[Rhodes22-list] Marxism in USA - Big Al delete, Political

[Brad Haslett]

Robert,

Everyone with even half a heart would like to see all people have access to
health care.  The problem is, equal health care for all means shitty health
for all (I'll think of a more eloquent term tomorrow after some sleep).  The
whole idea of company provided health care was invented during WW2 when
wages were frozen and providing fringe benefits like health care was the
only way to legally provide worker incentives instead of pay raises.
Defined benefit retirements are a thing of the past.  Employer provided
health care plans are still available but the beneficiary contribution is
rising.  Soon, they will be a thing of the past as well if government
sponsored health care is a reality.  Ask anyone from Canada, China, or
Europe - universal government health care sounds nice but doesn't work well
in reality.  Solution?  Simple!  You are responsible for your minor health
care needs.  Stub your toe - suffer or pay out of pocket for your pain
pills.  Runny nose?  Suffer or pay some ridiculous price for a drug that
"cures'" you in the same amount of time it takes for nature to run its
course.  I say  $2500 per year is about the right threshold, and we can give
tax rebates, dollar for dollar, for your first $2500.  Make it universal,
even for people like me with gold-plated health plans.  Rik had it about
right.  The current call for equal health care for all is about what Ed
called it out to be, another Marxist inroad.  Tennessee tried socialized
medicine, it didn't work - the "law of the commons" is still relevant.
There are a number of workable solutions to this problem.  Hillarycare is
not one of them.  WTF  Obamacare is, he hasn't said.  Hope, or Change, or
Hope to Change, I don't know and neither does anyone else. But, maybe I'm
just all wrong.  Please pick the state or the country that has better health
care than ours.  No, no, no, I mean better health care for the average Joe
who busts his ass, stays off drugs, holds down a job, and pays his taxes,
not just anyone who can still fog a mirror and sucks oxygen.

Brad



On Feb 9, 2008 8:36 PM, Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:

> Ed, I have interspersed my comments and
> responses with yours, in the form of a
> debate.  I suspect that you may be tempted
> to agree with some of what I say.
>
> Tootle wrote:
> >
> > Robert Skinner said:  "2. Health care - Rationalize the chaotic
> patchwork of
> > health care in the US.  While there must be limits of what can be
> provided
> > as the basic floor under all US citizens, it is essential that there be
> some
> > minimum of health care for all."
> >
> > It is basic to Marxism to use the power of government to compel people.
> > Where is it said in the American Constitution the central government is
> to
> > impose minimum floors of health care or educational attainment, et al?
>
> It is basic to any government to collect
> taxes for the common weal.  Your labeling
> some government action Marxist does not make
> it so, nor does it make it bad.
>
> The constitution is not the only measure of
> right action.  Given that the emergency rooms
> are now both the health care provider of last
> resort and the most expensive way to deliver
> it, it seems to make both economic and moral
> sense to provide universal preventative care
> at some level.
>
> Requiring and providing immunization against
> childhood diseases and treating some adult
> illnesses such as tuberculosis seems like a
> reasonable thing to do.  Providing viagra to
> septuagenarians doesn't.  Contagious disease
> is a community problem.  Erectile dysfunction
> is not.  The truth (or reasonable course)
> lies somewhere in between.
>
> > The neo-Marxist wants to compel minimum health care to all.  How is this
> > result to be obtained?  Use the power of central government to impose
> their
> > ethereal minimum floor.  That floor is achieved by confiscating from
> those
> > who have attained some wealth and give it those needing that 'minimum
> > floor'.
>
> Not knowing what your functional definition of
> a Marxist is, it is difficult to know what you
> mean by the term "Neo-Marxist".  And any tax
> is confiscatory.  Parsing the result, the
> above is a nul statement as it stands.
>
> > Everyone needs to understand, no matter how noble the cause, it is still
> > Marxism, totalitarianism, and those who advocate it by what ever term
> they
> > use to describe themselves, be it Progressive, Liberal, Enlightened, are
> > still advocating Communism, Totalitarism!
>
> I don't like taxes either, but I pay them.
>
> > The question was posed by Bob Skinner, "Who would you have starve as you
> > express your antipathy toward tax-supported social programs?"  The
> question
> > belies the truth.  No one starves who chooses not to.  You have many
> > organizations, both religious and otherwise that feed others.  Many
> churches
> > assist with what we call soup kitchens.  Other organizations supply
> > sustenance such as "Meals on Wheels" .  That argument is simply an
> > falsehood.
>
> I agree that there are organizations, both
> secular and religious, who help the poor
> with food and other needs.  They provide
> very valuable and morally/politically
> correct support.
>
> But I disagree that they alone can reach
> and sustain all in need.  There are those
> who are mentally and/or physically
> disabled, or just "out of the loop" who
> can or will only be helped by those who
> must do so by law and with tax-supported
> resources, despite their intense revulsion
> or social/political approbation.
>
> > And the statement was made, 'Anyway, as George the second said, "The
> > constitution is just a piece of paper."  Right?'  Wrong, it is a
> > intellectual concept as a basis for freedom.  It is a way of for people
> to
> > achieve their potential.  It is an economic system that has been shown
> to
> > provide greater benefit to mankind than Marxism.  Its results speak for
> > themselves.
>
> I am glad to see that you agree that George
> Bush was completely out of contact with
> reality when he said that.  I'm sorry that
> you misunderstood my attempt at irony.
>
> > It was further stated, "As a citizen of this country, I have the right
> --
> > and obligation -- to work toward keeping it relevant and successful in
> the
> > here and now.  So do you."   Yes, and I have an obligation to point out
> to
> > others, those like you who espouse a economic system that will destroy
> the
> > economic system that created what we now have.
>
> I disagree with that characterization.  There
> are few, if any, absolutes in this world.
> Pure capitalism is one of the cruelest
> tyrannies that one can imagine.  Only when
> feudal barons (might is right) are limited in
> their excesses by the rule of law (the Magna
> Carta comes to mind), do the grand majority
> come to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  And
> that ain't Marxist - it's just fair.
>
> > I rather think that it is important to understand what Harry Jaffa
> pointed
> > out, "Free speech is a priceless and indispensable attribute of a free
> > society because it is a necessary means for deliberating upon public
> policy.
> > But this deliberation does not extend to everything.  Free speech is not
> > false when it denies the use of the liberty to those intent on
> destroying
> > the free society."
>
> Sounds good, but there are a few difficulties.
>
> One man's "free society" is another man's
> segregation or another woman's discrimination.
> A lot depends on your definitions and point
> of view.  And these change with time.  Given
> that, who will determine who is destroying
> whatever is defined as a free society by the
> definers of that time and place?
>
> I firmly believe, at the core of my being,
> that freedom to debate any issue is the
> necessary basis of a truly functional and
> responsive society.
>
> > It must be told, and told over and over, that those advocating Marxism
> are
> > advocating the destruction of America.
>
> I reply, "I do not accept your definition of
> my actions in your terms, as your terms are
> not sufficiently defined to be useful in
> rational discussion."
>
> With regret that I must be so harsh in my
> analysis,
> /Robert
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>