Healthcare Reform in the US - Page 38

On March 22 2010 09:07 L wrote:

Its captivating to see two sides speaking at each other and repeating talking points at verbatim?

On March 22 2010 09:26 Sadist wrote:
these people are fucking retarded. And why the hell is michigan giving up all this time.

Just because most people dont support something doesnt mean its wrong. You think segregation in the South would have ended if it had to be voted on like this and people voted according to their districts?

Its painful.

On March 22 2010 09:28 neVern wrote:



The government's responsibility is to vote on the basis of the citizens of the United States while constrained under the Constitution. Health Care is not publicly accepted and it is not authorized by the Constitution. Therefore, it should be obvious that Health Care should not be passed.

On March 22 2010 09:26 Sadist wrote:
these people are fucking retarded. And why the hell is michigan giving up all this time.

Just because most people dont support something doesnt mean its wrong. You think segregation in the South would have ended if it had to be voted on like this and people voted according to their districts?

Its painful.

On March 22 2010 09:28 neVern wrote:



The government's responsibility is to vote on the basis of the citizens of the United States while constrained under the Constitution. Health Care is not publicly accepted by a majority of society and it is not authorized by the Constitution. Therefore, it should be obvious that Health Care should not be passed.

On March 22 2010 09:29 KunfO wrote:
It's clear now that in 2010 there will be a new Speaker of the House, a New Senate Majority Leader, a new President in 2012, and a repealed bill sometime in between.

On March 22 2010 08:57 KwarK wrote:
Do you realise a guy earning 100k a year doesn't work 5 times as hard as a guy earning 20k a year? Even if you add in the unpaid work educating themselves it's still nowhere near fair.
It's an inherently unfair system and the only thing keeping it from breaking down is limited socialism. You're right, it is just less well off people voting themselves more. However that doesn't mean they don't deserve more, poverty traps are real as are rich dynasties.

The way I see it the disadvantages of paying the higher rate of tax are nowhere near the advantages of existing within an inherently unfair system. When you insist the poor deserve their plight then you leave them no choice but to take what they feel they are owed by force. When you give them a little money and a lot of hope then they remain subdued.

Marx wasn't wrong about industrial society inevitably leading to revolution, it failed to come to pass because vested interests realised that they needed to adapt an openly unfair and undemocratic society. Socialism only seems unfair if you buy into the idea that it is entirely natural that a person may work all the life in wage slavery due to an accident of birth while another, by a different accident of birth, may be granted education, contacts, capital and a legacy. The moment you shed the idea that capitalism is natural then you'd be amazed how little it is the rich pay for the preservation of the system.

That said, I am a capitalist because it is the system that is most efficient and less, more evenly distributed, would still be less. I am just continually surprised that the beneficiaries of the system have the nerve to refuse to pay for its upkeep, instead claiming with near religious fervour that it is simply the way it must be.

On March 22 2010 09:33 TanGeng wrote:


Ah yes. The idea of "fairness" and the use of political power to enforce fairness. Usually life is unfair because there are quite a few things that depend on the luck of the draw. The people who get paid more are either more lucky, better at negotiating, or are more productive. How hard people work has no meaning especially if the work being done is close to useless. You could slave away 16 hours a day on a farm doing manual labour and it still won't pay well. That's society trying to tell you that you aren't using your time very wisely. ***hint hint hint***

The problem with socialism all these years hasn't been compassion, redistribution of wealth, or social welfare. The problem with socialism is that it attaches those ideals and goals to political power such that instead of money or ability arbitrating the allocation of goods and resources it becomes a game of having the right political connections - if you know the right people - if you have the right friends in political office. Despite all the invocation of "fairness" the political economy is inherently less fair less equitable and its decisions are hardly compassionate or morally sound.

State socialism poses the question of "Who decides for whom," and divides the population into two unequal classes, the privileged political class and the unprivileged commoner who must obey the decrees of the privileged. Some rather prefer such a kind of society since it bears more resemblance to the hierarchy of a monarchy.

Stateless socialism as Marx suggested isn't bad suggestion but it breaks down with too many people. It can't scale. Yet in small group like worker cooperatives, where workers own and manage the capital on equal grounds, it works just fine. Yet the old owner-employee relationship flourishes because Marx never imagined the ever increasing class of white collar workers and the alignment of interests between owners and workers into symbiotic relationship. Marx always considered the capitalists to be parasitic.

On March 22 2010 09:58 KwarK wrote:
The banker isn't using his time any more productively than the builder. Quite the opposite, the builder would last longer without banking than the banker would without a roof over his head. One is simply more replaceable than the other and is therefore able to exert more economic blackmail through the threat of withdrawing his labour.
Productivity and utility should not be confused. And the utility of an individual is just a result of rarity which in turn is usually a product of fortune through genetics and birthright.

Democratic socialism isn't perfect. I admit it does become a political game in which any positive intention is irrelevant. But the system works. My point wasn't against the system as a whole, it was a criticism of the sense of entitlement that the rich have regarding the capitalist system.

On March 22 2010 10:09 TanGeng wrote:


WTF? You think you would last a second without division of labour in any sense? That's an absurd line of argument to take and to call it economic blackmail. If you think division of labour constitutes blackmail, then try living without it. Oh wait. You'll cry, "Unfair!" right?

Democratic socialism is a shit system. It exists because it feeds on the worst of human inclinations, the desire to get something for nothing, by voting themselves other people's money. It's a blight on the world today. It looks good because relatively speaking it's much less of a blight than slavery which mankind tolerated for millenniums.

On March 22 2010 10:09 TanGeng wrote:


WTF? You think you would last a second without division of labour in any sense? That's an absurd line of argument to take and to call it economic blackmail. If you think division of labour constitutes blackmail, then try living without it. Oh wait. You'll cry, "Unfair!" right?

Democratic socialism is a shit system. It exists because it feeds on the worst of human inclinations, the desire to get something for nothing, by voting themselves other people's money. It's a blight on the world today. It looks good because relatively speaking it's much less of a blight than slavery which mankind tolerated for millenniums.

On March 22 2010 10:29 L wrote:

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that economic actors who have near monopolies on their abilities will charge whatever they can get away with and that simply isn't 'fair'.

That's exactly the line of thinking behind the anti-monopolist thought that ran through the states at the time of the dissolution of standard oil and it worked out pretty well seeing as the period straight after became one of the best periods of economic growth ever seen on record. The only difference is that instead of having a monopoly, now we have oligopolies and cartels. Even the libertarian train of thought and their attacks against the AMA, for instance, share in that core belief.

But wow, its impressive that you'd ignore his points to that extent. Given your track record in debates its not surprising that you'd do it; The magnitude in this instance, however, is impressive.

On March 22 2010 11:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Boehner is talking everyone go to CSpan or any news outlet

On March 22 2010 11:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Boehner is talking everyone go to CSpan or any news outlet