating like a lunatic

so, in other words, not like Hitler? Hitler started a coup, wrote books in jail, had a private militia... The last thing you can say is that he was subtle.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
because that would draw direct comparisons.

so, your point is, that he is so unlike Hitler that he is like Hitler? Like, if he acts in a way that prevents direct comparisons, that sort of undermines your point.

Also, you know Hitler had annexed Austria within 4 years of his reign? Obama passed a weak health care act...

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
He doesn't have brownshirts but I'm sure the Occupy protestors might have something to say about the treatment they've received for,you know, exercising their right for free speech.

of the many things grossly erroneous with this statement, let me just point out these:

- The brownshirts were Hitler's private thug militia, not a national police force. The brownshirts tried to start a coup, police act to repress these types of things.

- Hitler killed brownshirts during the night of the long knives because they were gaining too much power in the military and so forth. Your comparison would only work if, after oppressing the occupy protesters, Obama had murdered his supporters in the NYPD.

Hitler's rise to power is a really interesting topic. There are good books and lectures, audio version often available online, that talk about how he came to power. If you are really, really, determined to make this comparison, you should probably familiarize yourself a little bit more with how it happened, because I shouldn't have to explain who the brownshirts were to you in this context.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want to have a conversation, cool: actually have one.

I thought I had answered your point, then you claimed I hadn't by insisting you didn't say something that you did (and have repeated at least twice since).

If you are arguing that Obama's drone policy/kill list has consolidated his power, even if only partially or as part of a grander thing, I disagree.

So, you tell me what conversation you want to have, because obviously I'm not doing a good job figuring it out myself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's very kind of you to say (if I am understanding you correctly, you are telling me that I did not "flipout"/"roid rage"😉.

I did read the conversation and I had no interest in entertaining the idea that Obama is like Hitler: that's just dumb and not worth entertaining (Sorry, Lord Z, I do not mean to offend...I have lots of ideas that most people think are dumb so do not take offense please). I only wanted to comment on the notion that Obama was not trying to consolidate his power and bolster his run for a second term. That's why I quoted that particular portion of that post and that's why I posed that rhetorical question. I did not even take that portion of the post out of context.

Besides, don't you think it is a waste of time to continue to talk about the Hitler comparison? I certainly did. We can talk about other things concerning this law and Obama's bid for reelection without losing some of the content of that "Hitler" debate.

We can, but you would need to make it much more clear that your question was not connected to the ongoing discussion. In this context, the onus was on you to do that and you did not, so if your position was not understood that is your own fault. You'll need to take more care when coming into such conversations in future.

So, my amercian friends:

What would you think of a free healthcare system, like Canada's and most european contries, and if you'd want it, what would you up to sacrifice for it?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
We can, but you would need to make it [b]much more clear that your question was not connected to the ongoing discussion.[/B]

But it was connected. Why would it not be? I took a single statement inimalist made and asked a rhetorical question of it. The connection/relationship clarification is not necessary.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
In this context, the onus was on you to do that and you did not,

I did in my very second reply to inimalist that no additional information needed to be added to my question and that it was to function, on its own, as a rhetorical question. No further clarification was necessary.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
so if your position was not understood that is your own fault.

Only so far, though: after I clarified to inimalist, no further "fault" is to be had on either side.

Is the whole Hitler comparison idea off topic to the thread?

The ongoing discussion was about the Hitler comparison, and in that context you needed to make your intervention much more clear. I have no intention of arguing it further- I am simply telling you that you should be more clear in future, and if you continue to be unclear and then get agitated about it, I shall count that as trolling by you.

That's an end to it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The ongoing discussion was about the Hitler comparison, and in that context you needed to make your intervention much more clear. I have no intention of arguing it further- I am simply telling you that you should be more clear in future, and if you continue to be unclear and then get agitated about it, I shall count that as trolling by you.

That's an end to it.

lol

Thanks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is the whole Hitler comparison idea off topic to the thread?

to be fair, the OP of the thread is a claim that Obama's pro-insurance-company health care plan is akin to Marxism.

I believe that disputing these grossly inaccurate depictions of Obama as some extremist politician are totally, though unfortunately, on topic. You might have a point, though, as Nazism and Marxism are quite at odds (and sort of expose the total inanity of these comparisons to Obama in the first place; "He is such a Marxist he is a Nazi" or some such).

Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, the OP of the thread is a claim that Obama's pro-insurance-company health care plan is akin to Marxism.

I believe that disputing these grossly inaccurate depictions of Obama as some extremist politician are totally, though unfortunately, on topic. You might have a point, though, as Nazism and Marxism are quite at odds (and sort of expose the total inanity of these comparisons to Obama in the first place; "He is such a Marxist he is a Nazi" or some such).

I thought this was the point of the thread:

"Tell me, why should I pay for Johnny's health care? Why should you?"

Those were the only points of discussion asked of the OP. I did not see too much wrong with his facts in the OP, either. Yes, it is a tax and we will pay for it. Yes, Medicare and Medicaid are going to be hit pretty hard in some areas (see my lengthy post about the bill). Yes, it will cost over a trillion dollars.

If I were to answer his questions:

"Tell me, why should I pay for Johnny's health care?"

Because you can afford it and Johnny cannot. If you were ill and could not afford it, you should expect Johnny to help you, as well.

That has nothing to do with government, however, so I did not answer you question. You real question is: "Why should I be forced, at virtual gunpoint, to provide charity when I do not want to give it?" My answer to that question is: you shouldn't. Charity should be given willingly or not given at all.

This clashes with my idea that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. It should not clash if people were more giving to each other: especially in the US. We aren't...so it looks like healthcare taxes must be forced on us.

"Why should you?"

I got more money in taxes back, last year, than I paid in. The government is paying me to live here, currently. Not a bad deal. Apparently, a family of 4, with no spouse working, and being a full-time student, based on my pay, is enough for the government to deem they should pay me money.

But, let's pretend I do not go to school, for a moment. I would have paid taxes for last year. Why should I pay for Johnny? Because he cannot afford it and I can. I care about Johnny's well-being because he's a fellow human. He is sapient (maybe), alive, and wants to live. He can tell me he wants to live, too (maybe). So why would I not want to help him? I'm not a cold-heartless bastard, am I? Well...I am a little bit...

But I still could not live with the notion that I could have saved lives with my excess income that I was not using. I didn't need that $1400 to live/survive. My family was fed, clothed, and had all the necessaries and then some. I'm doing okay: Johnny can have it if it allows his life to be saved.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought this was the point of the thread:

"Tell me, why should I pay for Johnny's health care? Why should you?"

sure, in the context of "welcome to socialism" and "our democracy is dead"

I saw DT lurking a bit earlier... funny he still hasn't substantiated why we shouldn't pay for Johnny's health care

EDIT: not that I think you are making this same fallacy, but a lot of what you are saying has this air of Randian individualism. Unfortunately, a lot of people who make such arguments are sort of poorly read on Rand (my assumption is they read Atlas Shrugged and not her non-fiction, like The Virtue of Selfishness). Radical individualism, at least in the Randian sense, suggests that pro-social behaviour is actually the most optimal because it is so beneficial to one's self. In this situation, it is either that you provide the care because it makes society better and thus better for you, that it makes you feel better to support people, or that you benefit from such services as well. The idea that people shouldn't help each other is not Randian, and where I disagree with her is this idea of "volunteerism". Its like, people essentially say, "yes, I want to provide a system where people can get the care they need, and I want to contribute to it, but it better not be government run!", however, any system that actually provides what they want in this case would be indistinguishable from government, or nearly by definition, less effective.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: not that I think you are making this same fallacy, but a lot of what you are saying has this air of Randian individualism.

In that last post? No, not even close. Ayn Rand would shit herself in a rage fit over my idea that "since man can't do the right thing on an individual basis, some form of socialism is necessary for healthcare".

Originally posted by inimalist
Unfortunately, a lot of people who make such arguments are sort of poorly read on Rand (my assumption is they read Atlas Shrugged and not her non-fiction, like The Virtue of Selfishness).

The only experience I have with Ayn Rand is in an academic setting: not from personal bedtime reading sessions. I have not read any of her works (probably snippets in our textbooks, but I have not picked up any of her books and read them).

Originally posted by inimalist
Radical individualism, at least in the Randian sense, suggests that pro-social behaviour is actually the most optimal because it is so beneficial to one's self.

Which requires an absurd amount of naivete to believe.

Originally posted by inimalist
In this situation, it is either that you provide the care because [1]it makes society better and thus better for you, [2]that it makes you feel better to support people, or that [3]you benefit from such services as well.

You may have missed it but I posted my ethical motivations in multiple threads. My ethical motivations are "virtue ethics" and "pragmatism". The second option you listed would be utilitarianism which I do think has some use but is not one of my major "choices" in ethical motivations.

Originally posted by inimalist
The idea that people shouldn't help each other is not Randian, and where I disagree with her is this idea of "volunteerism". Its like, people essentially say, "yes, I want to provide a system where people can get the care they need, and I want to contribute to it, but [b]it better not be government run!" [/B]

I largely fall into this camp: I wish humans were good enough to actually eliminate the need for forced charity. We just aren't. Like I said many years ago in the GDF: it is a naive, Utopian, pipe-dream.

Originally posted by inimalist
however, any system that actually provides what they want in this case would be indistinguishable from government, or nearly by definition, less effective.

Hmmm.

I do not know if I can ever agree to those statements. Violently coerced charity is not charity. Voluntary charity is charity. Some charitable groups can be far more efficient and effective than a large and weighty government. We saw that with the Katrina efforts and the Haitian efforts. In a perfect world, there would be no need for government "charity". Not a perfect world so we have to...kind of...have it.

I think a better question is: why do you think an effective charitable group is indistinguishable from an effective government as far as charity is concerned?

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I'm sure Hitler justified his actions as war too..

And, just to be clear, cold-blooded murder of a US citizen is okay as long it's far away from the US?

No, and I wasn't making a moral judgment--just pointing out how drone strikes are nothing like the Nazi example.

And I wouldn't say that the killing of the American Al-Qaeda member was entirely in "cold blood".

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not at all. The Night of the Long Knives was what it was. It didn't take place during wartime and Hitler never made any excuse for it.

I believe Hitler did make an excuse/justification for it. I tried to find the potentially most biased source against Hitler as possible for this reference:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/knives.html

"In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I become the supreme judge of the German people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason."

But here is, probably, a more reputable source:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-roehm.htm

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And I wouldn't say that the killing of the American Al-Qaeda member was entirely in "cold blood".

I do not think we can say that all of those assassinated were perfectly innocent. It was not in coldblood, I mean. There was a lot of infighting in Germany, at the time. The SA was causing a shit-ton of problems. It was almost necessary for Hitler to act if he wanted to maintain stability.

im glad im canadian but I hardly ever go to the doctor because its such a drag... plus u get sick just sitting there with all the sick people. Nothanks

I find it quite amusing when people think that we have not been paying health-care taxes all along, without us sharing in on the insurance policy that we are paying for. For instance a couple of years back I worked as a temp worker, and if I were to have ever been hurt on that job, I would have pretty much have been assed the phuck out, because I did not have any benefits. But, then I would go and look at my pay stub, and there I was getting taxed for a health-care policy that I would never partake of. Darth whatever your name is, you should try taking off the blinders, because you tend to leave a bunch of shit out in order to uphold a bunch of other shit.

I guess it's time to reveal where I live:

I live in California where we have a fool for a governor who believes that raising taxes will solve our problems. He signs a bill to build a 200 million dollar high speed railway that we don't need, but then proposes a law that will raise my taxes. Does that make sense? I live in a county where unemployment is around 16% and virtually everyone is on EBT cards. Most people could care less about health care - what they want is work.

I'm not made of wealth. I refuse to use EBT due to my personal pride. I refuse to abuse an entitlement program. Many here think I'm a cold hearted bastard, but I'm a firm believer on the "stand on your own two feet, make it on your own" theory. I don't want to see a kid sick and suffer, but I don't want to pay his health care. My state has already bled me enough. And now I'm being forced to pay for a Federal health care system? I got a friggen idea . . . how bout Obama, the Supreme Court and all the other idiots who believe free health care is great accept the individual mandate?

Oh yeah, what was it that Obama said?: "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen." Doesn't that seem a bit socialist to you? I guess Obama designed the first computer or built the plane. Tax the 1%? Who creates the jobs? - the 1%. Just found out today that Obama . . . I mean the government now owns Manchester United indirectly through GM motors. Sorry soccer fans in Europe . . . an American socialist now owns the team. Look on the bright side . . . at least Arsnel is still European.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
I don't want to see a kid sick and suffer, but I don't want to pay his health care.

are you a Christian, or religious in some way?

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
I guess it's time to reveal where I live:

I live in California where we have a fool for a governor who believes that raising taxes will solve our problems. He signs a bill to build a 200 million dollar high speed railway that we don't need, but then proposes a law that will raise my taxes. Does that make sense? I live in a county where unemployment is around 16% and virtually everyone is on EBT cards. Most people could care less about health care - what they want is work.

I'm not made of wealth. I refuse to use EBT due to my personal pride. I refuse to abuse an entitlement program. Many here think I'm a cold hearted bastard, but I'm a firm believer on the "stand on your own two feet, make it on your own" theory. I don't want to see a kid sick and suffer, but I don't want to pay his health care. My state has already bled me enough. And now I'm being forced to pay for a Federal health care system? I got a friggen idea . . . how bout Obama, the Supreme Court and all the other idiots who believe free health care is great accept the individual mandate?

Oh yeah, what was it that Obama said?: "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen." Doesn't that seem a bit socialist to you? I guess Obama designed the first computer or built the plane. Tax the 1%? Who creates the jobs? - the 1%. Just found out today that Obama . . . I mean the government now owns Manchester United indirectly through GM motors. Sorry soccer fans in Europe . . . an American socialist now owns the team. Look on the bright side . . . at least Arsnel is still European.

The fact that you take that Obama quote completely out of context worries me a bit. I also find it strange when people who are struggling to get by oppose the extention of tax cuts for the 98% and only increasing them on the top 2% of earners. Most job creators are in the top 10%, but not the top 2.

It's clear that you don't understand how the health care mandate works; your taxes will not be increasing to help keep a sick child alive since God forbid that should happen. The only way your taxes would go up as a result of its passage is if you do not have insurance and refuse to opt in to coverage for yourself. You may not know this, but the burden of disease in countries with mandatory/inclusive healthcare is much lower than that of countries like the U.S. without it. Preventative and immediate care mean less long-term treatment for disease and disorder in the long run and lower overall health care costs. That means more funds available for jobs, infrastructure, and whatever else.

I am somewhat simplifying all of this because the situation with pharmaceutical/medical research companies keeping prices artificially high in the U.S., but your stance lacks reasoning.