quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

But it does. Size is everything. The larger it is the more likely socialism is to fail. Its only true success stories are in small groups. Fire departments around the country are case in point.

Yeah... didn't you guys hear? Why the Defense Department (America's oldest and largest government employer) completely collapsed only last week.

Yeah... if you people kept up with current events the way floersh does... you'd know these things.

Har har har. Last time I checked we were being told we are withdrawing from what has been argued to be an illegal war and we are losing in Afghanistan. Our troops get paid peanuts while the contractors make all the money and they come back home to shabby care at Walter Reid. Sorry if I don't view the military as the shining example of socialism success.

As for the rest of the alphabet soup you seem so in love with lets go through just a few. Lets start with the INS which can't seem to get its job done as per the debate on illegal immigrants. The DEA and Customs are sure having some real success. Are we even winning the drug war? Then we have the FBI, NSA, and CIA who did such a stellar job that they thwarted 9-11 even though they had one of the perps in custody a few days before the attack. And lets not forget fugitive numero uno still at large after how many years. Now was Abu Grahb the army or the CIA? How about water boarding in Gitmo?

Lets see we have FEMA which was a day late and dollar short in New Orleans. ATF did a stellar job at Waco. The FDA has been awesome in protecting our food supply lately (sarcasm). Don't even get me started on the FDIC, FHA, and SEC. And those are just for starters.

If you want some success stories look at the NYPD and FDNY. There are some success stories and geez its interesting. Aren't they local?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: floersh,

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

Then the sweeping statement of all socialism is bad is in fact false. That was the whole point of the exercise.

I don't recall ever making such a statement. If you really get down to it a family is usually a socialistic economic unit.

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:
And socialism certainly can work even at the federal government level. We have the military, federal level police forces, and the postal service to name a few.

And here is where you and I diverge. It does NOT work at the federal level and all of the examples you posted are proof positive of that. Most especially the last one.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by ACR26:

Wasted or spent? Got any links before we went in to Iraq that you personally knew there were no WMD to be found?

And no...I humbly do not have any links about this specific issue because
a. I was not yet a discussionist
b. Felt we were doing what was needed
c. Still feel that way

So, you're saying that, even though you are now aware that there never was any WMD - a fact we learned within months of our invasion - you still feel that we did the right thing going (and staying) in Iraq at the cost of nearly one trillion dollars borrowed primarily from the Chinese?

... in other words "wasted".

If the topic was the trillions spent on the war on poverty then yes...wasted
If the topic was the trillions on a school system where the failure rate exceeds the passing rate in the inner cities then yes...wasted
If the topic was how social security is bankrupt and it is expected that myself nor my children who put into this system will get 0 return on the "investment" then yes...wasted
Very expected of you to not care about those tiny issues.

However, as of today, I still do not think any part of the decision making for going into Iraq was a waste. History will prove this out which is what is most important for this country. Once again, building off the backs of the hard work and effort comes the armchair intellects. Very similar words that you wrote have been wrote by Olberman, writers for the huff post, tenured college proffs who smoke pot in their offices, NY times, etc.

It is very uncanny how the entire context of a war where massive effort and money was spent to minimize civilian deaths, protect our troops, removed a huge threat in the middle east, stopped a dictator from raping and killing a populace, and many other items all rolled into a nice tiny package called "wasted".

Very collegian of you.

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

Heres a point of note for ya:

Fire departments are a LOCAL government function not a federal government function. And they work. FEMA is a federal government function serving a similar role. It doesn't work quite as well.

Local control is completely different then federal control. Big centralized state control is what Marx wanted. Distributed localized control didn't quite fit his needs.

Socialism is socialism. It does not matter if it is city, county, state or federal.

But it does. Size is everything. The larger it is the more likely socialism is to fail. Its only true success stories are in small groups. Fire departments around the country are case in point. Or are you arguing that fire departments should be under the control of the Fed or even the state governments for that matter?

Then the sweeping statement of all socialism is bad is in fact false. That was the whole point of the exercise.

And socialism certainly can work even at the federal government level. We have the military, federal level police forces, and the postal service to name a few.

I think you and a few others are intentionally distorting the meaning of socialism for your purpose. The fire department is for the general well being of our society by preventing or reducing damage by the ravages of fire.

National health insurance which will not save anyone’s life because it is an insurance only can not be compared. But you can keep telling yourself that they are.

I am going to go argue with a blind person what the color of blue is.

quote:

Originally posted by ACR26:

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:
Then the sweeping statement of all socialism is bad is in fact false. That was the whole point of the exercise.

And socialism certainly can work even at the federal government level. We have the military, federal level police forces, and the postal service to name a few.

I think you and a few others are intentionally distorting the meaning of socialism for your purpose. The fire department is for the general well being of our society by preventing or reducing damage by the ravages of fire.

National health insurance which will not save anyone’s life because it is an insurance only can not be compared. But you can keep telling yourself that they are.

I am going to go argue with a blind person what the color of blue is.

I think the fire department is a great analogy to UHC: In both cases everyone is required to pay for a service (through taxes). In both cases the entire population is at risk and in need of the type of protection provided by the service (unless you and your possessions are inflammable or are immune to disease and injury). In both cases a majority of people will receive a direct benefit substantially less than the cost of the program, in return funding a minority who will receive a majority of the program benefit. In both cases, the risk ameliorated by the program can be reduced by individual actions but cannot be eliminated. In both cases, failure to provide these protections results in additional costs on society.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

quote:

Originally posted by ACR26:

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:
Then the sweeping statement of all socialism is bad is in fact false. That was the whole point of the exercise.

And socialism certainly can work even at the federal government level. We have the military, federal level police forces, and the postal service to name a few.

I think you and a few others are intentionally distorting the meaning of socialism for your purpose. The fire department is for the general well being of our society by preventing or reducing damage by the ravages of fire.

National health insurance which will not save anyone’s life because it is an insurance only can not be compared. But you can keep telling yourself that they are.

I am going to go argue with a blind person what the color of blue is.

I think the fire department is a great analogy to UHC: In both cases everyone is required to pay for a service (through taxes). In both cases the entire population is at risk and in need of the type of protection provided by the service (unless you and your possessions are inflammable or are immune to disease and injury). In both cases a majority of people will receive a direct benefit substantially less than the cost of the program, in return funding a minority who will receive a majority of the program benefit. In both cases, the risk ameliorated by the program can be reduced by individual actions but cannot be eliminated. In both cases, failure to provide these protections results in additional costs on society.

And in at least one case the government dictates how we can and can't build structures protected by its service through building codes and such. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they'll apply the exact same methodology to health care when they discover that they can control costs by dictating what you can and can't smoke, chew, and eat.

Heck they are already trying to attack such things via their sin taxes. New York just passed a tax on Soda pop. Those are just the beginning if they become responsible for your health.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

Then the sweeping statement of all socialism is bad is in fact false. That was the whole point of the exercise.

I don't recall ever making such a statement. If you really get down to it a family is usually a socialistic economic unit.

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:
And socialism certainly can work even at the federal government level. We have the military, federal level police forces, and the postal service to name a few.

And here is where you and I diverge. It does NOT work at the federal level and all of the examples you posted are proof positive of that. Most especially the last one.

You have not said in as many words that 'all socialism is bad', but that is the position that you are espousing; phrasology nonwithstanding.

Actually I tend to agree with you on socialism, it is the absolutist approach that all socialism is bad that I disagree with. And as much as we bust on the Post Office, it is a marvel of speed and efficiency. Given the volume of mail and packages it is truely amazing how few are actually lost.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

If you want some success stories look at the NYPD and FDNY. There are some success stories and geez its interesting. Aren't they local?

And if you want to read stories of pure unadulterated corruption look at the NYPD and the FDNY.

Every system has it's issue. And local police and fire departments are not as clean as you think. The NYPD for the longest time was one of the most corrupt public service departments in the nation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=nypd+corruption&aq=0&oq=NYPD+Corr&aqi=g9

Look at how efficiently the NY volunteer service raped and pillaged the city... their "free-market" actions motivated politicians to turn them into a "socialized" public service in order to put and end to their corruption.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/lm/236/

How about some fascinating stories of volunteer firefighters who were... just looking for some overtime pay.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Fireman+commit+arson+seeking+overtime&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

At the rate were going this is what it will be like when you order a Pizza in the future. But hey, big brother knows best. Begs the question, have elections become obsolete and only a waste of money?? We the people clearly voted for change and all we got was another guy doing WTF he pleases ignoring the will of the majority.


*http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf*

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:
And in at least one case the government dictates how we can and can't build structures protected by its service through building codes and such. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they'll apply the exact same methodology to health care when they discover that they can control costs by dictating what you can and can't smoke, chew, and eat.

Heck they are already trying to attack such things via their sin taxes. New York just passed a tax on Soda pop. Those are just the beginning if they become responsible for your health.

I do not think they will be able to dictate what we smoke, chew, and eat, but they already can and do influence it and punish "unhealthy" choices. Under the auspices of UHC, the only new power they would have to do so is the power of selective medical care for those 20% actually on the UHC plan - the carrot, perhaps in the form of federally funded stop-smoking programs, and the stick, perhaps by NOT covering tobacco-related health problems for those born after a certain year. Regardless, going with a private insurer would remove you from those issues and let you do as you and your insurer pleased!

In short, they can pretty much do this now, so I am not too worried about it.

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

You have not said in as many words that 'all socialism is bad', but that is the position that you are espousing; phrasology nonwithstanding.

I espouse no such thing. My position on these forums has always been local control not central control. And that applies to socialism MORE so then just about anything else. Socialism is all about personal relationships. if those are strong it can work. If they are not strong then it leads to taking advantage of people or corruption and usery.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

quote:

Originally posted by ACR26:

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:
Then the sweeping statement of all socialism is bad is in fact false. That was the whole point of the exercise.

And socialism certainly can work even at the federal government level. We have the military, federal level police forces, and the postal service to name a few.

I think you and a few others are intentionally distorting the meaning of socialism for your purpose. The fire department is for the general well being of our society by preventing or reducing damage by the ravages of fire.

National health insurance which will not save anyone’s life because it is an insurance only can not be compared. But you can keep telling yourself that they are.

I am going to go argue with a blind person what the color of blue is.

I think the fire department is a great analogy to UHC: In both cases everyone is required to pay for a service (through taxes). In both cases the entire population is at risk and in need of the type of protection provided by the service (unless you and your possessions are inflammable or are immune to disease and injury). In both cases a majority of people will receive a direct benefit substantially less than the cost of the program, in return funding a minority who will receive a majority of the program benefit. In both cases, the risk ameliorated by the program can be reduced by individual actions but cannot be eliminated. In both cases, failure to provide these protections results in additional costs on society.

Boy is this a sound reasoned argument lacking any real substance.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:
And if you want to read stories of pure unadulterated corruption look at the NYPD and the FDNY.

Every system has it's issue.

OK I'll concede those two groups. But simply point back to my original point. The bigger the group the more corruption and abuse there will be. The more localized or even the more personal the relationship between the parties the less likely corruption and abuse is. NOTE: Not impossible but less likely.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:
And in at least one case the government dictates how we can and can't build structures protected by its service through building codes and such. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they'll apply the exact same methodology to health care when they discover that they can control costs by dictating what you can and can't smoke, chew, and eat.

Heck they are already trying to attack such things via their sin taxes. New York just passed a tax on Soda pop. Those are just the beginning if they become responsible for your health.

I do not think they will be able to dictate what we smoke, chew, and eat, but they already can and do influence it and punish "unhealthy" choices. Under the auspices of UHC, the only new power they would have to do so is the power of selective medical care for those 20% actually on the UHC plan - the carrot, perhaps in the form of federally funded stop-smoking programs, and the stick, perhaps by NOT covering tobacco-related health problems for those born after a certain year. Regardless, going with a private insurer would remove you from those issues and let you do as you and your insurer pleased!

In short, they can pretty much do this now, so I am not too worried about it.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:
And in at least one case the government dictates how we can and can't build structures protected by its service through building codes and such. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they'll apply the exact same methodology to health care when they discover that they can control costs by dictating what you can and can't smoke, chew, and eat.

In short, they can pretty much do this now, so I am not too worried about it.

The other thing to consider is that, Western countries that already have UHC don't dictate what you can and can't do with these so-called sins. Doctors in England are paid bonuses if they "convince" their patients to eat better or stop smoking, but patients are still free to ignore such warnings and do what they want (cigarette smoking is still common there - so are greasy fried foods)

Canada has UHC, but still has businesses that sell greasy hamburgers and cigarettes.

From the examples of everywhere it already exists, UHC has not proven to be the horrible restraint against freewill that conservatives would have you believe it is.

BONESAW;

These are intelligence groups after all..... that is why I asked....Oh really??

The purpose of an intelligence service is to TELL you things...OR... NOT to tell you things....Isn't it????

Did I really need to install a sarcasm daemon so you would understand??

T

To add to that - I will be the first to help guard against the government dictating what we can and can't do if this country ever gets UHC.

Nobody that I know said programs like Canada's health care "system" restrict your freedoms.....they just F/ up your health care that's all!!

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
BONESAW;

These are intelligence groups after all..... that is why I asked....Oh really??

The purpose of an intelligence service is to TELL you things...OR... NOT to tell you things....Isn't it????

You're still coming up short... only a fraction of our agencies are "intelligence services", with the power to keep things from us. The vast majority are not and they operate where everyone can see them. In addition, this is what the horrible evil press is for (uncovering the cover ups). It's difficult for any agency to hide things from the public these days. Hell, you don't even need the press anymore (a student and his girlfriend just outed ACORN with a bad disguise a stupid backstory and a video camera)... so, I stand by my statement. It's amazing how few problems we hear when you consider how many government agencies we have.

You DO NOT need to tell me how hard it is to get information about government functions.

My brother spent fourteen years in HELL for the whistleblowing he did in good conscience!!!

I hold No, zero, none, illusions about government agencies, or any other human agency. They all have the same failings, from schools to churches, to government, to the frigging boy scouts!! ALL human agencies suffer from the SAME failing.

They ALL become self sustaining in their nature, forgetting their original intent.

They ALL sooner, or later, sacrifice members of themselves to preserve the "edifice"

They ALL self destruct from overweight beurocracies in that self same formerly stated effort of self preservation, regardless of continued need or elapsed purpose.

Read the Bible....Read your history....there is nothing new under the sun!!! Even the arrogance of the current crop of believers who have hitched their star to the current version of...THE ONE!!!

When governments change from democracies or federal republics to cults of personalities they fail, WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:

They ALL become self sustaining in their nature, forgetting their original intent.

They ALL sooner, or later, sacrifice members of themselves to preserve the "edifice"

They ALL self destruct from overweight beurocracies in that self same formerly stated effort of self preservation, regardless of continued need or elapsed purpose.

Okey dokey, Cochise... So, what's your answer? No bureaucracies of any kind? You want to dismantle the Department of Defense and all of our other government institutions? I mean... if they're all bad, and they all eventually self-destruct.

What's the end-game you envision here? Lay out your plan on how we should function as a society with no public service offices to do ANYTHING for us. No police, no firemen, no post office, no military, no FAA, no schools, no nothing...

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:

They ALL become self sustaining in their nature, forgetting their original intent.

They ALL sooner, or later, sacrifice members of themselves to preserve the "edifice"

They ALL self destruct from overweight beurocracies in that self same formerly stated effort of self preservation, regardless of continued need or elapsed purpose.

Okey dokey, Cochise... So, what's your answer? No bureaucracies of any kind? You want to dismantle the Department of Defense and all of our other government institutions? I mean... if they're all bad, and they all eventually self-destruct.

What's the end-game you envision here? Lay out your plan on how we should function as a society with no public service offices to do ANYTHING for us. No police, no firemen, no post office, no military, no FAA, no schools, no nothing...

In other words become present day Somalia.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:
And in at least one case the government dictates how we can and can't build structures protected by its service through building codes and such. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they'll apply the exact same methodology to health care when they discover that they can control costs by dictating what you can and can't smoke, chew, and eat.

Heck they are already trying to attack such things via their sin taxes. New York just passed a tax on Soda pop. Those are just the beginning if they become responsible for your health.

I do not think they will be able to dictate what we smoke, chew, and eat, but they already can and do influence it and punish "unhealthy" choices. Under the auspices of UHC, the only new power they would have to do so is the power of selective medical care for those 20% actually on the UHC plan - the carrot, perhaps in the form of federally funded stop-smoking programs, and the stick, perhaps by NOT covering tobacco-related health problems for those born after a certain year. Regardless, going with a private insurer would remove you from those issues and let you do as you and your insurer pleased!

In short, they can pretty much do this now, so I am not too worried about it.

The difference is the motivation to do so. Today there isn't much motivation. Sure they control narcotics and perscription drugs, they apply sin taxes to snuf, smokes, liquor. But when they pay for our medical treatment all of a sudden there is BUDGET MOTIVATION for salt (high blood preasure), sugar (diabetes and weight), trans fats (cardio), and all sorts of other things.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:
The other thing to consider is that, Western countries that already have UHC don't dictate what you can and can't do with these so-called sins. Doctors in England are paid bonuses if they "convince" their patients to eat better or stop smoking, but patients are still free to ignore such warnings and do what they want (cigarette smoking is still common there - so are greasy fried foods)

There is one thing to consider. It is the US that pushes most of these cultural things like McDonalds down to all of these other countries. Nearly every country on the planet lags us in the effects they are having and the degree to which the population consumes them.

We are the fatest nation on the planet. No one that has universal health care comes even close yet.

These other nations will reach where we are today at some point. Or at least some of them will. It will be interesting to see if their attitude changes. The fact that they haven't yet is no proof that they wont. And there is very little in regard to health that can simply be viewed as apple to apple with our situation. Add in the religious motivations of the holier then thous and our entire culture is different in nearly every way.

How much of the no-smoking laws are about health vs someones hollier then thou crusade?

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:
The difference is the motivation to do so. Today there isn't much motivation. Sure they control narcotics and perscription drugs, they apply sin taxes to snuf, smokes, liquor. But when they pay for our medical treatment all of a sudden there is BUDGET MOTIVATION for salt (high blood preasure), sugar (diabetes and weight), trans fats (cardio), and all sorts of other things.

Yeah, but there are TWO motivations you need to consider: the first you mentioned, a motivation to create a healthier and therefore less expensive populace (because Congress is always tryign to make things cheaper!), the second is a motivation to get elected/re-elected. The second one is violently not satisfied by banning burgers and mandating exercise, so I figure the point where that happens is the point where we are already screwed.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

Yeah, but there are TWO motivations you need to consider: the first you mentioned, a motivation to create a healthier and therefore less expensive populace (because Congress is always tryign to make things cheaper!), the second is a motivation to get elected/re-elected. The second one is violently not satisfied by banning burgers and mandating exercise, so I figure the point where that happens is the point where we are already screwed.

Well in principal I might agree with you except that:

1) Prohabition
2) Drug war
3) Fight against smoking
4) New Yorks tax on soda pop
5) Seat belt and helmet laws

You give way more respect to the electorate then I do. Most of them are dependant on the government and rocking the boat will only serve to hurt them. Add health care to governments list of services and they'll just be that much more dependant.

Just look at how resistant seniors are to Obama's health care plans once he mentioned the Medicare word..

It does not matter what the truth of the situation is. It only matters that he has proposed a change and these people who are dependant on it are not going to give one inch. Same thing occured with Bush and social security.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:
There is one thing to consider. It is the US that pushes most of these cultural things like McDonalds down to all of these other countries. Nearly every country on the planet lags us in the effects they are having and the degree to which the population consumes them.

We are the fatest nation on the planet. No one that has universal health care comes even close yet.

These other nations will reach where we are today at some point. Or at least some of them will. It will be interesting to see if their attitude changes. The fact that they haven't yet is no proof that they wont. And there is very little in regard to health that can simply be viewed as apple to apple with our situation. Add in the religious motivations of the holier then thous and our entire culture is different in nearly every way.

How much of the no-smoking laws are about health vs someones hollier then thou crusade?

First of all, the rest of the world has its unhealthy foods too - when I was in England I could eat fried foods for every meal without entering an American franchise or even stepping outside traditional British cuisine.

Second, no comparison is perfect but that does not mean that no comparison is valid. Individual liberty is a big concern everywhere, and you can take away needs often much more easily than wants. Do you really think American voters would stand for it if they were issued McDonald's Ration Cards, limiting you to 1 Big Mac a month?

Third, the no-smoking laws are a direct result of the fact that smoking automatically becomes a group activity if anyone is nearby. No matter how close you stand to that guy with the triple cheeseburger and the jumbo fries, you will not get any less healthy. You would be talking about an unprecedented level of intrusion.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:
You would be talking about an unprecedented level of intrusion.

I still don't think it matters. Governments intrude in our lives all the time. What seems unlikely today happens tomorrow. There all sorts of examples of laughable things that managed to get passed and are still around.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

Yeah, but there are TWO motivations you need to consider: the first you mentioned, a motivation to create a healthier and therefore less expensive populace (because Congress is always tryign to make things cheaper!), the second is a motivation to get elected/re-elected. The second one is violently not satisfied by banning burgers and mandating exercise, so I figure the point where that happens is the point where we are already screwed.

Well in principal I might agree with you except that:

1) Prohabition repealed
2) Drug war losing public support every year
3) Fight against smoking the only genuinely publicly intrusive issue
4) New Yorks tax on soda pop sgtate not federal
5) Seat belt and helmet laws state not federal

You give way more respect to the electorate then I do. Most of them are dependant on the government and rocking the boat will only serve to hurt them. Add health care to governments list of services and they'll just be that much more dependant.

Just look at how resistant seniors are to Obama's health care plans once he mentioned the Medicare word..

In every case here politicians have been or will be elected or deposed based on their opinions of the above. That's fine - that's democracy. The fact that the average voter is ignorant and not particularly bright is just a fact of the system.

Also, your medicare note is really an example on my side - Of all the needs of seniors (including military and police protection, international trade, and affordable heating/cooling) the one they zero in on is the thing they WANT the most - free doctors.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

Does it matter if its state or federally based? And the seat belt laws are a federal mandate for highway funds.

Actually the medicare thing illustrates the electorate and dependance. it doesn't matter what the truth of the situation is. what the pros and cons are. seniors have heard Obama mention change to medicare and, well, I think you'll find in the end that is what kills his health care push.