It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why vote for a socialist? Re: Sen. Obama

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pro-genetic
 

You are right. Free market economists complain that the USA has never given the laissez faire economics a good try. Socialists complain that socialism has never been given a fair chance, yet we keep condemning capitalism and socialism, two systems that everyone agrees have never been given free reign. The fact is we live in a mixed economy. When a major industry needs a bail out the government rushes to the rescue. Take for example the latest credit crunch and the collapse of the housing markets. In a laissez faire economy the government should do nothing! Let people suffer the consequences of their choices. Yet this has never been politically feasible! Greenspan was a laissez faire advocate until he entered the Federal Reserve. But did he act like one as chairman of the Federal Reserve when he was always tinkering with interest rates? A lot of these so called free marketers are old Randians who have feasted at the Objectivists table but are unable to digest the substance: "second hand thinkers" would be Rand's description of these hangers on who are unable to think for themselves but are good at regurgitating old dogma. Throw away catch phrases, look at what benefits individuals and in extension their communities. We all came into this world as "tabla raza." As individuals none of us had to reinvent language and the underpinnings of our societies. We must learn to balance the interests of the individual with the interests of society, none should dominate the other. We are one species, and our survival as a species must be the standard to consider.




posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I think everyone needs to decide how much MORE of their paycheck they want to go to the black hole that is "government."

It's very noble to want universal healthcare and lots of programs that help out our society as a whole. I am not saying it isn't. And I for one, would fork over more out of my hard earned cash if the government ran like a well-oiled business with little waste, and lots of productive results. But that's a pipe dream. It doesn't and I see no indication that just changing the head cheese who really has no power anyway, is going to change this fact.

If you had 100K to invest in stocks, would you pick a company to invest it with, that had botched every project and wasted the billions and billions of dollars that our government wastes year after year, decade after decade? Of course not.

So actually it comes down to how much more you want taken out of your paycheck to pay for all of these programs that some of you say we should have, that never seem to help the problem they were designed to help, and that basically don't accomplish one iota of change or good, compared to the billions we throw at them.


[edit on 1-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 1-6-2008 by LateApexer313]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
But seriously, if I can't prevent people from consuming all the cheesy poofs and splurm that they want, why am I supposed to be responsible for their care? And BTW, every Canadian I know, and every European, (i work in a 5 star resort) all say that their systems are going downhill due to huge influxes of immigrants. They're all going bankrupt. Which is what will happen because Obama wants to classify illegal immigrants as low income Americans, thereby qualifying them for them subsidies that average Americans will pay. Or did you forget those 12 million?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The most disturbing news I found about Obama is in regards to the whole Larry Sinclair Story.

Check it out here:

larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LateApexer313

It's very noble to want universal healthcare and lots of programs that help out our society as a whole. I am not saying it isn't.


Universal health care will neither help society as a whole nor is it noble.

Let's start with the "noble" aspect first.

Removing people's individual freedom of choice and compelling them to submit their health care into the hands of a centralized government is far from noble. If you want to tax people and use the money to pay for health services for the poor, fine, that's noble. Forcing me to change my health care, and dare I say change it for the worse isn't noble.

Now part two. Universal health care is NEVER going to help society as a whole. Why? Because adding another layer of bureaucracy into the system is only going to make the system less efficient. This is economics 101.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


EXACTLY!!!

Now everyone ask yourselves this...

When and what was the last programs the government took over that ran successfully????

What have they ever done that was not full of fraud and abuse?

How is it with a straight face anyone can say that UHC would be any different...????

EXACTLY

Semper



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
It seems the debate has turned to health care. I don't think the idea of health care for everyone is particularly 'socialist', but it's clearly a point of debate.

I'm completely on the fence. I don't know what is the best system. But I implore everyone interested to read this article about the changes in the system here in Australia:

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

Our Medicare system was originally designed to help those on lower incomes - those on higher incomes paid a levy on their health service if they didn't have private insurance.

Now, the new government has made it so people earning more than AU$150, 000 (keep in mind, the exchange rate of the Australian dollar is hanging around US$0.97) can get subsidized care. Before it was something like AU$50, 000.

This is going to see 400, 000 or so people drop their private insurance and race to the public system. Now, I love the idea of everyone having guaranteed health care, no matter their situation, but the system is really going to feel the strain under this sort of measure.

Our local and state government-ran hospitals are already subject to poor planning, poor funding, and nurses not nearly being paid enough for the amount of work they put in. Dentists are fleeing the public health system in droves, and you might as well pull your teeth out with pliers while waiting in the public system.

There needs to be some sort of capable system to catch the vulnerable, but complete and utter state-owned and managed health care systems still need a lot of work.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

When and what was the last programs the government took over that ran successfully????

What have they ever done that was not full of fraud and abuse?

How is it with a straight face anyone can say that UHC would be any different...????


I just thought of another way to look at this.

If the free markets haven't functioned to provide an optimum health care system, what in the world can the government add to the equation by MANDATE that's going to make the system better?

In other words, the system we have now is the result of individual choices, both on the supply side and the demand side. What we have now has reached an equilibrium point that balances quality of care, reward for providing care, and choices of service providers for both insurance and medical service providers.

So what policy of mandate can any government add to that equation to improve it?

If universal health care is a valid concept, why not universal housing? Universal automobiles? Universal gas and electric service?

The ONLY reason universal health care is on the front burner is because this has been Hillary Clinton's personal utopian mission every since she can remember. Because Hillary pushed the idea so much the other Dems had to add it to their wish list to keep up with Hillary.

What's really amazing is that there is almost NO clamoring for this from the people. This is a classic "we know what's best for you" type of initiative.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I wouldn't go so far as calling him a socialist, I might call him a realist, the only problem with universal health care that i can tell is that if you don't buy it you can be locked up or fined sort of like in Massachusetts, I don't agree with administration of a program forcing you to pay or get it.

Let me break it down to you though, all of the original plans for how democracy works coming out the box have been changed to fit the situation, the constitution and the government are of course living and breathing things that transcend all institutions.

I think that what is going on in America the way that everyone could be a capitalist and work their way up with some business is harder and harder to do, so people are stuck working for some large corporation.

Compare the average "good company" of today to say one 30-40 years ago, most companies had good retirement and pension plans and decent medical benefits, nowadays most companies have no real pensions and you are lucky to get medical benefits, more and more people are sliding backwards financially and economically and it has hit them in the pockets.

I think that there are so many people running around betting and hoping they won't get sick or get cancer or some other chance ailment, that if they did get sick it would bankrupt them and they would lose everything.

There are plenty of programs that might be perceived as socialist if you really researched it, universal health care is necessary, suppose a pandemic flu or TB were to start, imagine all of the people walking around with some communicable disease that has no physician and is possibly passing off the sickness to others around them.

Most localities have some sort of health departments already and have done so for many years, all this Universal health care is will be is something equivalent to that on steroids, I think too much is being made of this when it makes perfect sense especially for the public health and welfare.




[edit on 1-6-2008 by phinubian]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by phinubian
 


so you are saying that your car and house title are living, breathing documents? I mean, since you think the constitution is...
And please point me to an instance where anyone has ever been denied care due to money, and not faced repercussions?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
ok, first off, if you think in america that in a hospital you are getting anything other than the absolute minimum, think again. I as a hospital worker, know a person is considered "cured" as soon as their insurance runs out. Now, we have a health insurance system, but that still sure as hell does not give us the ability to choose our care. How many health insurance programs allow you to choose alternative therapies for your provider? or naturopathic medicine? very few.... most insurances only cover conventional medicine, and many only cover their specific choice of medicines. As far as people not being treated for not having money, you must be sick! In other countries you will get the best therapy available for ;your illness. here, if you dont have the money for "optional" things like keeping an eye in the case of eye injury, or the surgury to replace a limb or finger in case of amputation, your getting stitched up without it (youll live) and sent out the door. It takes money and knowledge to ask the doctors for a heavy metals test, a celiac test, or anything out of the ordinary, and if you dont have both, your not getting the proper treatment.
And ive said whats wrong with Hillarys plan and i'll say it again. If we want national health care, the LAST thing we need is insurance companies taking a chunk before the health industry gets it. ABOLISH the health insurance groups and pay directly to the hospitals. And i also have an answer to the people saying the problem is our government would botch it like they do all things. Essentially you are saying our government is too corrupt to accomplish anything correctly...if thats the case then why arent you out there in arms taking your government down? If they cant manage the health and care of their people appropriately, then our government system needs to be torn down by force and replaced. THEN we can institute a fair fully representative government, and THEN we can institute a universal health care system that we all deserve.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


I would vote for him simply because he's a man. I Don't care if he's black or white or in this case both. The alternatives that the Hidden Elites have given us are a 70 some year old dinosaur with the same infantile beliefs as Bush himself. -...we are all out of money insomuch as we can't possibly pay the international bankers off so let's fix it by staying and fighting in Iraq for another 100 years.Better yet, let's piss off even a larger country (Iran) that hates us equally as much, if not more.("We're smart!")This guy is the closest evidence we have regarding that reptilian theory (I'm not much of a fan of that) but you gotta agree...he looks like a reptile as does Hillary Clinton's daughter -chill just went up my spine-. Oh and let's not forget to fight in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, we all know the bible says turn and cut the cheek off of your enemy, kill as many people as you can and your reward is heaven. Was it Jesus that almost took over the world or Alexander the Great, I get them mixed up. In case you haven't noticed, I am being facetious. The other candidate is a feminist beoch with nothing but the destruction of men on her mind. She even put the idea out to the public to assassinate Obama as was done to Robert Kennedy, after all why would she even bring it up,it had nothing to do with the preceding words she spoke. It just came out of left field which leads me to believe it was a subtle idea to anyone out there who wanted her to succeed, probably the feminists again.They would be the only ones crazy enough to actually try this. I have met some and feminists ARE DANGEROUS and selfish! I think I want her to remain where she is....in subjection of men! LOL. I would vote for the Devil himself before I would vote for her or any other female.What a joke we would be to other nations that keep their women in subjection, such as those we are at war with. If we had a woman president they would attack us twice as much because, I mean, after all....despite what the women want you think and Hollywood has plastered all over the silver screen lately about women beating men up in fights and so on (yeah right)....we men are still in control and when it really comes down to the wire. We will win by strength and force while they try to fight us with LAWYERS. They will lose in a REAL fight.....The whole feminist movement was meant to empower women, which will get husbands and wives fighting and divorcing and then the children will become frustrated and belligerent and will be enslaved in the new wars or will go to the streets and contribute to the downfall of America (gangs). The shopping sprees that women so have enjoyed (by using credit cards) will take care of the rest financially. So I see it as women played a big part via feminism in tearing our country down, I mean, after all there is a close relation in the time line of human events that suggests that the expedient decline of America happened right around the time of the feminism movement (which is a Russian dichotomy tactic that obviously worked ....look it up). Any way she is a feminist and the very name of Feminism EXCLUDES the well being and proliferation of the men and their needs. Don't let them lie to you, feminists want men to be subjected to them, in essence, we men bow to women (not like in your fantasy) but to women like Janet Reno or my ex-wife. Power hungry women who want nothing but your downfall. They will once again need us when all Hell breaks loose and I for one will laugh at them as they squirm trying to be G.I. Jane in an event where they need to fight. I speak of the feminists only. You can tell the difference between a woman and a feminist. A feminist has testicles like us but looks like a microwaved version of a Tranny.Anyway, Clinton is our other choice and well, as I stated, Take your seat Devil if she is the only other choice.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Phenomium]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
dear god. Somebody reply to that fool above me...i just cant be bothered.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I think he as a valid point really.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Please let's keep it civil and remember the Terms and Conditions


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


Also good to remember this:

Courtesy is Mandatory

Personal attacks and name calling does nothing to support your argument. In many cases it in fact works just the other way...

It also invites MOD intervention when we should be able to discuss a subject intellectually and in a courteous manner.

Semper



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
i wasnt aware i HAD an arguement. It was just all the sexism and ignorance and the droning on about the "...subjection of men" ...sigh, guess we have to excuse everyone their ignorance, but we all slip from time to time, you know? its a shame though when our better sense is SUBJUGATED by others stupidity



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I meant that last post in general, of course. I wasnt refering to anyone specific or anything



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Regardless of the subject matter or opinions of others, there is no need to lower ourselves to the point of name calling.

Besides being against the policy here at ATS, it adds nothing to the discussion and serves only to indicate something about the name caller. whatever that may be of course as I am not pointing this to anyone specifically either...


Semper



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
its true, i admit it, i am intolerant of intolerance. I hate seeing racism, sexism, ignorance...it brings out the worst in me! We all have our points to work on.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   
And...... Derailed....

(rights train)

Where were we?
Pexx, I am sorry that you refuse to concede that seeing as we have no control over the lifestyles of our countrymen, nor who we allow in, then I see no gains by creating a socialist health care system, whether we call it that or "insurance".
You are right, insurance companies are frauds. But where did you see me advocate the use of such systems? Haven't I been posting about the anger and frustration associated with bureaucratic layers?
Are you not going to point to me how we are supposed to mandate a type of system that REQUIRES others to work it, without infringing on their rights?

We are not given the true knowledge and skills to lead healthy lifestyles, oh wait, we are; its called reading.

So how does this work out in the end? I again point out that the biggest drain on the healthcare system is preventative by lifestyle changes. Freeing up those resources would do wonders for the cost of other care.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join