"...the disagreements and political lines right now are not as regional as they were 150 years ago."
It's very interesting to me that the vast majority of the collectivist voters in the United States live in three small geographic locations, which can be broadly delineated as:
- The East Coast
- The Left Coast
- The Mississippi valley
If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2000 and 2004 elections, this becomes extremely obvious. The east coast, with NY(F)C was solidly Dem-wing, as was the entire left coast, from San Diego to Seattle. The Mississippi valley, from New Orleans up through St. Louis, all the way to Minneapolis, was solidly socialist.
But even within those states, as soon as you got away from the major population centers, the trend swings strongly towards the Rep-wing. There are huge divisions between coastal Kalifornia, and the eastern and northern portions of that state, as there are in Washington State. Upstate New York has completely different voting patterns than do the heavily urban areas.
My personal opinion (completely unsupported by any facts or data...just an opinion) is that there is a sorting mechanism that occurs. Those people who tend to be collectivists also tend to like to live in densely populated urban areas, while people with stronger indivualist traits tend to live in areas with more widely spread populations.
As an aside, note that the gun-control advocates also tend to come from areas where concepts such as individual responsibility fade into the concept of the "collective".
I'm tempted to say that these "regional" aspects of the disagreements along political, philosophical and economic lines can be quite clearly seen when mapped. It's just that they don't correlate to state boundaries (as in the Civil War/War Between the States) as they once did.
2008 GA will make far greater ramifications than most realize.
What happened leading up to, and directly after, the '00 and '04 elections will seem quite tame in comparison.
If the Donks lose another Presidential election, with the attendant wailing and claims of voter fraud that will surely follow, we will start to see stuff happen in this country, all across the country, that we've seen the Eco-terrorist do, or the like.
The hatred has been fomenting over on that side for a good long while, and they're all quite mentally challenged, being ruled by their emotions, as we all know.
Just watch.
Scarier still, if they manage to win, we will be subject to Der Fuhrer Rodham Clinton, and we all know what that will be like, don't we? I shudder at the thought of it, but contingencies must be thought out and planned for. Chairman Mao will be smiling if she gets the reins.
Well, I did read the whole thing (Fight Club is one my fave's btw) and there are so many points to address I didn't want to waste Kevin's time.
But if his main point was about our society committing suicide, I would have to say I agree but for much different reasons.
I think that the people who have been in power for the last eights years have created an unreality of psychotic neo-conservatism. I use the word "neo-conservatism" because there is nothing conservative about the agenda that has been pushed for the last eight years. Personal liberties-gone, Less Government-listen to us and all your fears will go away, Individual Responsibility-who me? Not our fault, it's all the terrorists. Oh and I can break the law whenever I want because I'm a Neo-Con! I don't have to follow the same rules that those paintywaist adulterer liberals follow.
The general gist of what is posted here is that liberal elites are to blame for our sewer drainage as a country and, while I think they do cause problems, they are nowhere near as powerful (and thus more damaging) as men like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, or Bill Kristol. These men have the backing of a tremendous amount of wealth, are drunk with power, and are quite literally destroying our future. That includes all of you, btw, who are under the bizarre impression that they are somehow protecting us.
They have also made you all believe that that it is the fault of Hillary Clinton, who is basically pushing the same agenda as they are.
Divide and Conquer...it's pretty much happened, hasn't it?
I was trying to go for polite, but then I decided my obligation to "polite" is discharged when accused of having been brainwashed into believing that Hillary Clinton has the agenda that has sekritly been THE EVIL NEOCON CABAL ALL ALONG!!
Dude, how old are you? I'm serious: did you just not start paying attention until 2000, never took more than a cursory glance at history, what?
I'm not sure whom you're addressing, LabRat. I think I need a copy of the script.
In any case, I was attempting a joke, based on comments long in the past in these here parts, to the effect that self-delusion isn't thinking. Perhaps I need to include a script of my own.
I don't mind offending intentionally, but I really don't like to do it accidentally, so I thought I'd make sure I wasn't. I promise to pay better attention in the future. My bad, not yours.
Our government has lost all pretext of being on our side. Both of the elected branches have an approval rating of less than 25%. Some republic. The judicial branch turns the illegal aliens who rape 5 year olds out on bail so they can murder four high school kids. Neither congress nor the president want to do anything about our open borders. If just one in a hundred illegals is a bad guy there are more of them here than we have troops in Iraq. At best.
Lab, check out who has been funding Hillary's campaign....same people that funded Bush's. She is very tight with the people that pull the strings in this country. I know that most of you are looking forward to 4-8 more years of Clinton bashing but I think you will find yourselves very satisified with her actions should she become president. I'm 40, btw.
Now, I don't think this all started in 2000. It was actually first noticed by a Republican President named Dwight Eisenhower in the late 1950s. He tried to warn us and we didn't listen. The president after him was killed because he tried to stop it.
And every president since that time has, to one degree or another, contributed to the suicide of our country. The last eight years have seen a hastening, if you will, of an agenda that could lead to our downfall. These men who run our country are NOT acting in OUR best interest. This is a fact and to fop it off as "Bush Psychosis" (as I'm sure you will) is terribly shortsighted.
There are good people on both sides of the aisle who will never be elected because they will not further this agenda. There are also good people, Colin Powell comes to mind, who have tried and failed to work within the horribly corrupt system and failed.
Honestly, start looking for the real enemy here, folks. It's not David Geffen or Steven Spielberg. It's certainly not Sean Penn or Ben Afleck. You need to take that extra step out of your comfort zone and admit that "supposed" conservatives is betraying all of you.
One factoid I find very unsettling - the "R" word is being used more often and by more people (both raw numbers and across the political spectrum) in any time that I can remember, 'cept for '68.
And there appears to be NO ONE willing, much less able, to fix it.
So we're just going to merrily tear the whole thing down around us.
You see, Mark, the difference between you and I is that I think that conservatism is less likely to be destructive, so while the supposed conservatives may be betraying me, they're still better than the supposed liberals who seem quite eager to tear it all apart because it's so flawed and hypocritical and unfair and unjust and unequal.
Yes, we see the mechanisms that have been constructed (many since well before the Eisenhower administration) we just think that the Left will be more than happy to put them together. We hope the Right will be more circumspect.
"I think you will find yourselves very satisified with her actions should she become president."
Mark, I don't know you from Adam, sir, and I am not trying to flame up some war at Kevin's place, here, but Jesus, man, shut your pie-hole about that filthy, manipulative c*nt!
I know you hate the neo-con, BushChaneyWhateverYouWantToCallItThisWeek conglomerate. WE ALL KNOW THIS.
I don't like them either.
Most of us don't. Even the ones who would own up to voting for them. Twice. I know I did.
Lesser of the evils, if you will. It's not something to be proud of, but choices must be made.
Hillary is a SOCIALIST. She would even admit to it if she really understood what she stands for, in terms of policy, ethics and "economic" decisions (that's newspeak for "taxes").
Sorry, the Republicans can put up an empty suit with Condi as Veep come '08, and I'd still vote for them over that other bitch that's getting the nod for the Donks.
I may not like it, but that's the way it'll be. Count on it.
B, I think you need to take a look at Hillary's donor list. In her last campaign for Senate, she was 2nd only to Rick Santorum for contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from those....um....evil communist bastards. In addition, take a look at her donors from New York State. All huge defense contractors.
So, please, stop listening to the drivel that comes out of the right wing propaganda machine and take a look at the facts.
Kevin, I think basic conservatism has some real merit. I respect individual liberty and repsonsibility. I understand how you think that there are liberals trying to take that away from you. In some ways, you are right. But so are the conservatives that are running the party now. It's all the same, sadly, in the end.
It seems to me that the "powers that be" don't want us to have a candidate we can all love, right? I mean, is there anyone on this blog that would have a problem with Colin Powell?
"I think you will find yourselves very satisified with her actions should she become president."
This blog is about guns, about the right to keep and bear arms. On that subject, Hillary Clinton rates a zero on a scale from 0 to 100. The only reason she doesn't rate any lower is because the scale doesn't go any lower.
And you think that "we" would be "very satisfied with her actions should she become president".
Mark, I've never witnessed anyone more out of touch with cold hard reality than you are. Kevin was being charitable when he said you haven't got a clue. You've reached the bottom of the hole, dude. How much deeper do you expect to dig?
DJ, I think we both like going to the movies right? I am willing to bet you 2 tickets and all the popcorn and soda you can eat and drink that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, the gun laws will stay exactly the same. All of you will continue to enjoy your weapons and your collections--of that I have no doubt.
This post was about the suicide of our nation in regards to our international policies. On that topic, should she be elected, you will see her continue the current policy in Iraq and feed an inherently corrupt system, of which she is firmly entrenched.
"please, stop listening to the drivel that comes out of the right wing propaganda machine and take a look at the facts."
Mark,
I can read just fine, thanks.
So, let me preface what I'm about to say with this; I don't like Santorum, either, and I'm not a right winger, as you've obviously misjudged.
I am not concerned, as it seems that so many, including you, are, with how far left or right someone is. What I am more concerned with is someone's authoritarian streak, and whether it runs toward the absolute, or if it runs toward the libertarian end. That's far more important to me than right or left. Get it?
I don't need some kind of lecture on the merits of the Republican versus Democrat parties, their platforms, or their individual voting records, nor their contributors and financiers. I know they are all crooked, lying bastards to begin with. Them's the breaks, and until the Donks get back toward some semblance of individual civil liberty in their national platform, I ain't voting for 'em.
How 'bout those facts?
And this bit;
"should she be elected, you will see her continue the current policy in Iraq and feed an inherently corrupt system, of which she is firmly entrenched."
Yes. She will, and you know what? She is going to give the Donk base some dipshit "reason" why it's now "all good" and the overwhelming majority of the rank-and-file are going to turn around and go home and they're going to be A-OK with it. Do you understand what I'm getting at yet?
Hilary is dangerous, and in a way that W couldn't ever conceive of. He just doesn't care to walk on the right people, of enough of them, to get what he wants. Hilary has no such scrupples, and don't even argue with me on that point. YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT!
Well, I'm not going to argue with you that Hillary is dangerous. I think she would be an awful president for many of the same reasons you list above. I don't think, however, it will be because she is a Socialist. There are going to be a might big group of Captialist donors that are going to be quite angry with her if that's the case and that was my original point.
Oh, and this...
"..W couldn't ever conceive of. He just doesn't care to walk on the right people, of enough of them, to get what he wants."
Umm...wow....what are you smoking and can I have some please?
"DJ, I think we both like going to the movies right?"
You jump to conclusions as if it were a virtue. I haven't been to the movies in over 20 years. Don't assume you know what I think because I'm like you, because I am emphatically not like you.
"I am willing to bet you 2 tickets and all the popcorn and soda you can eat and drink that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, the gun laws will stay exactly the same. All of you will continue to enjoy your weapons and your collections--of that I have no doubt."
Your lack of doubt is a perfect measure of your ignorance. You don't get "it" and you don't get "us". Our objection to Hillary Clinton is simply beyond your comprehension. We revere the Second Amendment and the right which it guarantees, in great measure because we understand that the unfettered ability to exercise that right is what protects all our other rights from abrogation by our own gubmint.
Here is Bill Clinton on 08/12/93:
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
Hillary Clinton embodies precisely that philosophy. It is a perfect description of her political philosophy and her hunger for raw power.
NO candidate for public office is qualified, in my opinion, if they do not publicly, by word and deed, support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hillary Clinton is at the opposite end of that spectrum. It is simply not possible that I would be satisfied with her actions if she became President, and I will not delude myself to the contrary.
Now, let's juxtapose three of your statements:
"I think you will find yourselves very satisified with her actions should she become president."
and
"Well, I'm not going to argue with you that Hillary is dangerous."
and
"... what are you smoking and can I have some please?"
You're not fooling anyone. You need treatment, dude. The drugs you need are not for fun.
Mark, you are tone-deaf and a chronic categorizer. You have been told multiple times with varying degrees of asperity that neither Kevin nor the majority of his commenters are the sort of right-wing O'Reilly Factor conservatives that you have a mental picture of, and each time you start off making sweeping blanket statements addressing us as if we worship at the altar of Limbaugh and then acting surprised when you are told off for it.
You started off asserting that it is "neo-cons" (presumably rubbing their hands together and twirling mustaches) who are robbing us of our personal liberties while somehow brainwashing us into believing it's the Clintons' fault... on a blog primarily dedicated to the proposition that the second amendment is the most vital one in the bunch... and coincidentally has been one of the few where the cause of civil rights has actually picked up a little gain in the last ten years.
You tell us "conservatives" aren't to be trusted- again, on a blog with a strong theme of distrusting ALL government- and damned if I can pick out a point or logical flow of argument that indicates that the people you seem to think we've been fooled into distrusting the most are any better. The condescending bit about us liking Hillary because she'll pursue Bush-like foreign policies might have gone better if there had been a point stouter than "the Right Wing Noise Machine (tm) has pulled the wool over your eyes, you poor sheep" somewhere in there. Resorting to conspiracy theory (which seems to boil down to "rich people are all in it together") to explain why Hillary shouldn't bother us isn't all that impressive either.
Show some indication you have some clue who you're talking to and you'll have the respect you seem to want. Start with the assumption that it is possible for rational, thinking people to come to conclusions wildly different from yours without major carelessness or gullibility. You may not believe it is SO in our case, but unless you just want to troll there's nothing productive in letting it show so clearly through.
LabRat, don't hold your breath. You're speaking to someone from the "reality-based community" who can write something like this:
"To illustrate my point about the FACT that conservatives talk a good game about thinking but in reality are wrapped up in a one dimensional, overly emotional 8-year old stubborn-temper tantrum-child like view of the world, we need look no further than Fred Thompson."
And someone who believes that Barack "I would invade Pakistan, but I would meet with Cuba, North Korea, and Iran" Obama is - his words:
"Barack Obama, to put it simply, is America. You can see it in the story of his life, which can be read by clicking here or by buying his first book, Dreams of My Father, by clicking here. His second book, The Audacity of Hope (click here to buy), to put it simply, is what America should be. He is extremely intelligent, compassionate, and, what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in an abundance of intellectual curiosity."
And:
"We have been divided and conquered. It is time to put someone in the White House who is going to truly unite us and make us stronger. We need a leader that is going to show us the power within ourselves and give us the freedom to explore our true potential. More importantly, we need to realize how sacred his message is and how vital it is that we protect it. There is no doubt in my mind that sometime between now and the election, an attempt is going to be made on Senator Obama's life. If he becomes too powerful, if he gets the nomination, if he wins the presidency, if he uses the power of the presidency for the common good of all of us, the men who stand to lose the most will attempt and possibly succeed in taking him out.
"If it happens, people will say it is because he was black. A "crazed racist" will be blamed. That will be a lie. My hope is that all of you reading this will know the real reason why. It will be because he wanted, like Jack, Martin, and Bobby, to give more power to the comman man and make things equal....and better for more people."
Yes, this is someone with a firm grip on reality. This is why I dismiss him.
I've been voting Republican in desperation, not from conviction. Like Thomas Sowell said about Republicans and Democrats about personal freedom: "Better third rate firemen than first rate arsonists."
So, Kevin, am I to take it that you think that Jack, Martin and Bobby were each killed by a lone nut?
Labrat, go back and take a look at some of the complimentary things I have said about people on this blog. I am pretty careful to point out that I don't think that folks that post here are all the same--or Bushies for that matter. I appreciate that.
DJ, whatever you want to bet is fine by me. Hillary is dangerous but not for the reasons you think.
I don't gamble (again jumping conclusions, aren't you?).
You don't know the many reasons why I think Hillary Clinton is dangerous, and you clearly imply that you don't think her views on individual rights in general or the Second Amendment in particular make her dangerous.
What you cannot publicly admit, regardless of whether or not you privately accept it, is that Kevin, LabRat, I, and anyone else for that matter, are fundamentally right on something about which you are fundamentally wrong. Very few people I have ever known have much tolerance for being treated like a fool by a fool. I suspect that you have spent a lifetime not understanding that the people around you see through such like the vacuum it is, and that is why they don't respect you.
So, Kevin, am I to take it that you think that Jack, Martin and Bobby were each killed by a lone nut?
I don't know about Kevin, but as for me, Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Thousands of people get killed in America every day, and 99% of them are by lone nuts. Politicians are not special in this regard.
Phelps, just so I am clear, all of the conspiracy ideas...ALL of them are just plain wrong, have no basis in fact and are just plain looney?
DJ, I think her views on individual rights are, in fact, dangerous...in exactly the same way President Bush's are dangerous. The Patriot Act will continue or get worse, wiretapping, individual freedoms etc.
I don't think you are a fool, DJ. Or anyone else that posts here for that matter. You are set in your ways and there is no wavering from that. You don't want to hear about how much money Hillary gets from defense contractors and the health care industry. It takes away from the pure villain you have made her out to be.
Phelps, just so I am clear, all of the conspiracy ideas...ALL of them are just plain wrong, have no basis in fact and are just plain looney?
When 95% of (pick one: conspiracy theories, UFO sightings, fringe pseudosciences) turn out to be bullshit, the odds are that the unexplained and unproven 5% is also bullshit.
Conspiracy theories virtually always depend on a group of people- sometimes a comically large one, as in your example- displaying a level of security consciousness, cooperation, and organization that they simply never seem to be able to achieve in a non-conspiracy setting.
You are set in your ways and there is no wavering from that. You don't want to hear about how much money Hillary gets from defense contractors and the health care industry. It takes away from the pure villain you have made her out to be.
First you say you don't think we're fools, and then you go on to say we're willfully deaf and blind and think of Hillary as a pure villian. That, sir, is taking us for fools.
As opposed to the pure villain that George W. Bush, Cheney's hand-puppet is in your world?
The chronically honest are always surprised when they are cheated, liars are always surprised by genuine and consistent honesty, the analytic are always surprised by the thoughtless, and people who see the world in terms of conspirational teams of good and evil can't fathom people who don't- merely that they must be on the other side. (Even if they're not bad people, just stupidly resistant.)
No, as I see it, we both dislike Hillary. We both dislike her because she will, more than likely continue the current policies of less individual freedom. Why she is going to do this is where we part ways..
You think it is because she is a socialist, bent on abosulute government authority in all areas of our lives.
I say it is because she gotten into bed with the same people President Bush has and is beholden to her (very much) capitilist contributors.
We also disagree on what she will, if elected, about gun control.
You think it is because she is a socialist, bent on abosulute government authority in all areas of our lives.
Again with jumping to conclusions. Why don't you ask me what I think instead of telling me what I think?
I know she is a socialist, and so would you if you cleared that conspiracy theory garbage dump out of your head. She established her philosophy and her credentials thereto long before anyone contributed so much as a penny to her. Read what she had said and tried to do for the past 15 years and try to find a philosophy that describes her. It's called socialism.
I don't think she is bent on "abosulute government authority in all areas of our lives". Do you ever speak in any terms except hyperbole?
I think she is bent on, among other things, high taxes and tax rates, socialized medicine that would make Canada's scheme look desirable in comparison, and complete elimination of the right to keep and bear arms. Her statements over the years make it plain that she believes an individual has worth and rights only to the extent that he is a member of a group, and his rights are only the rights of that group. That is socialism.
Most importantly, she utterly loathes the military. She is utterly unfit to serve as Commander In Chief of the armed forces of this country.
She is, like her "husband", a master of deceit. She is fundamentally dishonest to a degree one seldom finds even among politicians. Their single biggest talent is the ability to induce the suspension of disbelief in an audience, and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
DJ, I am simply basing what I write about you on what you have said here in comments.
You wrote
"I think she is bent on, among other things, high taxes and tax rates, socialized medicine that would make Canada's scheme look desirable in comparison.."
This is flat out wrong. Read this:
"As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.
She is not going to be able to put such a system in place with those folks influencing her as much as they now do. As far as Canada goes, their sytsem would be desireable as it is privately driven and people can choose to have whatever health care they desire-public or private.
"As far as Canada goes, their sytsem would be desireable as it is privately driven and people can choose to have whatever health care they desire-public or private."
You are astoundingly ill-informed, really to the point of utter cluelessness, but we all know that. You really don't read the papers, do you? (And I mean that metaphorically, seeing as how such simple things have to be explained to you.)
I suggest you begin with this:
http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/
That is the web site of the Canadian Health Care system, i.e. the "horse's mouth", as it were. Here, I'll save you the trouble:
"Canada's health care system is a group of socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens. It is publicly funded and administered on a provincial or territorial basis, within guidelines set by the federal government.
Under the health care system, individual citizens are provided preventative care and medical treatments from primary care physicians as well as access to hospitals, dental surgery and additional medical services. With a few exceptions, all citizens qualify for health coverage regardless of medical history, personal income, or standard of living.
Canada's health care system is the subject of much political controversy and debate in the country. Some question the efficiencies of the current system to deliver treatments in a timely fashion, and advocate adopting a private system similar to the United States. Conversely, there are worries that privatization would lead to inequalities in the health system with only the wealthy being able to afford certain treatments."
Do you get it? Canada's system is not a private system, it is socialized medicine under the control of the goddamned gubmint.
Now, go do your homework. You'll find that Canadians in large numbers come here to receive treatment and procedures that they cannot timely receive there. Why? Because there, they cannot, by law, pay money to a provider to receive treatment that the gubmint provides too slowly to suit them, or to save their lives. They can receive treatment only as directed by and per the rules and the schedule of the goddamned gubmint. To even attempt to circumvent these rules is a crime.
"This is flat out wrong."
So, you think she is not bent on socialized medicine, huh? Beginning right after Slick Willie was sworn in, she tried to implement a health care plan that would have made it a felony for you to spend your own money to pay for medical care for yourself. You could be imprisoned and your rights to keep and bear arms and to vote could be taken away because you paid a doctor to lance a boil on your ass.
Were you asleep when she tried this? Do you think she wasn't serious?
You need to understand a few things about the Clintons that you apparently don't. They are, above everything else, all politician, all the time. They are a marriage of political convenience, as that is the only explanation as to why she hasn't dumped him. They are consummate liars who have raised the tactic of The Big Lie to an art form. She does nothing without consideration of how it affects her politically, and it shows transparently to anyone who cares to see.
The sweat on his palms had barely dried from his taking an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" than he signed into law bans on certain firearms, saying, "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." They both share, and are driven by, the subjugation of the individual to the gubmint.
And you think she doesn't like higher taxes? Her own words are, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She likes taxes.
Their's is a marriage of political convenience. He was in it for the world's biggest ego trip. His statement at a "press conference" delivered as George W. Bush was being sworn in (he just couldn't let go of the limelight, could he?) was, "You gave me the ride of my life!" She is in it for the worlds biggest power trip. When documents were subpoenaed from the President, not from her, her response when they were turned over was, "I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."
She is one shitload more intelligent than you are, dude, and she is playing you, and millions of other people, like a fiddle.
I did a quick search for you. Google "Canadian health care" and see what comes up.
I looked at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705
It begins with:
"A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months."
Three fucking months to get an electrocardiogram. Golly, but I am so totally, like, impressed, and stuff.
Ah, but it gets better:
"The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation."
Hence the saying, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
And better still:
"The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care."
Wonderful.
Need a new hip? How about:
"a yearlong wait for hip replacement surgery"
Wouldn't that be fun?
Two years ago, I had an "almost" heart attack. It runs in the family. The next day I was diagnosed via cardiac catheterization as having two blocked coronary arteries. (Watch your cholesterol, dude, mine is now 116.) The day after that I had triple cardiac bypass surgery. Damn, but do I feel good. The procedure is a train wreck, but the results are astounding.
And I am so very, very pleased that I live here, and not in Canada.
Thank you, Kevin. I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of the change.
Now, compare what she tried to cram up our kazoos when she was simply the wife of Slick Willie to what Canada now has. It gives considerable credence to my statement that "I think she is bent on, among other things ... socialized medicine that would make Canada's scheme look desirable in comparison ..."
I like this statement in that article:
"The larger lesson here is that health care isn't immune from the laws of economics. Politicians can't wave a wand and provide equal coverage for all merely by declaring medical care to be a "right," in the word that is currently popular on the American left."
Yup. People who provide health care, and companies who provide the equipment, supplies, and facilities they use to provide that care, all expect, rightly so, to be paid for their work and their products. It ain't free, and it follows the law of supply and demand.
And:
"There are only two ways to allocate any good or service: through prices, as is done in a market economy, or lines dictated by government, as in Canada's system. The socialist claim is that a single-payer system is more equal than one based on prices, but last week's court decision reveals that as an illusion. Or, to put it another way, Canadian health care is equal only in its shared scarcity."
When you are on your way to a hospital ER, wondering if you will be alive tomorrow, where would you want that hospital to be?
I think you need to open your mind a little bit, there some of the good and bad in both systems. At the end of the day, American Health Care is a racket. It started with Nixon and has gotten way out of control.
As far as "going and doing my homework," well, here's what I found:
Canada's health care system is a publicly funded health care system, with most services provided by private entities. While the Canadian government call it a "public system it is not "socialized medicine".
Studies have found Canada's health outcomes about equal to other industrial countries.
In Canada the various levels of government pay for about 70% of Canadians' health care costs, which is about average for a developed country. Canada is unusual in that the government pays for almost 100% of hospital and physician care, but contributes very little in areas such as prescription drug costs, dental care and Emergency Medical Services.
About 30% of Canadians' health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses. There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.
The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises. Most all doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.
A CBC report(August 21, 2006) on the health care system reports the following:
"Dr. Albert Schumacher, former president of the Canadian Medical Association estimates that 75 per cent of health-care services are delivered privately, but funded publicly. "Frontline practitioners whether they're GPs or specialists by and large are not salaried. They're small hardware stores. Same thing with labs and radiology clinics …The situation we are seeing now are more services around not being funded publicly but people having to pay for them, or their insurance companies. We have sort of a passive privatization."
Contrary to most federal politicians views, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has taken the stance in favor of more private sector healthcare services as a means to improve healthcare for Canadians.
In a move to further heighten their position, the CMA will be replacing their current president with Dr. Brian Day in August 2007. Dr Brian Day is the owner of the largest private healthcare hospital in Canada and a vocal supporter of increasing private healthcare in Canada.
Each province regulates its medical profession through a self-governing College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for licensing physicians, setting practice standards, and investigating and disciplining its members.
And finally,
The Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the 2007 (and earlier) reports of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a government-sponsored watchdog agency
Although there are long waits for some non-emergency procedures (notably hip- and knee-replacement surgery, plastic surgeries, and eye surgery) and long waits for specific other procedures in specific provinces, most waits appear to be normal with respect to other health care systems.
DJ, I have several friends from Canada. I live close to the border here in the Northwoods of Minnesota. They all have private insurance, can go to whatever doctor they want, never have to wait for months, and are not "directed" by the government to do anything.
Some more homework for you, DJ, from some of the same sources above....
In Canada the private sector has always been the frontline in healthcare. Canadian doctors operate as revenue/profit businesses and are the primary gatekeepers to the whole healthcare system. The doctors also have no controls placed on them by the primary payer for services, the government, and they are therefore in a position to easily recommend more visits and are guaranteed payment by the government.
Contrary to popular belief, selling private health insurance that could cover hip replacements and MRI scans is legal in several provinces, but because they are available without charge in the public system, so far there has been no market for private insurance for what the Canada Health Act defines as "medically necessary services."
Much of the political discourse concerning the health care system, as it stands in the year 2006, appears to be politically motivated. Firstly, there is a failure to appreciate and acknowledge that the system is not a true public system, secondly there is a failure to appreciate the system is also private,(a half-truth) in that most services are provided by the private sector, merely publicly funded (though on a set pay scale). While the majority of discussions focus on whether to privatize or not, the question implies that the system is not private, ignores the privatization of the system, and further implies that the system is a true public system, which it is not.
Okay, so Canada destroys the private payer industry, and then laments that it doesn't spring right back when they lift their boot? What could the market be afraid of? Oh, that's right -- being destroyed again when the political winds shift.
I am drawn to this train-wreck like a moth to a flame, sadly...
Mark, I would be thrilled to see you offer a concise yet sufficiently detailed definition of what you believe "neoconservatism" to be.
Thus far, I understand your use the term to mean "nefarious power-grabbers who foment lots of wars all over the world on America's dime, apparently for the hell of it." I hope you can correct my simplistic perception.
This was an old post so feel free to leave comments here if you like but it eseentially sums my view on America 2007, including neoconservatism i.e The Bushie.
Of course you do. What else would I expect from you?
The Canadian gubmint taxes the living shit out of the populace and uses damned nearly half to pay for medical care, but to be able to depend on medical care to save their lives and/or prevent their suffering, they have to pay for additional care via private insurance, and, by your own words, there are some areas where they are not allowed even to do that. And you think my fears are unfounded.
But then, you appear to think that Michael Moore tells the truth. Deeper and deeper, dude, ...
Well, he does tell the truth. Just not all of it. Y'know, DJ, the same disgust with which you look at health care systems like Canada's and France is shared by how people in those countries look at ours.
My favorite scene in Sicko is the one with Larry, the golf guy. Larry is a Canadian and an avid golfer who took a trip to the US that ended up costing him thousands of dollars in health bills because he hurt his arm. He is now afraid to visit here unless he buys emergency insurance.
Michale and Larry are sitting on a golf cart talking about the differences between US Health Care and Canadian Health Care. The conversation went something like this.
Moore: So, how do you feel about your tax dollars going to help other people--with their health care?
Larry: Well, everyone needs help from time to time. That's kinda what our country is all about.
Moore: Wow. You sould pretty liberal there. I don't know how your attitude would fly in the US.
Larry: Well, actually, I'm conservative--and, y'know, people get sick. Who's going to help them? I don't mind. That's what being conservative is all about, right?
"Well, he does tell the truth. Just not all of it."
Michael Moore lies, and he lies a lot. It is his stock in trade. Moreover, he is both an admitted liar and a documented liar. His "documentaries" are emphatically not the evidence pool on which gubmint policy ought to be made.
"Y'know, DJ, the same disgust with which you look at health care systems like Canada's and France is shared by how people in those countries look at ours."
Still jumping to conclusions. You'll never learn, will you?
I have never said anything about the health system of France, and you don't have any idea what I think of it. In fact, I know almost nothing about it and I am not interested in it.
Further, I am not interested in the opinions of foreigners about the health care systems (note the plural) that we have here, as their opinions should have no bearing on what is done here in that regard any more than my opinion should have any bearing on what is done there.
"... y'know, people get sick. Who's going to help them? I don't mind. That's what being conservative is all about, right?"
No, that is not what being conservative is all about.
If he doesn't mind helping them, then he is welcome to help them all pleases. I give to charity, too.
What conservatism is not about is inventing new "rights", the exercise of which involves the gubmint taking money from the populace at the point of a gun (yes it is; you can go to prison if you refuse) to pay the costs. That is a liberal notion, notably a favorite crusade of Hillary Clinton and Edward Kennedy in particular, and it is the primary goal of the dimocrat party. On Kennedy's web site, you'll find:
"Health care should be a basic right for all, not just a privilege for a few."
"A basic right," he says. As I noted earlier, health care isn't free. Health care is administered through the work of a great many people. The notion that being the recipient of that care is a "right" is that the people are entitled to the fruits of the work those health care providers do without paying for it. To quote Neal Boortz:
"If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it, to take their money by force for your own needs, then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you."
And the goddamned gubmint cannot turn your "need" into a "right" by fiat.
The point is that not being prevented from having access to health care is a right, but actually receiving that health care without paying for it is not a right. It would be a violation of his rights to prevent a person from receiving health care at a hospital, but it would not a violation of his rights to require him to pay for the care that he receives.
The system that Hillary Clinton tried to force on us would turn that upside down. It would not allow me to receive the health care of my choice by paying for it, and indeed would imprison me if I tried to do so. It would allow me, at the point of a gun, only the health care that a bureaucracy set up by her would sanction, and no more. Such would be an enormous abrogation of my rights to my own body. Opposing such an abrogation of rights is one thing that being conservative is all about.
What Michael Moore champions is a liberal, far left notion, not a conservate notion. That he states otherwise, and that he champions it, are strong indicators of just how twisted he is. That you champion him is a strong indicator of how twisted you are.
""As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.
She is not going to be able to put such a system in place with those folks influencing her as much as they now do. As far as Canada goes, their sytsem would be desireable as it is privately driven and people can choose to have whatever health care they desire-public or private."
Mark, excuse me for pointing this out, but you are full of it!
Do you know how many hospitals and doctors are pushing for socialization of medicine?
Here's a clue; Bunches.
Do these people, including you, know anything special about the situation that I don't? Here's another clue for you; I seriously doubt it.
If you must know why there are at least two reasons, generally, I can come up with as to why this is the case.
One, what you are attempting to argue with the Buyer/Provider scheme is nothing short of eyewash. It doesn't promote competition and the essential aspect of it is that government has the money, and therefore exercises all of the control. It WILL dictate, eventually, who is served, who DOES the serving, and in the end, if you will get served at all. You are actively ignoring THE most important thing in the equation, and that is the simple economics of the situation. Case closed. If you need some further explanation, it can be provided, but your assumption about how "perfect" or "brilliant" or however you prefer to describe it, the system of "single payer" systems is, is a skewed understanding of who is really in charge.
I am NOT arguing that the current system is perfect. It isn't. Nothing is, nor will there ever be a system that is, and I'm finding it increasing hard to get this concept drilled through the hard skulls of people just like you. People just want it that way, so they just think that with enough diligence and money and talk, it can be made perfect. GET IT OUT OF YOUR HEAD, PLEASE!
Second. My dad has been a healthcare administrator for 35 years. He has managed a couple of small practices, and several that were numbered well into the hundreds. He has done a stint at a major teaching hospital, and some at private clinics. Universally, he says, there are a couple of things that doctors are; usually, quite competant at medicine, and always lousy with money.
He has reviewed more of this shit than all people you've ever talked to who profess to know anything about it, and he has come to the conclusion that there IS no way to fix it. This is coming from a man who's been in this shit for as long as I've been alive, has turned around no less than a dozen practices from red to black ink, and has three master's degrees, with one of those being an MBA, to back it up. If he says so about healthcare, I'm rather inclined to agree with him about it. Oh, and one last thing, Mark, he's a devout Clintonite. He voted for the man twice, and probably did a write in for him two more times, just because he hates Bush so much.
Guess what, Mark, he's going to vote for shrill-voiced Hillary on the next go-round, and he also knows what she will be able to get through with her political mite. He doesn't expect to be employable after that. Ever. He is, somehow, looking forward to it.
You don't have a clue about this subject Mark. Just leave it at that, willya?
There is a simple description, in plain language, of the principle that guides Clinton and Kennedy. It is:
People need [blank], so those who work should be forced, at the point of a gun if necessary, to provide it to everyone.
The [blank] can be filled in with anything.
I can hear the shrill screaming now: "But people die without health care!"
Yup. They do.
They die without food and shelter, too. Where does it end? Are those of us with a work ethic supposed to provide everyone with everything they need?
The principle can be reduced to a political slogan, too. It is:
"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs."
Now where have I heard that before?
It's been tried before. In fact, it is still being tried now. The result is high demand, low supply, shortages, parasitism, corruption, and, most importantly, the absolute subjugation of freedom under the heel of the almighty goddamned gubmint.
Don't think so, Mark? Perhaps you could visit North Korea and ask the proletariat what they think of their dictatorship. After all, you have a "need" to know and they have the ability to satisfy your "need", so they are supposed to provide you an earful. What do you suppose they would say if they knew they wouldn't be shot for saying it?
Sorry it took me so long, but I have read your "definition" of neoconservatism. Frankly, even if I were to accept your single premise (that "Bushies" have unshakeable, unstoppable faith in their positions), that would still tell me nothing at all about what these "Bushies" actually believe.
Or, more importantly, why they believe it.
And this is the crux. I don't believe that you understand neoconservatism—its premises, its motivations, its concerns, its goal. Indeed, I don't believe that you have ever seriously tried to understand neoconservatism (or even Bush himself, who is less an ideologue than a hesitant pragmatist).
This makes discussion rather difficult, given that you must necessarily ascribe the actions of "Bushies" to malice, since you lack the basis to ascribe them to anything else.
(I liked the part where you said liberals were inherently more introspective than "Bushies," indeed fatally so!)
I should add that I am, at most, one third neoconservative, and that in a theoretical sense only. I doubt that neoconservatism can propose a comprehensive political program that would work in the American context.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/08/another-golden-oldie.html (56 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
A quote from that comment says:
"...the disagreements and political lines right now are not as regional as they were 150 years ago."
It's very interesting to me that the vast majority of the collectivist voters in the United States live in three small geographic locations, which can be broadly delineated as:
- The East Coast
- The Left Coast
- The Mississippi valley
If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2000 and 2004 elections, this becomes extremely obvious. The east coast, with NY(F)C was solidly Dem-wing, as was the entire left coast, from San Diego to Seattle. The Mississippi valley, from New Orleans up through St. Louis, all the way to Minneapolis, was solidly socialist.
But even within those states, as soon as you got away from the major population centers, the trend swings strongly towards the Rep-wing. There are huge divisions between coastal Kalifornia, and the eastern and northern portions of that state, as there are in Washington State. Upstate New York has completely different voting patterns than do the heavily urban areas.
My personal opinion (completely unsupported by any facts or data...just an opinion) is that there is a sorting mechanism that occurs. Those people who tend to be collectivists also tend to like to live in densely populated urban areas, while people with stronger indivualist traits tend to live in areas with more widely spread populations.
As an aside, note that the gun-control advocates also tend to come from areas where concepts such as individual responsibility fade into the concept of the "collective".
I'm tempted to say that these "regional" aspects of the disagreements along political, philosophical and economic lines can be quite clearly seen when mapped. It's just that they don't correlate to state boundaries (as in the Civil War/War Between the States) as they once did.
Quick post before I read the links. I think the 2008 election is going not going to be as regional as you think.
Alright, there's a lot of information here so I guess I'm not sure what point you wanted me to get, Kevin.
2008 GA will make far greater ramifications than most realize.
What happened leading up to, and directly after, the '00 and '04 elections will seem quite tame in comparison.
If the Donks lose another Presidential election, with the attendant wailing and claims of voter fraud that will surely follow, we will start to see stuff happen in this country, all across the country, that we've seen the Eco-terrorist do, or the like.
The hatred has been fomenting over on that side for a good long while, and they're all quite mentally challenged, being ruled by their emotions, as we all know.
Just watch.
Scarier still, if they manage to win, we will be subject to Der Fuhrer Rodham Clinton, and we all know what that will be like, don't we? I shudder at the thought of it, but contingencies must be thought out and planned for. Chairman Mao will be smiling if she gets the reins.
Silly Mark. The first rule of Smallest Minority, instead of "Do not talk about Fight Club", is "Read The Whole Thing".
Well, I did read the whole thing (Fight Club is one my fave's btw) and there are so many points to address I didn't want to waste Kevin's time.
But if his main point was about our society committing suicide, I would have to say I agree but for much different reasons.
I think that the people who have been in power for the last eights years have created an unreality of psychotic neo-conservatism. I use the word "neo-conservatism" because there is nothing conservative about the agenda that has been pushed for the last eight years. Personal liberties-gone, Less Government-listen to us and all your fears will go away, Individual Responsibility-who me? Not our fault, it's all the terrorists. Oh and I can break the law whenever I want because I'm a Neo-Con! I don't have to follow the same rules that those paintywaist adulterer liberals follow.
The general gist of what is posted here is that liberal elites are to blame for our sewer drainage as a country and, while I think they do cause problems, they are nowhere near as powerful (and thus more damaging) as men like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, or Bill Kristol. These men have the backing of a tremendous amount of wealth, are drunk with power, and are quite literally destroying our future. That includes all of you, btw, who are under the bizarre impression that they are somehow protecting us.
They have also made you all believe that that it is the fault of Hillary Clinton, who is basically pushing the same agenda as they are.
Divide and Conquer...it's pretty much happened, hasn't it?
(*sigh*)
This is what I don't understand:
How can ANYBODY delude themselves into thinking that this all STARTED with the "selection" of GW Bush and the NeoCons?
Sweet bleeding jeebus!
Um, why do you call it "thinking", Kevin?
.....
.....
.....
I was trying to go for polite, but then I decided my obligation to "polite" is discharged when accused of having been brainwashed into believing that Hillary Clinton has the agenda that has sekritly been THE EVIL NEOCON CABAL ALL ALONG!!
Dude, how old are you? I'm serious: did you just not start paying attention until 2000, never took more than a cursory glance at history, what?
I'm not sure whom you're addressing, LabRat. I think I need a copy of the script.
In any case, I was attempting a joke, based on comments long in the past in these here parts, to the effect that self-delusion isn't thinking. Perhaps I need to include a script of my own.
DJ, she's addressing Mark. It's quite obvious.
DJ: I was talking to him before, so I assumed it'd scan as talking to him again. My bad.
I don't mind offending intentionally, but I really don't like to do it accidentally, so I thought I'd make sure I wasn't. I promise to pay better attention in the future. My bad, not yours.
Our government has lost all pretext of being on our side. Both of the elected branches have an approval rating of less than 25%. Some republic. The judicial branch turns the illegal aliens who rape 5 year olds out on bail so they can murder four high school kids. Neither congress nor the president want to do anything about our open borders. If just one in a hundred illegals is a bad guy there are more of them here than we have troops in Iraq. At best.
Lab, check out who has been funding Hillary's campaign....same people that funded Bush's. She is very tight with the people that pull the strings in this country. I know that most of you are looking forward to 4-8 more years of Clinton bashing but I think you will find yourselves very satisified with her actions should she become president. I'm 40, btw.
Now, I don't think this all started in 2000. It was actually first noticed by a Republican President named Dwight Eisenhower in the late 1950s. He tried to warn us and we didn't listen. The president after him was killed because he tried to stop it.
And every president since that time has, to one degree or another, contributed to the suicide of our country. The last eight years have seen a hastening, if you will, of an agenda that could lead to our downfall. These men who run our country are NOT acting in OUR best interest. This is a fact and to fop it off as "Bush Psychosis" (as I'm sure you will) is terribly shortsighted.
There are good people on both sides of the aisle who will never be elected because they will not further this agenda. There are also good people, Colin Powell comes to mind, who have tried and failed to work within the horribly corrupt system and failed.
Honestly, start looking for the real enemy here, folks. It's not David Geffen or Steven Spielberg. It's certainly not Sean Penn or Ben Afleck. You need to take that extra step out of your comfort zone and admit that "supposed" conservatives is betraying all of you.
that supposed conservatives ARE betraying all of you--sheesh...
Good stuff as always, Kevin.
One factoid I find very unsettling - the "R" word is being used more often and by more people (both raw numbers and across the political spectrum) in any time that I can remember, 'cept for '68.
5 B's and open eyes, ladies and gentlemen....
And supposed liberals are betraying you.
And there appears to be NO ONE willing, much less able, to fix it.
So we're just going to merrily tear the whole thing down around us.
You see, Mark, the difference between you and I is that I think that conservatism is less likely to be destructive, so while the supposed conservatives may be betraying me, they're still better than the supposed liberals who seem quite eager to tear it all apart because it's so flawed and hypocritical and unfair and unjust and unequal.
Yes, we see the mechanisms that have been constructed (many since well before the Eisenhower administration) we just think that the Left will be more than happy to put them together. We hope the Right will be more circumspect.
The anarchists think we're both crazy.
The anarchists may be right.
"I think you will find yourselves very satisified with her actions should she become president."
Mark, I don't know you from Adam, sir, and I am not trying to flame up some war at Kevin's place, here, but Jesus, man, shut your pie-hole about that filthy, manipulative c*nt!
I know you hate the neo-con, BushChaneyWhateverYouWantToCallItThisWeek conglomerate. WE ALL KNOW THIS.
I don't like them either.
Most of us don't. Even the ones who would own up to voting for them. Twice. I know I did.
Lesser of the evils, if you will. It's not something to be proud of, but choices must be made.
Hillary is a SOCIALIST. She would even admit to it if she really understood what she stands for, in terms of policy, ethics and "economic" decisions (that's newspeak for "taxes").
Sorry, the Republicans can put up an empty suit with Condi as Veep come '08, and I'd still vote for them over that other bitch that's getting the nod for the Donks.
I may not like it, but that's the way it'll be. Count on it.
B, I think you need to take a look at Hillary's donor list. In her last campaign for Senate, she was 2nd only to Rick Santorum for contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from those....um....evil communist bastards. In addition, take a look at her donors from New York State. All huge defense contractors.
So, please, stop listening to the drivel that comes out of the right wing propaganda machine and take a look at the facts.
Kevin, I think basic conservatism has some real merit. I respect individual liberty and repsonsibility. I understand how you think that there are liberals trying to take that away from you. In some ways, you are right. But so are the conservatives that are running the party now. It's all the same, sadly, in the end.
It seems to me that the "powers that be" don't want us to have a candidate we can all love, right? I mean, is there anyone on this blog that would have a problem with Colin Powell?
"I think you will find yourselves very satisified with her actions should she become president."
This blog is about guns, about the right to keep and bear arms. On that subject, Hillary Clinton rates a zero on a scale from 0 to 100. The only reason she doesn't rate any lower is because the scale doesn't go any lower.
And you think that "we" would be "very satisfied with her actions should she become president".
Mark, I've never witnessed anyone more out of touch with cold hard reality than you are. Kevin was being charitable when he said you haven't got a clue. You've reached the bottom of the hole, dude. How much deeper do you expect to dig?
DJ, I think we both like going to the movies right? I am willing to bet you 2 tickets and all the popcorn and soda you can eat and drink that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, the gun laws will stay exactly the same. All of you will continue to enjoy your weapons and your collections--of that I have no doubt.
This post was about the suicide of our nation in regards to our international policies. On that topic, should she be elected, you will see her continue the current policy in Iraq and feed an inherently corrupt system, of which she is firmly entrenched.
"please, stop listening to the drivel that comes out of the right wing propaganda machine and take a look at the facts."
Mark,
I can read just fine, thanks.
So, let me preface what I'm about to say with this; I don't like Santorum, either, and I'm not a right winger, as you've obviously misjudged.
I am not concerned, as it seems that so many, including you, are, with how far left or right someone is. What I am more concerned with is someone's authoritarian streak, and whether it runs toward the absolute, or if it runs toward the libertarian end. That's far more important to me than right or left. Get it?
I don't need some kind of lecture on the merits of the Republican versus Democrat parties, their platforms, or their individual voting records, nor their contributors and financiers. I know they are all crooked, lying bastards to begin with. Them's the breaks, and until the Donks get back toward some semblance of individual civil liberty in their national platform, I ain't voting for 'em.
How 'bout those facts?
And this bit;
"should she be elected, you will see her continue the current policy in Iraq and feed an inherently corrupt system, of which she is firmly entrenched."
Yes. She will, and you know what? She is going to give the Donk base some dipshit "reason" why it's now "all good" and the overwhelming majority of the rank-and-file are going to turn around and go home and they're going to be A-OK with it. Do you understand what I'm getting at yet?
Hilary is dangerous, and in a way that W couldn't ever conceive of. He just doesn't care to walk on the right people, of enough of them, to get what he wants. Hilary has no such scrupples, and don't even argue with me on that point. YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT!
Well, I'm not going to argue with you that Hillary is dangerous. I think she would be an awful president for many of the same reasons you list above. I don't think, however, it will be because she is a Socialist. There are going to be a might big group of Captialist donors that are going to be quite angry with her if that's the case and that was my original point.
Oh, and this...
"..W couldn't ever conceive of. He just doesn't care to walk on the right people, of enough of them, to get what he wants."
Umm...wow....what are you smoking and can I have some please?
"DJ, I think we both like going to the movies right?"
You jump to conclusions as if it were a virtue. I haven't been to the movies in over 20 years. Don't assume you know what I think because I'm like you, because I am emphatically not like you.
"I am willing to bet you 2 tickets and all the popcorn and soda you can eat and drink that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, the gun laws will stay exactly the same. All of you will continue to enjoy your weapons and your collections--of that I have no doubt."
Your lack of doubt is a perfect measure of your ignorance. You don't get "it" and you don't get "us". Our objection to Hillary Clinton is simply beyond your comprehension. We revere the Second Amendment and the right which it guarantees, in great measure because we understand that the unfettered ability to exercise that right is what protects all our other rights from abrogation by our own gubmint.
Here is Bill Clinton on 08/12/93:
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
Hillary Clinton embodies precisely that philosophy. It is a perfect description of her political philosophy and her hunger for raw power.
NO candidate for public office is qualified, in my opinion, if they do not publicly, by word and deed, support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hillary Clinton is at the opposite end of that spectrum. It is simply not possible that I would be satisfied with her actions if she became President, and I will not delude myself to the contrary.
Now, let's juxtapose three of your statements:
"I think you will find yourselves very satisified with her actions should she become president."
and
"Well, I'm not going to argue with you that Hillary is dangerous."
and
"... what are you smoking and can I have some please?"
You're not fooling anyone. You need treatment, dude. The drugs you need are not for fun.
Mark, you are tone-deaf and a chronic categorizer. You have been told multiple times with varying degrees of asperity that neither Kevin nor the majority of his commenters are the sort of right-wing O'Reilly Factor conservatives that you have a mental picture of, and each time you start off making sweeping blanket statements addressing us as if we worship at the altar of Limbaugh and then acting surprised when you are told off for it.
You started off asserting that it is "neo-cons" (presumably rubbing their hands together and twirling mustaches) who are robbing us of our personal liberties while somehow brainwashing us into believing it's the Clintons' fault... on a blog primarily dedicated to the proposition that the second amendment is the most vital one in the bunch... and coincidentally has been one of the few where the cause of civil rights has actually picked up a little gain in the last ten years.
You tell us "conservatives" aren't to be trusted- again, on a blog with a strong theme of distrusting ALL government- and damned if I can pick out a point or logical flow of argument that indicates that the people you seem to think we've been fooled into distrusting the most are any better. The condescending bit about us liking Hillary because she'll pursue Bush-like foreign policies might have gone better if there had been a point stouter than "the Right Wing Noise Machine (tm) has pulled the wool over your eyes, you poor sheep" somewhere in there. Resorting to conspiracy theory (which seems to boil down to "rich people are all in it together") to explain why Hillary shouldn't bother us isn't all that impressive either.
Show some indication you have some clue who you're talking to and you'll have the respect you seem to want. Start with the assumption that it is possible for rational, thinking people to come to conclusions wildly different from yours without major carelessness or gullibility. You may not believe it is SO in our case, but unless you just want to troll there's nothing productive in letting it show so clearly through.
LabRat, don't hold your breath. You're speaking to someone from the "reality-based community" who can write something like this:
"To illustrate my point about the FACT that conservatives talk a good game about thinking but in reality are wrapped up in a one dimensional, overly emotional 8-year old stubborn-temper tantrum-child like view of the world, we need look no further than Fred Thompson."
And someone who believes that Barack "I would invade Pakistan, but I would meet with Cuba, North Korea, and Iran" Obama is - his words:
"Barack Obama, to put it simply, is America. You can see it in the story of his life, which can be read by clicking here or by buying his first book, Dreams of My Father, by clicking here. His second book, The Audacity of Hope (click here to buy), to put it simply, is what America should be. He is extremely intelligent, compassionate, and, what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in an abundance of intellectual curiosity."
And:
"We have been divided and conquered. It is time to put someone in the White House who is going to truly unite us and make us stronger. We need a leader that is going to show us the power within ourselves and give us the freedom to explore our true potential. More importantly, we need to realize how sacred his message is and how vital it is that we protect it. There is no doubt in my mind that sometime between now and the election, an attempt is going to be made on Senator Obama's life. If he becomes too powerful, if he gets the nomination, if he wins the presidency, if he uses the power of the presidency for the common good of all of us, the men who stand to lose the most will attempt and possibly succeed in taking him out.
"If it happens, people will say it is because he was black. A "crazed racist" will be blamed. That will be a lie. My hope is that all of you reading this will know the real reason why. It will be because he wanted, like Jack, Martin, and Bobby, to give more power to the comman man and make things equal....and better for more people."
Yes, this is someone with a firm grip on reality. This is why I dismiss him.
But your comment is outstanding, as usual.
I've been voting Republican in desperation, not from conviction. Like Thomas Sowell said about Republicans and Democrats about personal freedom: "Better third rate firemen than first rate arsonists."
So, Kevin, am I to take it that you think that Jack, Martin and Bobby were each killed by a lone nut?
Labrat, go back and take a look at some of the complimentary things I have said about people on this blog. I am pretty careful to point out that I don't think that folks that post here are all the same--or Bushies for that matter. I appreciate that.
DJ, whatever you want to bet is fine by me. Hillary is dangerous but not for the reasons you think.
I don't gamble (again jumping conclusions, aren't you?).
You don't know the many reasons why I think Hillary Clinton is dangerous, and you clearly imply that you don't think her views on individual rights in general or the Second Amendment in particular make her dangerous.
What you cannot publicly admit, regardless of whether or not you privately accept it, is that Kevin, LabRat, I, and anyone else for that matter, are fundamentally right on something about which you are fundamentally wrong. Very few people I have ever known have much tolerance for being treated like a fool by a fool. I suspect that you have spent a lifetime not understanding that the people around you see through such like the vacuum it is, and that is why they don't respect you.
I don't know about Kevin, but as for me, Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Thousands of people get killed in America every day, and 99% of them are by lone nuts. Politicians are not special in this regard.
Phelps, just so I am clear, all of the conspiracy ideas...ALL of them are just plain wrong, have no basis in fact and are just plain looney?
DJ, I think her views on individual rights are, in fact, dangerous...in exactly the same way President Bush's are dangerous. The Patriot Act will continue or get worse, wiretapping, individual freedoms etc.
I don't think you are a fool, DJ. Or anyone else that posts here for that matter. You are set in your ways and there is no wavering from that. You don't want to hear about how much money Hillary gets from defense contractors and the health care industry. It takes away from the pure villain you have made her out to be.
As opposed to the pure villain that George W. Bush, Cheney's hand-puppet is in your world?
Phelps, just so I am clear, all of the conspiracy ideas...ALL of them are just plain wrong, have no basis in fact and are just plain looney?
When 95% of (pick one: conspiracy theories, UFO sightings, fringe pseudosciences) turn out to be bullshit, the odds are that the unexplained and unproven 5% is also bullshit.
Conspiracy theories virtually always depend on a group of people- sometimes a comically large one, as in your example- displaying a level of security consciousness, cooperation, and organization that they simply never seem to be able to achieve in a non-conspiracy setting.
You are set in your ways and there is no wavering from that. You don't want to hear about how much money Hillary gets from defense contractors and the health care industry. It takes away from the pure villain you have made her out to be.
First you say you don't think we're fools, and then you go on to say we're willfully deaf and blind and think of Hillary as a pure villian. That, sir, is taking us for fools.
As opposed to the pure villain that George W. Bush, Cheney's hand-puppet is in your world?
The chronically honest are always surprised when they are cheated, liars are always surprised by genuine and consistent honesty, the analytic are always surprised by the thoughtless, and people who see the world in terms of conspirational teams of good and evil can't fathom people who don't- merely that they must be on the other side. (Even if they're not bad people, just stupidly resistant.)
"DJ, I think her views on individual rights are, in fact, dangerous ..."
So, she is dangerous for one of the reasons I had stated after all. Is that really your MO, dude, argument for the sake of argument?
No, as I see it, we both dislike Hillary. We both dislike her because she will, more than likely continue the current policies of less individual freedom. Why she is going to do this is where we part ways..
You think it is because she is a socialist, bent on abosulute government authority in all areas of our lives.
I say it is because she gotten into bed with the same people President Bush has and is beholden to her (very much) capitilist contributors.
We also disagree on what she will, if elected, about gun control.
Since it was so long, I put my reply on conspiracies in general on my blog.
You think it is because she is a socialist, bent on abosulute government authority in all areas of our lives.
Again with jumping to conclusions. Why don't you ask me what I think instead of telling me what I think?
I know she is a socialist, and so would you if you cleared that conspiracy theory garbage dump out of your head. She established her philosophy and her credentials thereto long before anyone contributed so much as a penny to her. Read what she had said and tried to do for the past 15 years and try to find a philosophy that describes her. It's called socialism.
I don't think she is bent on "abosulute government authority in all areas of our lives". Do you ever speak in any terms except hyperbole?
I think she is bent on, among other things, high taxes and tax rates, socialized medicine that would make Canada's scheme look desirable in comparison, and complete elimination of the right to keep and bear arms. Her statements over the years make it plain that she believes an individual has worth and rights only to the extent that he is a member of a group, and his rights are only the rights of that group. That is socialism.
Most importantly, she utterly loathes the military. She is utterly unfit to serve as Commander In Chief of the armed forces of this country.
She is, like her "husband", a master of deceit. She is fundamentally dishonest to a degree one seldom finds even among politicians. Their single biggest talent is the ability to induce the suspension of disbelief in an audience, and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
DJ, I am simply basing what I write about you on what you have said here in comments.
You wrote
"I think she is bent on, among other things, high taxes and tax rates, socialized medicine that would make Canada's scheme look desirable in comparison.."
This is flat out wrong. Read this:
"As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.
She is not going to be able to put such a system in place with those folks influencing her as much as they now do. As far as Canada goes, their sytsem would be desireable as it is privately driven and people can choose to have whatever health care they desire-public or private.
"As far as Canada goes, their sytsem would be desireable as it is privately driven and people can choose to have whatever health care they desire-public or private."
You are astoundingly ill-informed, really to the point of utter cluelessness, but we all know that. You really don't read the papers, do you? (And I mean that metaphorically, seeing as how such simple things have to be explained to you.)
I suggest you begin with this:
http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/
That is the web site of the Canadian Health Care system, i.e. the "horse's mouth", as it were. Here, I'll save you the trouble:
"Canada's health care system is a group of socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens. It is publicly funded and administered on a provincial or territorial basis, within guidelines set by the federal government.
Under the health care system, individual citizens are provided preventative care and medical treatments from primary care physicians as well as access to hospitals, dental surgery and additional medical services. With a few exceptions, all citizens qualify for health coverage regardless of medical history, personal income, or standard of living.
Canada's health care system is the subject of much political controversy and debate in the country. Some question the efficiencies of the current system to deliver treatments in a timely fashion, and advocate adopting a private system similar to the United States. Conversely, there are worries that privatization would lead to inequalities in the health system with only the wealthy being able to afford certain treatments."
Do you get it? Canada's system is not a private system, it is socialized medicine under the control of the goddamned gubmint.
Now, go do your homework. You'll find that Canadians in large numbers come here to receive treatment and procedures that they cannot timely receive there. Why? Because there, they cannot, by law, pay money to a provider to receive treatment that the gubmint provides too slowly to suit them, or to save their lives. They can receive treatment only as directed by and per the rules and the schedule of the goddamned gubmint. To even attempt to circumvent these rules is a crime.
"This is flat out wrong."
So, you think she is not bent on socialized medicine, huh? Beginning right after Slick Willie was sworn in, she tried to implement a health care plan that would have made it a felony for you to spend your own money to pay for medical care for yourself. You could be imprisoned and your rights to keep and bear arms and to vote could be taken away because you paid a doctor to lance a boil on your ass.
Were you asleep when she tried this? Do you think she wasn't serious?
You need to understand a few things about the Clintons that you apparently don't. They are, above everything else, all politician, all the time. They are a marriage of political convenience, as that is the only explanation as to why she hasn't dumped him. They are consummate liars who have raised the tactic of The Big Lie to an art form. She does nothing without consideration of how it affects her politically, and it shows transparently to anyone who cares to see.
The sweat on his palms had barely dried from his taking an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" than he signed into law bans on certain firearms, saying, "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." They both share, and are driven by, the subjugation of the individual to the gubmint.
And you think she doesn't like higher taxes? Her own words are, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She likes taxes.
Their's is a marriage of political convenience. He was in it for the world's biggest ego trip. His statement at a "press conference" delivered as George W. Bush was being sworn in (he just couldn't let go of the limelight, could he?) was, "You gave me the ride of my life!" She is in it for the worlds biggest power trip. When documents were subpoenaed from the President, not from her, her response when they were turned over was, "I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."
She is one shitload more intelligent than you are, dude, and she is playing you, and millions of other people, like a fiddle.
I did a quick search for you. Google "Canadian health care" and see what comes up.
I looked at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705
It begins with:
"A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months."
Three fucking months to get an electrocardiogram. Golly, but I am so totally, like, impressed, and stuff.
Ah, but it gets better:
"The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation."
Hence the saying, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
And better still:
"The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care."
Wonderful.
Need a new hip? How about:
"a yearlong wait for hip replacement surgery"
Wouldn't that be fun?
Two years ago, I had an "almost" heart attack. It runs in the family. The next day I was diagnosed via cardiac catheterization as having two blocked coronary arteries. (Watch your cholesterol, dude, mine is now 116.) The day after that I had triple cardiac bypass surgery. Damn, but do I feel good. The procedure is a train wreck, but the results are astounding.
And I am so very, very pleased that I live here, and not in Canada.
Once correction to your righteous rant DJ: Canada's Supreme Court struck down the law that prevented private health care in 2005.
It remains to be seen how well an "unequal" system where "the rich" can afford better health care than others is going to work.
Thank you, Kevin. I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of the change.
Now, compare what she tried to cram up our kazoos when she was simply the wife of Slick Willie to what Canada now has. It gives considerable credence to my statement that "I think she is bent on, among other things ... socialized medicine that would make Canada's scheme look desirable in comparison ..."
I like this statement in that article:
"The larger lesson here is that health care isn't immune from the laws of economics. Politicians can't wave a wand and provide equal coverage for all merely by declaring medical care to be a "right," in the word that is currently popular on the American left."
Yup. People who provide health care, and companies who provide the equipment, supplies, and facilities they use to provide that care, all expect, rightly so, to be paid for their work and their products. It ain't free, and it follows the law of supply and demand.
And:
"There are only two ways to allocate any good or service: through prices, as is done in a market economy, or lines dictated by government, as in Canada's system. The socialist claim is that a single-payer system is more equal than one based on prices, but last week's court decision reveals that as an illusion. Or, to put it another way, Canadian health care is equal only in its shared scarcity."
When you are on your way to a hospital ER, wondering if you will be alive tomorrow, where would you want that hospital to be?
Kevin, go see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U
(hat tip to Neal Boortz)
Apparently, the change in Canada's system in 2005 was not country-wide and is still in flux.
The cognitive dissonance of those who support such systems is much the same as for those who support gun control, isn't it?
DJ, a conservative friend of mine went and saw Sicko togehter. I had him write his view on the film. Here it is.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/08/sick-to-death.html
I think you need to open your mind a little bit, there some of the good and bad in both systems. At the end of the day, American Health Care is a racket. It started with Nixon and has gotten way out of control.
As far as "going and doing my homework," well, here's what I found:
Canada's health care system is a publicly funded health care system, with most services provided by private entities. While the Canadian government call it a "public system it is not "socialized medicine".
Studies have found Canada's health outcomes about equal to other industrial countries.
In Canada the various levels of government pay for about 70% of Canadians' health care costs, which is about average for a developed country. Canada is unusual in that the government pays for almost 100% of hospital and physician care, but contributes very little in areas such as prescription drug costs, dental care and Emergency Medical Services.
About 30% of Canadians' health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses. There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.
The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises. Most all doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.
A CBC report(August 21, 2006) on the health care system reports the following:
"Dr. Albert Schumacher, former president of the Canadian Medical Association estimates that 75 per cent of health-care services are delivered privately, but funded publicly. "Frontline practitioners whether they're GPs or specialists by and large are not salaried. They're small hardware stores. Same thing with labs and radiology clinics …The situation we are seeing now are more services around not being funded publicly but people having to pay for them, or their insurance companies. We have sort of a passive privatization."
Contrary to most federal politicians views, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has taken the stance in favor of more private sector healthcare services as a means to improve healthcare for Canadians.
In a move to further heighten their position, the CMA will be replacing their current president with Dr. Brian Day in August 2007. Dr Brian Day is the owner of the largest private healthcare hospital in Canada and a vocal supporter of increasing private healthcare in Canada.
Each province regulates its medical profession through a self-governing College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for licensing physicians, setting practice standards, and investigating and disciplining its members.
And finally,
The Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the 2007 (and earlier) reports of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a government-sponsored watchdog agency
Although there are long waits for some non-emergency procedures (notably hip- and knee-replacement surgery, plastic surgeries, and eye surgery) and long waits for specific other procedures in specific provinces, most waits appear to be normal with respect to other health care systems.
Sources:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/about-apropos/index_e.html
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/1/36
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118411829790962883.html
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/89
http://www.soonews.ca/viewarticle.php?id=13596
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/aib_provincial_wait_times_e.pdf
DJ, I have several friends from Canada. I live close to the border here in the Northwoods of Minnesota. They all have private insurance, can go to whatever doctor they want, never have to wait for months, and are not "directed" by the government to do anything.
Some more homework for you, DJ, from some of the same sources above....
In Canada the private sector has always been the frontline in healthcare. Canadian doctors operate as revenue/profit businesses and are the primary gatekeepers to the whole healthcare system. The doctors also have no controls placed on them by the primary payer for services, the government, and they are therefore in a position to easily recommend more visits and are guaranteed payment by the government.
Contrary to popular belief, selling private health insurance that could cover hip replacements and MRI scans is legal in several provinces, but because they are available without charge in the public system, so far there has been no market for private insurance for what the Canada Health Act defines as "medically necessary services."
Much of the political discourse concerning the health care system, as it stands in the year 2006, appears to be politically motivated. Firstly, there is a failure to appreciate and acknowledge that the system is not a true public system, secondly there is a failure to appreciate the system is also private,(a half-truth) in that most services are provided by the private sector, merely publicly funded (though on a set pay scale). While the majority of discussions focus on whether to privatize or not, the question implies that the system is not private, ignores the privatization of the system, and further implies that the system is a true public system, which it is not.
So, I think your fears are largely unfounded.
Okay, so Canada destroys the private payer industry, and then laments that it doesn't spring right back when they lift their boot? What could the market be afraid of? Oh, that's right -- being destroyed again when the political winds shift.
I am drawn to this train-wreck like a moth to a flame, sadly...
Mark, I would be thrilled to see you offer a concise yet sufficiently detailed definition of what you believe "neoconservatism" to be.
Thus far, I understand your use the term to mean "nefarious power-grabbers who foment lots of wars all over the world on America's dime, apparently for the hell of it." I hope you can correct my simplistic perception.
Mastifif,
To answer your question,
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/06/hallelujah-i-have-seen-light.html
This was an old post so feel free to leave comments here if you like but it eseentially sums my view on America 2007, including neoconservatism i.e The Bushie.
"So, I think your fears are largely unfounded."
Of course you do. What else would I expect from you?
The Canadian gubmint taxes the living shit out of the populace and uses damned nearly half to pay for medical care, but to be able to depend on medical care to save their lives and/or prevent their suffering, they have to pay for additional care via private insurance, and, by your own words, there are some areas where they are not allowed even to do that. And you think my fears are unfounded.
But then, you appear to think that Michael Moore tells the truth. Deeper and deeper, dude, ...
Well, he does tell the truth. Just not all of it. Y'know, DJ, the same disgust with which you look at health care systems like Canada's and France is shared by how people in those countries look at ours.
My favorite scene in Sicko is the one with Larry, the golf guy. Larry is a Canadian and an avid golfer who took a trip to the US that ended up costing him thousands of dollars in health bills because he hurt his arm. He is now afraid to visit here unless he buys emergency insurance.
Michale and Larry are sitting on a golf cart talking about the differences between US Health Care and Canadian Health Care. The conversation went something like this.
Moore: So, how do you feel about your tax dollars going to help other people--with their health care?
Larry: Well, everyone needs help from time to time. That's kinda what our country is all about.
Moore: Wow. You sould pretty liberal there. I don't know how your attitude would fly in the US.
Larry: Well, actually, I'm conservative--and, y'know, people get sick. Who's going to help them? I don't mind. That's what being conservative is all about, right?
Umm...yeah. Right!
"Well, he does tell the truth. Just not all of it."
Michael Moore lies, and he lies a lot. It is his stock in trade. Moreover, he is both an admitted liar and a documented liar. His "documentaries" are emphatically not the evidence pool on which gubmint policy ought to be made.
"Y'know, DJ, the same disgust with which you look at health care systems like Canada's and France is shared by how people in those countries look at ours."
Still jumping to conclusions. You'll never learn, will you?
I have never said anything about the health system of France, and you don't have any idea what I think of it. In fact, I know almost nothing about it and I am not interested in it.
Further, I am not interested in the opinions of foreigners about the health care systems (note the plural) that we have here, as their opinions should have no bearing on what is done here in that regard any more than my opinion should have any bearing on what is done there.
"... y'know, people get sick. Who's going to help them? I don't mind. That's what being conservative is all about, right?"
No, that is not what being conservative is all about.
If he doesn't mind helping them, then he is welcome to help them all pleases. I give to charity, too.
What conservatism is not about is inventing new "rights", the exercise of which involves the gubmint taking money from the populace at the point of a gun (yes it is; you can go to prison if you refuse) to pay the costs. That is a liberal notion, notably a favorite crusade of Hillary Clinton and Edward Kennedy in particular, and it is the primary goal of the dimocrat party. On Kennedy's web site, you'll find:
"Health care should be a basic right for all, not just a privilege for a few."
"A basic right," he says. As I noted earlier, health care isn't free. Health care is administered through the work of a great many people. The notion that being the recipient of that care is a "right" is that the people are entitled to the fruits of the work those health care providers do without paying for it. To quote Neal Boortz:
"If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it, to take their money by force for your own needs, then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you."
And the goddamned gubmint cannot turn your "need" into a "right" by fiat.
The point is that not being prevented from having access to health care is a right, but actually receiving that health care without paying for it is not a right. It would be a violation of his rights to prevent a person from receiving health care at a hospital, but it would not a violation of his rights to require him to pay for the care that he receives.
The system that Hillary Clinton tried to force on us would turn that upside down. It would not allow me to receive the health care of my choice by paying for it, and indeed would imprison me if I tried to do so. It would allow me, at the point of a gun, only the health care that a bureaucracy set up by her would sanction, and no more. Such would be an enormous abrogation of my rights to my own body. Opposing such an abrogation of rights is one thing that being conservative is all about.
What Michael Moore champions is a liberal, far left notion, not a conservate notion. That he states otherwise, and that he champions it, are strong indicators of just how twisted he is. That you champion him is a strong indicator of how twisted you are.
""As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.
She is not going to be able to put such a system in place with those folks influencing her as much as they now do. As far as Canada goes, their sytsem would be desireable as it is privately driven and people can choose to have whatever health care they desire-public or private."
Mark, excuse me for pointing this out, but you are full of it!
Do you know how many hospitals and doctors are pushing for socialization of medicine?
Here's a clue; Bunches.
Do these people, including you, know anything special about the situation that I don't? Here's another clue for you; I seriously doubt it.
If you must know why there are at least two reasons, generally, I can come up with as to why this is the case.
One, what you are attempting to argue with the Buyer/Provider scheme is nothing short of eyewash. It doesn't promote competition and the essential aspect of it is that government has the money, and therefore exercises all of the control. It WILL dictate, eventually, who is served, who DOES the serving, and in the end, if you will get served at all. You are actively ignoring THE most important thing in the equation, and that is the simple economics of the situation. Case closed. If you need some further explanation, it can be provided, but your assumption about how "perfect" or "brilliant" or however you prefer to describe it, the system of "single payer" systems is, is a skewed understanding of who is really in charge.
I am NOT arguing that the current system is perfect. It isn't. Nothing is, nor will there ever be a system that is, and I'm finding it increasing hard to get this concept drilled through the hard skulls of people just like you. People just want it that way, so they just think that with enough diligence and money and talk, it can be made perfect. GET IT OUT OF YOUR HEAD, PLEASE!
Second. My dad has been a healthcare administrator for 35 years. He has managed a couple of small practices, and several that were numbered well into the hundreds. He has done a stint at a major teaching hospital, and some at private clinics. Universally, he says, there are a couple of things that doctors are; usually, quite competant at medicine, and always lousy with money.
He has reviewed more of this shit than all people you've ever talked to who profess to know anything about it, and he has come to the conclusion that there IS no way to fix it. This is coming from a man who's been in this shit for as long as I've been alive, has turned around no less than a dozen practices from red to black ink, and has three master's degrees, with one of those being an MBA, to back it up. If he says so about healthcare, I'm rather inclined to agree with him about it. Oh, and one last thing, Mark, he's a devout Clintonite. He voted for the man twice, and probably did a write in for him two more times, just because he hates Bush so much.
Guess what, Mark, he's going to vote for shrill-voiced Hillary on the next go-round, and he also knows what she will be able to get through with her political mite. He doesn't expect to be employable after that. Ever. He is, somehow, looking forward to it.
You don't have a clue about this subject Mark. Just leave it at that, willya?
There is a simple description, in plain language, of the principle that guides Clinton and Kennedy. It is:
People need [blank], so those who work should be forced, at the point of a gun if necessary, to provide it to everyone.
The [blank] can be filled in with anything.
I can hear the shrill screaming now: "But people die without health care!"
Yup. They do.
They die without food and shelter, too. Where does it end? Are those of us with a work ethic supposed to provide everyone with everything they need?
The principle can be reduced to a political slogan, too. It is:
"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs."
Now where have I heard that before?
It's been tried before. In fact, it is still being tried now. The result is high demand, low supply, shortages, parasitism, corruption, and, most importantly, the absolute subjugation of freedom under the heel of the almighty goddamned gubmint.
Don't think so, Mark? Perhaps you could visit North Korea and ask the proletariat what they think of their dictatorship. After all, you have a "need" to know and they have the ability to satisfy your "need", so they are supposed to provide you an earful. What do you suppose they would say if they knew they wouldn't be shot for saying it?
Markadelphia,
Sorry it took me so long, but I have read your "definition" of neoconservatism. Frankly, even if I were to accept your single premise (that "Bushies" have unshakeable, unstoppable faith in their positions), that would still tell me nothing at all about what these "Bushies" actually believe.
Or, more importantly, why they believe it.
And this is the crux. I don't believe that you understand neoconservatism—its premises, its motivations, its concerns, its goal. Indeed, I don't believe that you have ever seriously tried to understand neoconservatism (or even Bush himself, who is less an ideologue than a hesitant pragmatist).
This makes discussion rather difficult, given that you must necessarily ascribe the actions of "Bushies" to malice, since you lack the basis to ascribe them to anything else.
(I liked the part where you said liberals were inherently more introspective than "Bushies," indeed fatally so!)
I should add that I am, at most, one third neoconservative, and that in a theoretical sense only. I doubt that neoconservatism can propose a comprehensive political program that would work in the American context.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>