‘Social responsibility’
In his letter Mr. Pirkey used a single mom with two kids working two minimum wage jobs as an example of someone who was being ill-treated by those who practice personal responsibility over social responsibility. He believes we all should chip in to pay for or provide the medical care such a single mom needs.
When those who believe in social over personal responsibility come to me for my contribution to this poor woman’s plight I will simply ask, “Why are you asking me to do anything for her? I thought you believed in social responsibility. Why don’t you have society take care of her? Go ask it.”
Indeed, anyone who agrees with Mr. Pirkey can’t honestly ask anyone to do anything, because asking depends on each person being asked to take personal responsibility for meeting the request.
Mr. Pirkey and his brethren don’t seem to grasp that there is no ‘society’ per se and therefore no such thing as ‘social’ responsibility. Certainly there are groups of people who work together, but any such group is ultimately dependent on the actions of each individual person in the group, i.e. each individual taking personal responsibility.
What Mr. Pirkey really wants is not for the single mom and me to work together for a common purpose, but for me to provide for the single mom. He wants those who have succeeded through personal effort to provide for those who have not, and he would not be bashful about pointing the government gun at us to force us to do it.
Please remember; this is the true meaning of ‘social responsibility’ the next time you hear it.
This letter has not been edited.
There indeed are countries who practice what Russell W. Shurts preaches. Most of them are in Africa. There are no first world countries which practice what he preaches. Connect the dots.
Posted by Truth on June 29, 2007 02:54 PMRussell W. Shurts is spot on! People who preach the benefits of socialized medicine never take into account the feelings of those who have no soul. Russell W. Shurts shouldn't be expected to be anything more than a black hole of evil and self-gratification, sucking up resources and taking up space.
Why should he care if America has the worst health care system of all developed countries? He can't be bothered with insignificant things like whether or not a single mom and her kids will live. It's not like we're talking about attractive white people dying, here. Just poor people whom Russell W. Shurts would rather see dead than be mildly inconvenienced.
Posted by Grog on June 29, 2007 04:19 PMSo there is no society here, I guess the laws, customs and language that bond us together as Americans are not really societal bonds but a vast left-wing conspiracy to make us be civil to one another. Thank you letter writer for clarifying this for me.
Posted by Sean on June 29, 2007 04:48 PMTruth, Grog - By all means, chip in. Give until it hurts. Nobody here's trying to stop you.
Just don't try and force others to give against their will. Last I checked this is still a free country.
You're not trying to preach your morals to me, are you?
Posted by KW on June 29, 2007 04:48 PMKW,
You continue to dumb down all discussions you are a part of. You've managed to cram so much idiocy into your 2 sentence response it made my head hurt. I would have expected nothing less.
The issue isn't whether or not it's good to give to charity. Everyone who has even the tiniest shred of a heart (so everyone except you and the LW) agrees on that.
"Just don't try to force others to give against their will." Why the hell not? I have to give a huge chunk of my paycheck to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis, to build secret CIA prisons overseas, to line Halliburton's pockets and to pay some assbag to tell me what I can and can't smoke. You don't think we could maybe spend a little less on killing people and a little more on trying to keep people alive? You already lost the money. You were already forced to pay. What you didn't get was anything useful. I can't believe you're too stupid to understand that.
"Last I checked, this is still a free country." When was the last you checked? In some propagandist 1950's history book? This is not a "free country." This country "costs money," and we all have to pay for it. I, for one, think that instead of spending money frivolously on your idiotic devil-worshipping satanic Hitler-loving Republican party's stupid, stupid, horrible, dumbass ideas, we could actually try to help people.
You are a horrible, horrible person, and I wish you great physical injury. However, I'm not a callous guy; should I be lucky enough to see my wish granted, I would have no problem chipping in for your health care costs.
Posted by Grog on June 29, 2007 05:04 PMKW asked:
"You're not trying to preach your morals to me, are you?"
That would be like trying to turn a gay person straight.
kw is right.
Posted by [Ben] on June 29, 2007 05:57 PM“You are a horrible, horrible person, and I wish you great physical injury.” I think that says it all…the mindset of a liberal full of hatred, accusing others of the same.
Posted by Uno on June 29, 2007 08:34 PMUno"
It says nothing about anything but the person who wrote it and the opportunist who would choose to use it to attack others with a broad brush.
Posted by Charles B on June 29, 2007 09:56 PMI think I said “a liberal”, and not “all liberals”, but now that you mentioned it, I should of used a broader brush, if the shoe fits…
“idiotic devil-worshipping satanic Hitler-loving Republican party's stupid, stupid, horrible, dumbass ideas” –sounds just like your hero Randi Rhodes on Air America radio, and her like minded (more like mindless) followers.
If healthcare were so bad here grog why then are canadians entering the U.S. for healthcare, why are illegals in london being denied freebies? Because healthcare is so great in london it is able to provide for all the illegals there? Why are doctors without borders helping third world countries?, Because healthcare is so great there?. Its not healthcare thats so bad in America its Insurance companies that do not have compitition.Its easy to dictate price when you are the big dog in town, thats what our ELECTED politicians should be working on, not generalized,socialized medicine.I DO NOT WANT the government I ELECTED to tell me what I can do about my healthcare.I work and have for 34 years paying politicians to act for me, Its now time for them to do what they were elected to do, work for the american people. Health care doesnt need to be reformed, Insurance companies need to be reformed. Correct me if Im wrong, I dont hear folk complaining about healthcare without complaining about cost, and why do they complain about cost? THEY DONT HAVE INSURANCE.Why dont they have insurance? Well some dont want to pay for it, toys take priority,(and I dont mean child toys)some would rather the taxpayer(they refer to as the government, they dont know its the working class who IS THE GOVERNMENT)pay for it, its called medicaid, and I do not refer to those who have spent all they have on an ill family member and now find themselves on medicaid, I refer to those who live like parasites on the taxpayer, or the illegal who thinks its the taxpayers job to cover thier family they dont have any plan to care for, or the woman who continues to have kids by men who are slugs.Dont tell me Im not a caring person, It is just time for people to start taking responsibility for thier own.Generations upon generations of americans have done just that, where have we lost our pride to be and do the best? When did we become a nation of slugs who allow the taxpayers to pay our way and feel just in doing so? And when the group of taxpaying americans run dry, who then will you ask to pay your way? The dems, the reps? they will be to busy draining the remaning taxpayers for thier own needs, and, where will you be? America get smart, get busy, get YOUR OWN JOB MARKET BACK, STOP YOUR JOBS FROM LEAVING THE U.S. The American public screwed up, Ross Perot said I am a buisnessman and it would benifit me to sign NAFTA. He would not, and why? It was not good for America. Who did? Come on americians, YOU are allowing this country to become third world. And if americans children (under 10y/o) are our future I fear for americas future.
Posted by mae on June 29, 2007 11:31 PMMae: You said you want competition for insurance companies? I can't imagine anything more competative than an institution that insures 100% of your healthcare, for free. That is basically what universal healthcare would be. Yes, chances are, it would drive insurance companies out, and only leave the uni. healthcare system in place. And as you said, there isn't any competiton anyway right now, so I wonder what would be the difference if this replaced it? Oh right, the fact that EVERYONE can be "insured", in a sense.
So why is America turning "3rd world", as you said, when it comes to healthcare, and now Europe? Let's examine that for a moment... I start with a question: What is the difference between America and Europe when it comes to this topic? Well, there are only 2 things I can think of. #1: Most of Europe has universal healthcare. And #2: Europe isn't considered to be turning 3rd world in regards to healthcare. Besides that, we are VERY similar. We're both democratic, electing our leaders. We're both massive economic entities in the world. We both care about the well being of our people. The list goes on and on... so, whats the solution to Americas problem? Universal healcare, of course!
Posted by Patrick on June 30, 2007 12:53 AMMae, totally American. Thanks for the refreshing comments.
Posted by [Ben] "blu" on June 30, 2007 07:22 AMUno said:
"...sounds just like your hero Randi Rhodes on Air America radio, and her like minded (more like mindless) followers. "
I think you know more about Randi Rhodes than I do...
Posted by Charles B on June 30, 2007 08:04 AMmae:
More paragraphs, fewer question marks and less YELLING might induce people not to not skip over your diatribes.
Posted by Charles B on June 30, 2007 08:07 AMGrog:
"Just don't try to force others to give against their will." Why the hell not?
True liberal ideology at it's finest.
And then you go on and wish me great physical injury.
I can only pray you reach your bottom soon and seek professional help. You really need it.
"I can't imagine anything more competative than an institution that insures 100% of your healthcare, for free."
Patrick, nothing is free. You ought to know that. We all pay one way or another for any government program. I have a difficult time believing that any government bureaucracy will be efficiently run.
Europe has been moving for the past two decades into socialism. You think they are really democratic? Check into the EU a bit or ask a European how much influence their countries' "elected" government has. Many of their decisions are hamstrung by the EU parliment's policies. In effect, they are over-ruled.
Mae - good letter, although a bit tough to read. Use paragraphs please. Good points, though.
Posted by RU Serious on June 30, 2007 09:55 AMThanks RU. The comment by Patrick claiming Europe is democratic was a bit far fetched.
But if you think about it, most on the left prefer a Europian style of government. Apparently that's their definition of democracy (socialocracy?)
Posted by KW on June 30, 2007 10:18 AMKW said helpfully:
"I can only pray you reach your bottom soon and seek professional help. You really need it."
Apparently unaware that not everyone requires professional help to reach their bottom.
Posted by Charles B on June 30, 2007 11:10 AMA word about community. Elliott Aronson wrote that humans are social animals. We evolved in small groups, about 30-40 in a tribe/clan. We took care of each other out of compassion. Bones of our ancestors have been found where there is clear evidence that the individual needed care to heal from an injury and live for many yeas after.
The human community is built up on layers of care, personal responsibility and societal responsibility.
A human alone, has no more chance to survive then a chipmunk. And probably not as much, since we have lost our survival instincts.
Human society, with all its technology and support groups keeps us alive and keeps us human and humane.
Posted by Sharon B. on June 30, 2007 11:27 AMCB:
"Apparently unaware that not everyone requires professional help to reach their bottom."
Um, CB, professional help is what you seek after you reach bottom. Not what you seek to obtain bottom.
Posted by KW on June 30, 2007 11:49 AMKW,
The European countries still have forms of elective and representative governments that, as "republic", falls completely into the category of "democracy". Some of them retain monarchs, as figure-head and ceremonial, "Heads of State". But their parliaments are those representative of the people. Even the EU is a form of elected parliamentary system.
A rough parallel might be drawn to the early situation of the 13 Colonies, who gathered together first under Articles of Confederation. When this didn't realy prove to work, they held a Constitutional Convention; and setting up the Head of State (President) as an elective office - somewhat second-hand, by way of an Electoral College instead of direct vote - we have our present Republic.
The various European countries might be likened to the 13 Colonies - all of whom, both then and now - want THEIR "State's Rights" first. The EU might be compared to an early version of our Senate - whose members were appointed by the State's Chief Executive, NOT elected, for quite some time. (Although the EU Parliament does have elective features currently)
It is hardly a perfect system, or perfect parallel. But, it is still well within the boundaries of the meaning of "democracy" as it includes a representative format - or "republic".
That they have social programs that are not present in the United States is quite different from what you call "socialism" - or seem to think "socialism" means. In and of itself, "socialism" DOES NOT preclude a local democracy - along the lines of New England Town Meeting - nor does it preclude an elective form of republic. That's a canard, or myth, dearly loved by, and often proclaimed by those who are ignorant of governmental format to begin with.
But then again, there is an old saying: "Ignorance is bliss." And so much that is posted here concerning both "liberal" and "socialism" merely reflects the completely bilssful ignorance of the poster.
However, as often said before: Those who don't want to learn, won't..
Posted by Old Grouch on June 30, 2007 11:49 AMFor those enamored by a single payer, government run healthcare system for all perhaps you should read this Canadian physician's view of it.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010266
"In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years."
He states that market reforms are taking place in Canada, Britain and in Scandanavia. There must be a reason.
OG - How high are their taxes?
Posted by KW on June 30, 2007 11:53 AMWhile most all of what you say is true, OG, the creation of the EU was not initiated by the populace of those nations. It was foisted on them by the elitists in their governments, working quietly. By the time it was obvious that the creation of the EU was going to happen and many ordinary folks showed their displeasure, it was too late to stop it.
Some will say that the oft discredited idea of a North American Union actually happening is eerily similar to how the EU came about, in terms of what is happening behind the scenes. Many here poo poo the idea and say it can't happen without Congress approval. The same things were said in Europe. Kind of like a mudslide, once underway its' momentum can't be stopped.
Do some reading and you will find many EU member countries being bullied by the EU parliament on their social policies - such as Poland.
But, as always, thanks for sharing your far superior intellect with us morons.
Posted by RU Serious on June 30, 2007 12:04 PMRU Serious: "Patrick, nothing is free. You ought to know that. We all pay one way or another for any government program. I have a difficult time believing that any government bureaucracy will be efficiently run.
Europe has been moving for the past two decades into socialism. You think they are really democratic? Check into the EU a bit or ask a European how much influence their countries' "elected" government has. Many of their decisions are hamstrung by the EU parliment's policies. In effect, they are over-ruled."
I'm actually from Finland, and have a duel citizenship with the US (I've lived here for most of my life, but I travel to Finland often). In Finland, and in much of Europe, the Parlament is voted on by general elections. If you are refering to the remaining monarcies, then you should know that they have no power left, exept maybe they can influence public opinion. As for the "elected" government (of which I assume you mean the Prime Minister and his staff), it is the same. In fact, Parlament acts very mcuh like Congress here in the US. The PM acts very much like the President. Aside for some differences in how they work and what lgislative powers they have, the American system and the European system are similar.
As for being free...it is true, you would have to pay taxes. But taxes are something you already pay, and much of it is unessicary. Thats why we would need tax reform before making uni. healthcare.
RU Serious: "For those enamored by a single payer, government run healthcare system for all perhaps you should read this Canadian physician's view of it.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010266
'In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years.'
He states that market reforms are taking place in Canada, Britain and in Scandanavia. There must be a reason."
That's Canada. In Finland, I broke my arm once. I waited a grand total of 20 minuets to get a cast put on it. In America, I broke my leg once. I waited for an hour, filling out paperwork, not to mention just sitting in the emergency room in really bad pain waiting for a doctor. I admit, it isn't perfect. If you have a major surgery, you might have to wait. But in America, if you don't have insurance or can't pay for it for whatever reason... you don't get it at all.
Posted by Patrick on June 30, 2007 12:51 PMRU Serious: While most all of what you say is true, OG, the creation of the EU was not initiated by the populace of those nations. It was foisted on them by the elitists in their governments, working quietly. By the time it was obvious that the creation of the EU was going to happen and many ordinary folks showed their displeasure, it was too late to stop it."
Please provide some proof of this. When I was in Finland in 1995 when they joined the EU, I remember most people were excited about it. I would imagine the responce was the same in other nations as well.
"Do some reading and you will find many EU member countries being bullied by the EU parliament on their social policies - such as Poland."
When nations agree to join the EU, they agree to follow the economic and social policies that are put in place. Nations such as Poland refuse to follow these policies, and so are going to be "bullied", as you put it, by the EU.
Posted by [jerry] on June 30, 2007 01:01 PMPatrick - 20 minutes is a great expediance in getting your arm in a cast. Kudos!
But don't you think maybe they should've taken the time to x-ray it first to make sure no additional problems were present?
Posted by KW on June 30, 2007 01:33 PMThanks Grog, as insults go that was a beaut.
Uno, if you think Randi Rhodes is left-wing or liberal, I would love to see where you put centre and right. I personally stick her somewhat right of centre.
Mae asked ” If healthcare were so bad here grog why then are canadians entering the U.S. for healthcare…”
A few do, and for impatient wealthy people the US has very good healthcare.
It’s only if you aren’t wealthy that things get a bit tricky in the US and even worse, if you are in some areas and/or non-white, you may get third-world healthcare. Even here in Jeffco, I see hospital infection rates that are on par with those in Harare or Nairobi.
Sharon said ” A human alone, has no more chance to survive then a chipmunk.”
Yep, and not only that, but a lone human pretty soon goes stark staring bonkers – which is why solitary confinement is a torture.
Bango:
"A few do, and for impatient wealthy people the US has very good healthcare.
It’s only if you aren’t wealthy that things get a bit tricky..."
Considering Canada has socialized healthcare, how does your point bolster the argument in favor of changing our current system?
If Canadians have to be rich to get the best care, where does that leave the average American after you get your way and change things here to be like Canada?
Posted by KW on June 30, 2007 02:07 PMI am am concerned that Thomas Hobbs was correct about human nature. Your partisan politics are not at the core of this debate. Abstracts and theories are great to banter about; however, it all comes down to hard working Americans having inadequate health care. Of course there are the citizens who try and take advantage of the system. When the government can proscute them they do. Many times it is a child of one of those irresponsible people. That breaks down to the nasty reality of a child going without help. I doubt any person on this site would pass by a child in distress. If I can help by promoting national health care, I will. It is better to go to a slow hospital than none at all.
Posted by Lucky14 on June 30, 2007 02:25 PMRU Serious,
What are you trying to prove? You don't like the European Union? Fine. I don't really have much of an opinion on that matter, since I don't live in Europe.
That the early stages of the Union here are not even a rough parallel to what is presently going on with the EU? Well then, you are completely free to offer a better analogy, aren't you?
That drawing a parallel - however rough - to answer KW is, somehow, something only you are qualified to do? Hey, boy! Have at it! This is an open forum; and you are certainly welcome to do whatever it be you want to do in the matter.
That your theory of the "elitists" forcing the EU on the European nations is the only explanation for its existence? Well, on that, I'll let Patrick speak for Finland, at least. And I'll let the news media speak for those other countries who are just fighting and clamoring to get out from under - whoever they may be, since I have to admit I've not read, or heard, about all that many.
There is upset with the Euro Dollar as a universal currency. And, if memory serves, England still chooses to use the Pound Sterling as its currency base. As to the people elsewhere not having any say in things, well, I guess the French didn't really have an election recently then. Or did they? Oh well. That wouldn't matter anyway, now would it? You say the people have no say; and so, the people have no say. And so much for that.
As to bullying, I fail to see what that has to do with the rough parallel in formations, and the exposition of the continuation of elective government in even the European Union that was the object of my answer to KW. But, if you insist that that is evidence that there is no "democracy" - including representative/republic form - in the European countries and/or the European Union, then I guess we all just have to take your word for it.
Posted by Old Grouch on June 30, 2007 02:30 PMI've been waiting for a month to see a surgeon for a consultation because I have early stage breast cancer.
I see on TV Lady Bird Johnson gets a slight fever and gets rushed to the hospital. For a slight fever!
I have pretty decent insurance and can't get in to see a surgeon and find out what they are going to do about my breast cancer. I've been waiting a whole month.
You got to be someone rich or famous to get prompt decent,timely health care in this country.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on June 30, 2007 05:23 PMCan I get an AMEN! offered the following endorsement of Universal Health Care:
" have pretty decent insurance and can't get in to see a surgeon and find out what they are going to do about my breast cancer. I've been waiting a whole month.
You got to be someone rich or famous to get prompt decent,timely health care in this country."
Posted by Charles B on June 30, 2007 06:15 PMKW: "Patrick - 20 minutes is a great expediance in getting your arm in a cast. Kudos!
But don't you think maybe they should've taken the time to x-ray it first to make sure no additional problems were present?"
You misunderstand what I said, I'm not saying it took 20 min. for the whole time...I'm saying it took only 20 min of waiting before I was taken care of. That part took the average amount of time, becuase they did preform xrays, and gave me 4 stiches in the cut I had as well.
What I don't understand in this matter is, why can't we have privitized healthcare AND universal healthcare? The way I see it, if someone wants to privitely fund thier healthcare if it means more expedient or better care, then why couldn't they? And why not have universal healthcare just for those who need it? Sure, we'd all have to pay some taxes that we may never get any use out of...but isn't there a bunch of things we pay for already that we don't get use out of? For example, I'm not homeless. Yet, I pay a tax for funding homeless shelters. So does that mean that just becuase I have a home, I shouldn't pay that tax? Well, no... I don't think there is anyone who would say that not providing for the homeless is ok. It's the same for healthcare, isn't it?
Posted by Confused on June 30, 2007 09:23 PMWhat I don't understand in this matter is, why can't we have privitized healthcare AND universal healthcare? The way I see it, if someone wants to privitely fund thier healthcare if it means more expedient or better care, then why couldn't they? And why not have universal healthcare just for those who need it? Sure, we'd all have to pay some taxes that we may never get any use out of...but isn't there a bunch of things we pay for already that we don't get use out of? For example, I'm not homeless. Yet, I pay a tax for funding homeless shelters. So does that mean that just becuase I have a home, I shouldn't pay that tax? Well, no... I don't think there is anyone who would say that not providing for the homeless is ok. It's the same for healcare.
Posted by [jerry] "Confused" on June 30, 2007 09:24 PMKW, hi, we meet again. Canadians who come here, have their government reimburse us.
That was verified last month by people who did some research on it.
If I need a new hip, I will go to a veterinarian and bark, because I don`t have insurance.
But if I can convince them that I am a dog...
And NO, I don`t need any insults from you today.
Later.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 1, 2007 06:36 AMKW,
Obviously, you either know very little history, or you choose to ignore what you do know.
What "different philosophy" is involved in improving social programs?
Or is it just a matter of your being a faithful follower of the damn foolishness that such things as Social Security, and all the rest of today's socuial programs for the general welfare, just shouldn't exist, because in 1789 the matter of "General Welfare" went no further than "roads and bridges", as is the rant and cant of one prolific writer on this forum?
It is also obvious that you have either never read the works of Norman Thomas, or, again, choose to ignore what you might have read, in favor of your own reactionary and regressive set of prejudices.
Norman Thomas was the perennial Socialist Party candidate for President clear up to almost the day he died. (And had a regular column in Denver newspapers - as well as nationwide - for many years.) EVERY SINGLE ONE of today's social programs, from food and drug laws all the way through the list, was, at one time or another, a part of the Socialist Party platform. And, at the time of the proposal of any one, or all, these social programs, they were considered to be "drastic changes", at least by those whose reactionary regressivism is fixated on the fantastic and fabulous ideas that the clock stopped in the 18th Century.
NOTHING in "socialism" as such ever sought - nor does it seek today - to interfere with the voting process, or to deny the right of the people to elect their representatives to government, nor to change in any way the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the fundamental principles of Government in our Republic.
And I will again emphasize the simple fact that "socialism" does not seek any basic philosophical change of that nature today.
Because the reactionary regressives adopted the Josef Goebbles idea of the Big Lie very early - and continue it today - the changes, and developments, in social programs, and approach to that which is called "general welfare" that were disliked by the "I've got mine; screw you" claque were equated with Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. And this lie is still propounded, every time the regressive reactionaries can use the words, "liberal", and/or "socialist", as epithets to attempt to cover up their own total lack of either knowledge or understanding of the positions or programs presented.
There is a very vast difference between "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat", as propounded in the history of Soviet Russia, and the development of social programs for general welfare within the framework of our own Constitutional form of government.
Because of the false linking, and identification, with Soviet/Chinese revolutionary expressions, anything that might be smeared and slandered as "socialism" in this country became unpopular, to say the least. And the "Red Scare" of the McCarthy era didn't help any, either.
But, in point of fact, nearly every social program proposed by the old Socialist Party has already become a part of our own American heritage.
Naturally, opposition to this reality means that you are, somehow, some kind of "superior American"; and those of us who see the worth of continuing the development of social programs for the general welfare are suposed to either just accept the, "I've got mine; screw you" position as being typical and exemplary of "Americanism", or leave the country.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I don't attempt to debate a superstition/prejudice/belief-system. And, while I can offer information, I am also aware of the fact that those who don't want to learn, won't.
Let's not waste each other's time further.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 1, 2007 08:22 AMI wonder why the letter-writer used a "single mother" as an example.
I also wonder why he would let his fictionary example work two jobs (and thus, paying income taxes on two jobs), yet still imply he would be providing for her healthcare, because she hadn't "succeeded through personal effort."
Perhaps he would feel differently about a single father...
Posted by mytwosense on July 1, 2007 12:04 PMProblem with the private insurance for pay and the public insurance from taxes is that the system would require those with private insurance to pay for the public insurance as well effectively charging them double. It would be a medical mirror image of the education system where the majority get lip service and promises from a public system while those who can afford to opt out will get premium service.
We all know how much superior public schools are to private don't we?
OG
I have no opinion either way on the EU. I probably should have steered clear of any mention, as making blanket statements about it in brief is fraught with problems, as those countries all are different in their governmental makeups.
I am totally aware of the nature of it. Most of the problems seem to me to be growing pains, similar to those our young country went through, most revolving around "states' rights" issues. These were all soveriegn nations before forming the EU. They still are, but their own domestic policies now have to agree with EU principles and the parliament. That is where the friction may come in.
As to your assertion about most of us who disdain what we call socialist policies erroniously linking them with Soviet/Chinese expressions, while that may be true for some it is not for me. What I believe is that this is more a general "worldview" perception or view on what we each believe the role of government ought to be. Goes with our political philosophy.
Some of us believe that the role of government is not to take care of us from cradle to grave. Personal choice and responsibility have to come first. Others believe that more government is the answer to most problems facing society. To them, a national healthcare system makes perfect sense.
Of course, they couch it in humanitarian terms and those who disagree are called greedy, selfish, etc. Personally, I have no problem with government programs for those truly needy through no fault of their own. That includes healthcare. I wouldn't mind a system that covers those without private insurance but does not outlaw private insurers. Choice needs to remain in the picture.
On the other hand, I am offended that the government may put its' hands in my pockets to provide for those who have made little or no effort to get educated, gain job skills and provide for their families.
Some of these great socialist programs created the welfrare state and caused the disruption and destruction of families in inner cities and led to generations of people dependent on "government" handouts, funded by you and me.
You pointed out that nearly all the social programs proposed by the old Socialist Party have already become part of our heritage.
An honest question since I don't have the answers and don't have the time to research which programs you are talking about.
Which political party has pushed these programs hardest to make them part of our heritage?
I don't know, but I have my suspicions.
BTW - were you a member of the old Socialist Party by any chance? Just asking....
Posted by RU Serious on July 1, 2007 12:34 PMmomma
"Problem with the private insurance for pay and the public insurance from taxes is that the system would require those with private insurance to pay for the public insurance as well effectively charging them double."
Isn't this already what we have for those not yet eligible for Medicare?
I see no way around this.
Posted by RU Serious on July 1, 2007 12:40 PMOG
You make my point for me. The government welfare programs are socialism but we have been hoodwinked into letting that camel get his nose in the tent. Now we can either let him take over the tent or evict him.
And the great Ponzi scheme of Social Security is about to collapse. We won't admit that. We'll just throw more money at it. I'm ashamed that I have to file for SS disability even though I have paid in all my adult life because I feel like I should hve planned better.
Perhaps if we had allowed those who want to be responsible for themselves to opt for self investment I wouuldn't have this problem. Then again, I can really see the other side of this as so many people would have doubled their stupid ratio and be begging for government resscue.
Give me enough time and I'll figure it out.
At least with socialized medicine there will be hospitals that can cut off ER functions and only cater to those able to pay for premium service. The "must treat" rule will fly out the window.
Posted by momma y on July 1, 2007 12:54 PMLucky14, Hobbes wasn’t right as far as human nature goes, and we know that by studying the human nervous system. We like helping others, it fires up the pleasure centres to a degree and in ways that simply owning goodies or getting stuff does not.
KW, I think you misunderstood the implication. The USA truly does have the best healthcare in the world – just it’s mostly only available for the wealthy. So if a Canadian is wealthy and impatient, they can get excellent care here for a price.
Momma, SS is a Ponzi scheme only because they are spending on borrowed money. If each generation drew off the savings of their own or previous generation(s), then it would not be a problem. Since they chose not to fund it but borrowed from the future, they face a problem with the demographic transition that has resulted in the Boomers having fewer offspring per woman than previous generations.
RU Serious,
No. I started out as a Republican. Back in the days before that party was taken over by the present crew - or their predecessors - who have managed to drive out anyone who even breathes the idea of "moderate". I saw that any effective political work or action in Colorado required regustration with a party affiliation; so I registered as a Democrat.
My first major is history. And, back some nearly 70 years ago, my folks - principally my Grandmother - became involved with the old "Townsend Plan" for old age pensions - an idea that came "long before its time", so to speak. There was a large degree of bi-partisan support in Colorado for this, back in those days, even though it might be thought today to be something which for the time was - or would have been - "drastic change" from old County Poor Farm approach to dealing with the aged.
Norman Thomas wrote columns for years. He was a good writer; and he presented ideas well. My own reading has always been omnivorous - not restricted by some priestly Nanny or Index of Forbidden Books, nor dictated by any particular ideologue, or ideology - and, as a result, I have been able to acquire information, and points of view, from many sources. Research in several areas has made for experience in evaluating, comparing, and contrasting contents and evidence, as well as the source materials themselves.
Some of the basic advances - or "changes" if you prefer - originated with Republicans. Others were proposed from different sources, and taken up by the Democrats, especially in the days of FDR and the "New Deal" All have been contested - sometimes very hotly - before becoming part of our social fabric. Nothing is perfect, of course. But the basics do form a part of the reality of life today, however much there be need for improvement, refinement, or adaptation to current conditions.
The objection to paying taxes is nothing new. Neither is the objection to having tax monies used for benefit of others, those others being judged as "unworthy" for whatever reasons. And, concurrently, there is nothing new in the basic approach of, "I've got mine; so screw you", that allows for the critique of others as "not having planned", or otherwise "not having lived up to expectations" in some way. Indeed very much of this point of view stems from the historical positions of the original Protestant Revolutionaries and their insistence upon the idea that the poor are that way "through their own fault".- based on the Western (Roman) idea of "original sin" and accompanying endless, generationally increasing "penalties" necessary to "atone" for it. Which, in turn, led to the other extreme of "taking" that Marx propounded.
Any, or all, these ideas have interpretations according to the individual; so the use of quotation marks is simply a way of presenting what is not an absolute. Unfortunately, however, the practice of hanging a "label" on an idea; making it fit into a particular "pigeon hole" when discussing it; and generally insisting the the "label" and "pigeon hole" are all that there is to it, generally leads to nothing more than what we see altogether too often here, mindless insults directed at those who present ideas as being more - much, much more (!) - than either "label" or "pigeon hole" allows, or contains.
And of course, when the "label", or the "pigeon hole". can be made to be one of emotional fear and rejection - i.e., "commie", or "Islamofascist", to use two of the most common to be found on this website today - then all that eventuates is . . . wasted time.
It doesn't really matter all that much how, or where, an idea originates. What matters is the pragmatic reality of dealing with the idea in its application to the real world.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 2, 2007 07:38 AM