Healthcare Bill

[Lokhtar]

All altruism aside ... I don't know how ANY medical student/pre-med/resident, etc, can advocate a single payer system without first seriously, seriously working with Uncle Sam on getting us through medical school with less debt. I don't know of any other career where people would ask for far less money (don't even try to argue you'd get paid the same under a government run single payer) while putting in the same time, effort, and money for training. It's asinine.

Not really. Physicians make more in the US than pretty much any other country even if you substract out the loans. A lot more in most cases.

Note: I am not arguing that medical schools should be this expensive. I'm just saying that it's not a prerequisite that medical school be cheaper as you say.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JaggerPlate]

All altruism aside? Are you saying this isn't the most important aspect of the reform? Caring for those who are SOL without it? Because if not it should be.

The most important aspect of the reform is getting the uninsured insurance. It isn't doing so via a government funded public option, or wiping out private insurance?? If you think that is what the reform is all about, then I think your opinion may be more distorted than you assume mine is.

I'm not saying it isn't good people are covered, but this statement, at core, really doesn't have much to do with a universal option. I think Obama and Pelosi wished it did, but with the way the current bill is written, it isn't the case.

And yes medical school debt is a huge problem in America if you don't realize the big pic. Not so bad when you compare doctor's salaries in usa vs foreign countries. ie take that extra you would earn here and pay for the debt from medical school and you will still come far ahead of foreign docs. So in summary i dont get what you are saying.

Why do people always fall back onto this foreign country argument? We live in America. 99.9% of us are only going to practice in America. In other countries, medical school is free or integrated with undergrad, so you come out younger, in no debt, and still well compensated compared to the rest of the population. Their culture, currency, cost of living, etc, is different than ours ... I don't know why so many people feel comfortable falling back on this argument.

In the USA, right now, medical school (all in all) has an average cost of 160-200k (from what I know). We're going to practice in the US, so this is what we should focus on.

You don't get what I'm saying???

I'm saying that it's completely asinine to say 'I want to go through the same amount of debt, training, time, opportunity costs, etc, as the generation before me, and make significantly less money (assumed).'

Does this make sense in any other facet of life??? Is anyone else clamoring for this? It's nuts ... HENCE, I don't understand when people in the medical profession or going into the medical profession would ask for an option that would significantly reduce their earning power.

Altruism? I dunno.

My guess is that it's mostly pre-medical students, who haven't gone through the debt, time, residency hours, pay, etc, who are saying this would be okay.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Not really. Physicians make more in the US than pretty much any other country even if you substract out the loans. A lot more in most cases.

Note: I am not arguing that medical schools should be this expensive. I'm just saying that it's not a prerequisite that medical school be cheaper as you say.

See my above rant ...

I'm tired of this argument. We will all live, practice, eat, breathe, spend, etc in the US. I wish we would focus on that. In my opinion, there are so many factors that make a straight comparison of doc in X country to doc in USA a poor determinant.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

All altruism aside ... I don't know how ANY medical student/pre-med/resident, etc, can advocate a single payer system without first seriously, seriously working with Uncle Sam on getting us through medical school with less debt. I don't know of any other career where people would ask for far less money (don't even try to argue you'd get paid the same under a government run single payer) while putting in the same time, effort, and money for training. It's asinine.

I agree with you completely.

We should already be doing this for primary care people. We need to find ways to encourage people into that specialty.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

The point of this slide is that despite having dramatic increases in social programing (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), people were able to drive down the debt drastically. No reason we can't do that now.

The increased amount of money we have to spend on the new bill is looking to be trivial in comparison to how much we already spend on Medicaid and Medicare.

 

[JaggerPlate]

We should already be doing this for primary care people. We need to find ways to encourage people into that specialty.

Yup, yup, yup.

 

[startswithb]

The most important aspect of the reform is getting the uninsured insurance. It isn't doing so via a government funded public option, or wiping out private insurance?? If you think that is what the reform is all about, then I think your opinion may be more distorted than you assume mine is.

I'm not saying it isn't good people are covered, but this statement, at core, really doesn't have much to do with a universal option. I think Obama and Pelosi wished it did, but with the way the current bill is written, it isn't the case.




Why do people always fall back onto this foreign country argument? We live in America. 99.9% of us are only going to practice in America. In other countries, medical school is free or integrated with undergrad, so you come out younger, in no debt, and still well compensated compared to the rest of the population. Their culture, currency, cost of living, etc, is different than ours ... I don't know why so many people feel comfortable falling back on this argument.

In the USA, right now, medical school (all in all) has an average cost of 160-200k (from what I know). We're going to practice in the US, so this is what we should focus on.

You don't get what I'm saying???

I'm saying that it's completely asinine to say 'I want to go through the same amount of debt, training, time, opportunity costs, etc, as the generation before me, and make significantly less money (assumed).'

Does this make sense in any other facet of life??? Is anyone else clamoring for this? It's nuts ... HENCE, I don't understand when people in the medical profession or going into the medical profession would ask for an option that would significantly reduce their earning power.

Altruism? I dunno.

My guess is that it's mostly pre-medical students, who haven't gone through the debt, time, residency hours, pay, etc, who are saying this would be okay.

I think it falls along the same lines as those who take out $80,000 in loans for undergrad and major in history. Many do not understand the reality of loans and interest, and what it takes to pay them off.

Then they cry that it's the university's fault or the loan companies for "not telling them" that it was a bad idea and then make their parents bail them out instead of saving for retirement. Yes, some ideas really are just bad.

 

[RELAX11]

The most important aspect of the reform is getting the uninsured insurance. It isn't doing so via a government funded public option, or wiping out private insurance?? If you think that is what the reform is all about, then I think your opinion may be more distorted than you assume mine is.

I'm not saying it isn't good people are covered, but this statement, at core, really doesn't have much to do with a universal option. I think Obama and Pelosi wished it did, but with the way the current bill is written, it isn't the case.




Why do people always fall back onto this foreign country argument? We live in America. 99.9% of us are only going to practice in America. In other countries, medical school is free or integrated with undergrad, so you come out younger, in no debt, and still well compensated compared to the rest of the population. Their culture, currency, cost of living, etc, is different than ours ... I don't know why so many people feel comfortable falling back on this argument.

In the USA, right now, medical school (all in all) has an average cost of 160-200k (from what I know). We're going to practice in the US, so this is what we should focus on.

You don't get what I'm saying???

I'm saying that it's completely asinine to say 'I want to go through the same amount of debt, training, time, opportunity costs, etc, as the generation before me, and make significantly less money (assumed).'

Even though you are right in your analysis of foreign vs usa debt situation...you are still underestimating the salary difference significantly, which includes the cost of living, currency, 4 more years of education, etc. Do the math and you will surprise yourself.


I am glad you feel that getting everyone insurance is the number 1 priority...you are right.


Lets be realistic though, this reform is the best america could get at this time. Universal healthcare may come in the future if more reps can get on board, but this isn't the case right now unfortunately.

 

[RELAX11]

Will not go bankrupt? Shakes head in severe disappointment.

We are spending 25% of our GDP.

We are only making 19% of revenue.

= collapse of a society

I forgot that Obama's goal is to collapse our society. Laughs in response to naivety.

 

[wizinstick]

Well, I'd for one would like to see some reform in pharmaceuticals besides the insurance agency....and medical malpractice of course. You cannot have good reform in any one without addressing the other 2. These 3 are what's driving up medical care.

 

[RELAX11]

Well, I'd for one would like to see some reform in pharmaceuticals besides the insurance agency....and medical malpractice of course. You cannot have good reform in any one without addressing the other 2. These 3 are what's driving up medical care.

I agree and hopefully it will come. There was no way to include all of this in this reform bill without sacrificing majority vote, plain and simple.

 

[RELAX11]

Why the $%^& do you think a few of us keep shouting out socialist agenda and a lot of you don't get it.

I won't even respond to that joke. Sorry.


Anyways:

They could not have easily added this in the reform because it wouldn't have passed! Some reform is better than no reform!

 

[Dr Oops]

All altruism aside? Are you saying this isn't the most important aspect of the reform? Caring for those who are SOL without it? Because if not it should be.


And yes medical school debt is a huge problem in America if you don't realize the big pic. Not so bad when you compare doctor's salaries in usa vs foreign countries. ie take that extra you would earn here and pay for the debt from medical school and you will still come far ahead of foreign docs. So in summary i dont get what you are saying.

Part of the reason us docs make more is they produce more, i.e. they see more patients and work more hours.

So foreign docs make less, but they pay less to nothing for schooling, dont have to pay for malpractice insurance and work less hours. They also start earning earlier (time cost of money is very important), because undergrad for them is shorter.

So comparing the two based just on salary leaves alot out of the equation

 

[Dr Oops]

Even though you are right in your analysis of foreign vs usa debt situation...you are still underestimating the salary difference significantly, which includes the cost of living, currency, 4 more years of education, etc. Do the math and you will surprise yourself.


I am glad you feel that getting everyone insurance is the number 1 priority...you are right.


Lets be realistic though, this reform is the best america could get at this time. Universal healthcare may come in the future if more reps can get on board, but this isn't the case right now unfortunately.

the goal shouldnt be forcing everyone to get insurance, it should be making it so that the people who do want it, can get it.

 

[RELAX11]

the goal shouldnt be forcing everyone to get insurance, it should be making it so that the people who do want it, can get it.

Sure this is good in theory, but you know that a lot of people are too stubborn to believe they actually need insurance; and then when the time comes they have a massive heart attack or stroke they are SOL. Yes it would be their fault but this isn't the foundation america was found on.

 

[RELAX11]

Part of the reason us docs make more is they produce more, i.e. they see more patients and work more hours.

So foreign docs make less, but they pay less to nothing for schooling, dont have to pay for malpractice insurance and work less hours. They also start earning earlier (time cost of money is very important), because undergrad for them is shorter.

So comparing the two based just on salary leaves alot out of the equation

Refer to post 2780

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

They could have easily fixed the problem if they wanted to. Not fixing the problem = ability to control the citizens.

Why the $%^& do you think a few of us keep shouting out socialist agenda and a lot of you don't get it.

You can keep pretending this bill is socialist, but the rest of us in the real world are going to go about our lives.

We ignore what you spout the same way we ignore the people who cry out "OMFG Rublipicans = babby-killerz!1!1!11"

We spent waaaaay more of our GDP on debt interest in the 1950s then we do now, yet I hear things worked out pretty good.

 

[Lokhtar]

In other countries, medical school is free or integrated with undergrad, so you come out younger, in no debt, and still well compensated compared to the rest of the population. Their culture, currency, cost of living, etc, is different than ours ... I don't know why so many people feel comfortable falling back on this argument.

Doctors in the US still come out ahead - sometimes a lot ahead. That's not a bad thing, but let's hold some perspective.

I'm saying that it's completely asinine to say 'I want to go through the same amount of debt, training, time, opportunity costs, etc, as the generation before me, and make significantly less money (assumed).'

I wouldn't expect most human beings to say that. But healthcare has to be about the rest of society too, not just the doctors. If the cost of the moral principle of universal healthcare means physicians get paid less, I'm fine with it. I'm not going to sacrifice my moral principle for a few bucks.

My guess is that it's mostly pre-medical students, who haven't gone through the debt, time, residency hours, pay, etc, who are saying this would be okay.

Everyone would like to be paid more. I would have liked to be paid for my software engineering job. I wish my business would succeed more so I make more money. Obviously.

But if you gave me the option of making less money for a moral issue of universal healthcare, I place that above my financial benefit. That doesn't mean doctors will be - or should be - poor. They'll still be into the upper echelons of moneymakers.

 

[Dr Oops]

Even though you are right in your analysis of foreign vs usa debt situation...you are still underestimating the salary difference significantly, which includes the cost of living, currency, 4 more years of education, etc. Do the math and you will surprise yourself.


I am glad you feel that getting everyone insurance is the number 1 priority...you are right.


Lets be realistic though, this reform is the best america could get at this time. Universal healthcare may come in the future if more reps can get on board, but this isn't the case right now unfortunately.

Ok, im not exactly clear on what youre saying, but based on your previous posts im going to assume, you think that US docs make significantly more than foreign docs, please correct me if I am wrong.

When all the factors are compared I dont agree.

So cost of living, maybe a little more in the say london than NYC.

Currency, their currency is stronger than ours, so when a GP there earns 120k thats equivalent to about 160k here.

I dont know what you mean by four more years of education, US docs go through more schooling, due to having to do more college classes than foreign docs, this adds up in a couple ways, Opportunity cost (lost wages due to being in school), the time value of money($100 now is worth more than $100 10 years from now), more debt required to take on more schooling.

Then there are the points I said in the post above which you didnt respond to.

"Part of the reason us docs make more is they produce more, i.e. they see more patients and work more hours.

So foreign docs make less, but they pay less to nothing for schooling, dont have to pay for malpractice insurance and work less hours.

They also start earning earlier (time cost of money is very important), because undergrad for them is shorter. "

So considering that they work less and see less patients alone is a reason why they make less, but there are many other factors, all of which I have described. For those reasons I think that foregin docs make similar wages (certainly better lifestyle wise and I wouldnt be surprised if they come out ahead of US docs financially in the long run).

 

[Lokhtar]

Care to compare dermatology?

 

[RELAX11]

Ok, im not exactly clear on what youre saying, but based on your previous posts im going to assume, you think that US docs make significantly more than foreign docs, please correct me if I am wrong.

When all the factors are compared I dont agree.

So cost of living, maybe a little more in the say london than NYC.

Currency, their currency is stronger than ours, so when a GP there earns 120k thats equivalent to about 160k here.

I dont know what you mean by four more years of education, US docs go through more schooling, due to having to do more college classes than foreign docs, this adds up in a couple ways, Opportunity cost (lost wages due to being in school), the time value of money($100 now is worth more than $100 10 years from now), more debt required to take on more schooling.

Then there are the points I said in the post above which you didnt respond to.

"Part of the reason us docs make more is they produce more, i.e. they see more patients and work more hours.

So foreign docs make less, but they pay less to nothing for schooling, dont have to pay for malpractice insurance and work less hours.

They also start earning earlier (time cost of money is very important), because undergrad for them is shorter. "

So considering that they work less and see less patients alone is a reason why they make less, but there are many other factors, all of which I have described. For those reasons I think that foregin docs make similar wages (certainly better lifestyle wise and I wouldnt be surprised if they come out ahead of US docs financially in the long run).

Refer to Lokhtar last 2 posts.

 

[Dr Oops]

Care to compare dermatology?

Just going by averages. Avg doc doesnt make what a derm doc makes. Im sure the UK has their higher paid specialties and their lower paid specialties just like we do.

Edit: did some research instead of studying and a dermotologist in the UK can make anywhere between
113K to 330K in US dollars depending on location, couldnt find an average, while the AVERAGE derm in the US makes 240K with the high end being 400K. So even derm, is not so crazy, the appeal of derm is that the hours are so much less for the money so on an hourly basis you make alot more than other specialties, but in other countries they work less hours anyway.

 

[7starmantis]

I'm not as worried about the money aspect as I am the crap hidden in the bill. I mean everyone laughed at people saying the bill was too large making jokes like you can't write a healthcare bill on your hand, and yet the dems voted to strike down an amendment that would refuse to provide federal funding for sex enhancement drugs for previously convicted sex offenders. So if this wasn't about a political win, what exactly is the reason for these kinds of fundings in the bill? The point is that the bill hasn't defined "healthcare" and thats a huge oversight. Texas on the other hand has passed a law removing any funding for sex offenders sex enhancement drugs, so yet another state/fed problem.

This is turning into a freakin nightmare. I dont see this being over in the foreseeable future. sad really.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Care to compare dermatology?

Care to chose something a little more representative like general surgery or internal medicine?

Most of Derm is generally cash based so naturally they are going to make more.

 

[Parts Unknown]

and yet the dems voted to strike down an amendment that would refuse to provide federal funding for sex enhancement drugs for previously convicted sex offenders.

Here's why.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have the world's greatest beer bong to (re)construct.

 

[7starmantis]

Here's why.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have the world's greatest beer bong to (re)construct.

Thats precisely my point, political wins over actually helping people. Its been this way forever though, to expect anything different is the definition of insanity.

These could have been avoided in the first place and this wouldn't even come into play. But of course we know it had to be rushed through so we could get started on all the legal wars that have ensued.

 

[7starmantis]

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

 

[EulerianCircuit]

Conclusion of this thread =

pre-med students who are 18-21 are blind to seeing the socialist agenda. All they think with is dollar signs in their eyes (aka more patients = more money for them at the end of the tunnel). The real world doesn't work like that, pre-meds.

The older and more experienced people in life can see right through this crappy bill for what it really is (control and power....a socialist agenda).

Hey! I'm an 18-21 pre-med, and I see it.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Conclusion of this thread =

pre-med students who are 18-21 are blind to seeing the socialist agenda. All they think with is dollar signs in their eyes (aka more patients = more money for them at the end of the tunnel). The real world doesn't work like that, pre-meds.

The older and more experienced people in life can see right through this crappy bill for what it really is (control and power....a socialist agenda).

Ah, control and power. Would you that make the Patriot Act a socialist movement? Or is it okay when the conservatives are doing it?

I'll save you the trouble of responding. Neither the Patriot Act or the Healthcare Bill represented a power grab. They represent two competing ideologies trying to do the best they can for America.

You can try and stir up hate as much as you want, but America isn't buying it. The tea partyers are going to have as much impact on our country as Howard Dean's 2004 for campaign did. Whole lot of sound and fury, not much substance.

P.S. If you're actually a paranoid schizophrenia, I am very sorry. It is a terribly tough condition to live with.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

I love that quote.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

I'm also starting to feel that the insurance mandate may be shot down.

I'm not a legal expert, but I find the argument that the government cannot force it's citizens to by a private commodity rather compelling.

 

[7starmantis]

Neither the Patriot Act or the Healthcare Bill represented a power grab. They represent two competing ideologies trying to do the best they can for America.

While I agree philosophically with your point (I do believe portions of the new bill are in fact unconstitutional) I dont think its correct to compare these two issues. The patriot act and the health care bill are worlds apart constitutionally and as such its hard to really use them in this kind of analogy.

You can try and stir up hate as much as you want, but America isn't buying it. The tea partyers are going to have as much impact on our country as Howard Dean's 2004 for campaign did. Whole lot of sound and fury, not much substance.

I think its sad how hundreds of thousands of Americans are being painted with this wide brush of hate. I'm not saying dems are hate filled pyogenic racists simply because someone bit off the finger of a teaparty member. I'm not really up to date on all the Tea Party stuff, but to write all of them off because of a very select few is just wrong. (I'm not saying this is what your doing, but it sounds close to that rhetoric thats all).

I also disagree that they wont affect the political climate. Even if its to hurt the repubs, they will be an issue, that much is clear. I dont think they will hurt the repubs that much though.

I'm also starting to feel that the insurance mandate may be shot down.

I'm not a legal expert, but I find the argument that the government cannot force it's citizens to by a private commodity rather compelling.

Yeah, sadly though, compelling or not, its most likely not going to fail. I just dont have faith in the court system going against Obama.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

Ah yes, one of the more popular quotes misattributed to Winston Churchill:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35!

 

[7starmantis]

Ah yes, one of the more popular quotes misattributed to Winston Churchill:

Yup.

Odd. I didn't say it was Winston Churchill.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

You are very blind to reality. Go and live in Cuba and see what the future holds.

Hate to break it to you, but this was a pretty centralist reform. Many of the ideas (insurance mandate for one) came from the Republican ideas of 1993.

If he wanted socialism he'd have gone for single-payer. He'd also have nationalized the entire banking industry. And the auto industry.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

While I agree philosophically with your point (I do believe portions of the new bill are in fact unconstitutional) I dont think its correct to compare these two issues. The patriot act and the health care bill are worlds apart constitutionally and as such its hard to really use them in this kind of analogy.

Warrantless wiretapping. IIRC, aspects of the Patriot act were struck down as unconstitutional. I'd disagree with the "worlds apart" comment, but as you yourself stated, that's not why I brought it up. The point I was making was the philosophical one.

I think its sad how hundreds of thousands of Americans are being painted with this wide brush of hate. I'm not saying dems are hate filled pyogenic racists simply because someone bit off the finger of a teaparty member. I'm not really up to date on all the Tea Party stuff, but to write all of them off because of a very select few is just wrong. (I'm not saying this is what your doing, but it sounds close to that rhetoric thats all). .

I only accused the above poster of try to drum-up hate.

I never applied that judgment to the whole group. I am sure there are plenty of tea partiers who don't believe that Obama is a socialist, but agree with lower taxes and cutting the deficent, just as there were Howard Dean supporters who didn't think Bush was the devil, but were worried about his neo-con approach to foreign policy. What I was comparing is that I think both of these groups are equally extreme (farther to the left and farther to the right) than most people and will likely have about the same impact. Obviously, I can't see the future, but I'm calling it like I see it.

I should however, have included a page-break and I apologize for the confusion. I remember how irritated I was when people tried to marginalize all of the Howard Dean campaign. Much of it was crazy, but I felt he had a right to be pissed of over Iraq. That didn't turn out as well as we'd hoped.

 

[RELAX11]

3.2 million healthcare jobs are expected in the next 10 years according to CNN of which include:


500,000 RNs

500,000 entry level

500,000 therapists

180,000 Physicians

 

[RELAX11]

Conclusion of this thread =

pre-med students who are 18-21 are blind to seeing the socialist agenda. All they think with is dollar signs in their eyes (aka more patients = more money for them at the end of the tunnel). The real world doesn't work like that, pre-meds.

The older and more experienced people in life can see right through this crappy bill for what it really is (control and power....a socialist agenda).

This is an interesting argument:


Young are stupid and immature, while the old are wise?

Hmmm, this just doesn't seem to fit for everyone imo.


Aren't congress members old?

 

[7starmantis]

Hate to break it to you, but this was a pretty centralist reform. Many of the ideas (insurance mandate for one) came from the Republican ideas of 1993.

If he wanted socialism he'd have gone for single-payer. He'd also have nationalized the entire banking industry. And the auto industry.

I'm certainly not arguing that Obama is a socialist, or wants socialism, or whatever. Thats for a different thread

However, logically I have a problem with this point. The best way to socialism is certainly not waking up one day and declaring America socialist. Anyone who thinks that would work is fooling themselves. The best way then would be in small "benign" steps. Regardless of who proposed an idea. What better way than taking up something like a mandate, especially since it was proposed by the opposition, to start that move? If your really trying to move someone to your agenda, using their own ideas is by far the best way I can think of, its right out of Sun Tzu if you ask me. Whats the best place for a ninja to hide? Answer: in plain view.

Again, not trying to argue that ideal, but just wanted to point out the logic in that statement....just cause I like arguing with you.

I'd disagree with the "worlds apart" comment, but as you yourself stated, that's not why I brought it up. The point I was making was the philosophical one.

Constitutionally they are worlds apart, thats what I meant. but I agree, your point was made.

I only accused the above poster of try to drum-up hate.

I never applied that judgment to the whole group.

No, I gotcha, just wanted to take that opportunity to make the point. A lot of people are in fact doing it, including the media. Sad really, since speaking out is what we all "say" we want for americans.

3.2 million healthcare jobs are expected in the next 10 years according to CNN of which include:


500,000 RNs

500,000 entry level

500,000 therapists

180,000 Physicians

Thats just frightening.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

However, logically I have a problem with this point. The best way to socialism is certainly not waking up one day and declaring America socialist. Anyone who thinks that would work is fooling themselves. The best way then would be in small "benign" steps. Regardless of who proposed an idea. What better way than taking up something like a mandate, especially since it was proposed by the opposition, to start that move? If your really trying to move someone to your agenda, using their own ideas is by far the best way I can think of, its right out of Sun Tzu if you ask me. Whats the best place for a ninja to hide? Answer: in plain view.

I agree with this. The Nazis didn't implement fascism overnight.

And to be fair to myself, I treat the people who call Obama socialist with the same disdain I treated people who called Bush fascist. Neither comments are correct, appropriate or constructive.

 

[7starmantis]

And to be fair to myself, I treat the people who call Obama socialist with the same disdain I treated people who called Bush fascist. Neither comments are correct, appropriate or constructive.

Sounds fair, I respect people who can approach things that way.

 

[FlowRate]

Ah, control and power. Would you that make the Patriot Act a socialist movement? Or is it okay when the conservatives are doing it?

I'll save you the trouble of responding. Neither the Patriot Act or the Healthcare Bill represented a power grab. They represent two competing ideologies trying to do the best they can for America.

No.

The Patriot Act WAS a socialist movement. More accurately, it was not socialist, but authoritarian. Both republicans (they are NOT conservatives) and democrats are authoritarian (this is the true defn. of governmentally liberal, but this is a nonsequitor). It's not okay when either the republicans or the democrats do it.

In this case, neither ideology is competing and BOTH acts of legislation are against the spirit of the founding fathers and the constitution, much less common sense. The patriot act represents the single greatest violation of privacy in the history of the united states, whereas the healthcare bill is arguably the biggest infringement upon individual and corporate economic liberties (the "free market" that hasn't existed in the US for a while now--doesn't mean we can't go back).

Why are so many Americans incapable of thinking in an anti-government way? Are we so brainwashed as to think the only solution to any problem is more government? An easy fix. But easy fixes rarely have longevity.

I am not advocating anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, but instead a moderate libertarian ideal based off of efficiency and liberty. (yes, I see the merits in roads, public schools, etc.)

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

No.

The Patriot Act WAS a socialist movement. More accurately, it was not socialist, but authoritarian. Both republicans (they are NOT conservatives) and democrats are authoritarian (this is the true defn. of governmentally liberal, but this is a nonsequitor). It's not okay when either the republicans or the democrats do it.

In this case, neither ideology is competing and BOTH acts of legislation are against the spirit of the founding fathers and the constitution, much less common sense. The patriot act represents the single greatest violation of privacy in the history of the united states, whereas the healthcare bill is arguably the biggest infringement upon individual and corporate economic liberties (the "free market" that hasn't existed in the US for a while now--doesn't mean we can't go back).

Why are so many Americans incapable of thinking in an anti-government way? Are we so brainwashed as to think the only solution to any problem is more government? An easy fix. But easy fixes rarely have longevity.

I am not advocating anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, but instead a moderate libertarian ideal based off of efficiency and liberty. (yes, I see the merits in roads, public schools, etc.)

Well, I can't argue with that. I disagree with you, but at least you're consistent!

 

[FlowRate]

Well, I can't argue with that. I disagree with you, but at least you're consistent!

Respect.

(in a non sarcastic way)

 

[7starmantis]

Well, I can't argue with that. I disagree with you, but at least you're consistent!

What do you disagree with? Just the use of government or are there other points you disagree with? Seriously, just curious.

 

[Dr Oops]

Hate to break it to you, but this was a pretty centralist reform. Many of the ideas (insurance mandate for one) came from the Republican ideas of 1993.

If he wanted socialism he'd have gone for single-payer. He'd also have nationalized the entire banking industry. And the auto industry.

Obama did want single payer, he gave some press conference or something saying exactly that. He just knew it would never pass, so he went with the next step down.

I think the role of government is starting to get bigger and bigger under the guise of protecting its citizens but really its just restricting our choices.

The FDA is trying to ban tanning beds, the state of ny has a proposal to ban salt in restaurants we have an extra tax on soda, because people are too stupid/fat and cant control themselves.

I dont use any of those things (try not to eat too much salt), but if I wanted to drink soda and while tanning, i should be able to. The government should tell people about the dangers and let them make up their own decisions.

 

[tncekm]

And to be fair to myself, I treat the people who call Obama socialist with the same disdain I treated people who called Bush fascist. Neither comments are correct, appropriate or constructive.

What about your understanding of President Obama warrants "disdain" for people who identify him as a socialist? I find it fascinating because he's clearly a socialist, a statist, almost fascist even. So far his presidency has consisted of forcing his will upon the people of the US and absorbing private entities and markets. Of course it's all done "for the people", right? Of course... that's why federal politicians have exempted themselves and their staff from the healthcare reform bill. It's because they care about us.

The only thing he's done well is utilize unmanned aerial vehicles to kill Pakistani Taliban. <-- I've got to give credit where it's due!

 

[tncekm]

Obama did want single payer, he gave some press conference or something saying exactly that. He just knew it would never pass, so he went with the next step down.

I think the role of government is starting to get bigger and bigger under the guise of protecting its citizens but really its just restricting our choices.

Exactly. I'm distressed to know that stuff this obvious goes right over the heads of my fellow Americans

We've got a 5,000 year history of human "leaders" abusing their power, and somehow these *****s think that "this time, it's different". We're phucked, and I must say that my fellow citizens have earned it.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

What about your understanding of President Obama warrants "disdain" for people who identify him as a socialist? I find it fascinating because he's clearly a socialist, a statist, almost fascist even. So far his presidency has consisted of forcing his will upon the people of the US and absorbing private entities and markets. Of course it's all done "for the people", right? Of course... that's why federal politicians have exempted themselves and their staff from the healthcare reform bill. It's because they care about us.

The only thing he's done well is utilize unmanned aerial vehicles to kill Pakistani Taliban. <-- I've got to give credit where it's due!

Don't forget the hostage situation with Seal Team 6.

Seriously though.

Politicians have been forcing their will on the people since the founding fathers. Remember how many Americans were loyalists during the revolution? I remember people shouting the same thing about GWB, Clinton and even the first Bush in various times throughout their Presidency. So far none of them have been right. Why would I ever believe that they are somehow right now?

Heck, if this is your measuring point for socialism, FDR, Nixon and LBJ are communists through and through. They went well beyond what Obama is promising. The Great Society, the New Deal, Medicare and Medicaid, way, way in excess of what he's proposing. And yet the country is not even close to socialism. If all these measures don't result in socialism, why would I ever expect Obama to do it? You're inventing demons that don't exist yet.

As for forcing his will on the American people, our system of government has a truly great way to correct this! If he's really forcing his will on the people, he'll be voted out of office and there will be a rebalancing.

If you're wondering why it "goes over the head of the American people" it's because most of us are not crazy. The one who is out of sync with reality is you.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

What do you disagree with? Just the use of government or are there other points you disagree with? Seriously, just curious.

Oh, all I meant is that I probably think government should do more than he thinks it should, that's all. However, that's a matter of perspective and I'm certainly not going to tell him he's wrong. Also, there are parts of me that are quite libertarian. For example, I'm not a huge fan of Social Security.