All comrades must do their utmost to benefit the good of the people!

I guess it sounds better in its original Russian.

I see the great thinker Stephen Hawking has come to the defense of the Great Britian's national health system. Evidently, the menstrual rag named Investor's Business Daily used Hawking in some sort feces-strewn argument that Hawking would be dead under Obama's health plan. No, IBD's arguments about Hawking don't make sense, but then right-wing hysteria about national health care rarely makes sense.
Maybe Amy Alkon has better insights into health care than Hawking. I would doubt it.
Good enough for Hawking, good enough for me.

Hawking hawking national health is like Buffet advocating more taxes. I'm not impressed.

"why do it?"

Well, as I saw it explained on another forum, the government is more caring than some suit in a cubicle in an evil profit driven insurance company. A government agent as it were is there to do good work and you know, would care about the person.

Now, there is no doubt many corporations are scummy/criminal etc. but to say that government will be better is to ignore a great amount of human history, especially the last 150 years or so. Sadly, far too many people these days are addicted to the government teat.

And another thing, do Liberals (or anyone really) who promote these single payer gov. run plans ever stop and think long term? What happens when a politician/party gets in power that they don't like? That politician won't use the system to aid their patrons/supporters at the expense of others, right?

"All comrades must do their utmost to benefit the good of the people!

I guess it sounds better in its original Russian."

It sounds good in English, too.

During the 1960s, it was the government, not the free market, took the signs down in front of the restaurants or hotels which were read "Whites Only".

At the end of the day, it was the government, not the free market, to utilize the potential
resources in the every corner of the society to "benefit the good of the people."

And we all thrived including minorities. That happened all thanks to the government you hate so much. If you let the free market decides, you will still see the "White Only" sign in front of the McDonald.

Now, there is no doubt many corporations are scummy/criminal etc.

I'd say there's a lot of doubt about that. I'm aware it's become the conventional wisdom and is a key part of the liberal narrative, but that doesn't make it true. Rather the opposite.

I guess it sounds better in its original Russian."
It sounds good in English, too.

And how about in Chinese? Does it sound good in Chinese too, Chang? (if that's actually your name) And if it does, why are you here and not there, Chang?

Hey, "kishke" (if that's actually your name), are you a bigoted hater? Why would you come here just to be so nasty?

Chang made some thoughtful points. Your post indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say in response or opposition to those points, doesn't it?

So, he wins, and you make yourself the loser with such behavior, IMHO.

"During the 1960s, it was the government, not the free market, took the signs down in front of the restaurants or hotels which were read "Whites Only".

You weren't there. I was, albiet as a child. At least around here, no one from the government went around taking down the "Whites Only" signs. Admittedly, there was pressure from government, but that was only a reflection of the pressure from the citizenry. In my area, military personnel made it absolutely clear that they would start boycotting segregated restraunts. Yes, it was an order, but it had widespread support from the enlisted men; it could not have been consistently enforced otherwise. There was a discussion of sorts, and the signs came down the next day -- removed by the same people who put them up.

c'mon kishke, there is no need to cast aspersions here...

so Chang... you don't realize the irony of your argument? To provide everyone with equal access to McikeyD's the government is DEFENDING the right of an individual to not be discriminated against based on race, yeah?

"to utilize the potential
resources in the every corner of the society to "benefit the good of the people." "
IS NOT defending the right of the people as individuals, it is coercing them into a group to take their individual rights away.

As DeToq says this is the difference between Socialism, and Democracy...

@Chang: "During the 1960s, it was the government [which]...took the signs down in front of the restaurants or hotels which were read 'Whites Only'."

Point taken -- governments are capable of great good (like defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japan). I don't think anyone could deny that. But wasn't it government that sanctioned having the segregation signs up there to begin with? That kind of goes with Sio's argument, "What happens when a politician/party gets in power that they don't like?"

Why do I think Hawking has more info on national health insurance than Alkon?

Not merely because he is famous, or because I want attention (please, if I wanted attention, wouldn't I post the usual sycophantic slop?)

Why is Hawking a better judge on Great Britain's health care system than Alkon?

1. He lives there. Alkon does not.
2. You see (unfortunately) his physical predicament. That means he spent time in the system. Alkon has not.
3. Hawking is very smart.
4. Hawking might be famous now, but he was born the way he is, and was an "average" patient for most of his life.

Add it all up: Hawking is a better source on health care in Great Britain than Alkon.

Good enough for Hawking, good enough for me.

What is sad is watching all the righties lockstep their way on this one. What next? Wearing guns to health care symposiums?

Chang:

If you let the free market decides, you will still see the "White Only" sign in front of the McDonald.

Chang, you ignorant slut. If the free market had decided, segregation would not have happened.

You can continue to praise government. But the simple fact of the matter is that governments are responsible for the bulk of human suffering in the modern era.

Giving government money and power is like giving an idiot child a bottle of whisky and the keys to the Corvette.

@chang - During the 1960s, it was the government, not the free market, took the signs down in front of the restaurants or hotels which were read "Whites Only".

That was good of them, since it was the government that put them there. They were called Jim Crow Laws because it was the LAW. Seems not all white people hated blacks so much that they weren't willing to take their money, so the local governments made it the law..

douchebag:

Hawking might be famous now, but he was born the way he is, and was an "average" patient for most of his life.

Except for the fact that he was 21 when he contracted and was diagnosed with ALS, yeah, he was born that way.

douchebag:

Good enough for Hawking, good enough for me.

What is sad is watching all the righties lockstep their way on this one. What next? Wearing guns to health care symposiums?

Hawking was a student with promise. You're a shit-stain that posts stupid shit on an internet board. What makes you think that the Cost Control Boards are gonna allocate anything fancy to your dumb ass?

I harbor no illusions that I'll get anything beyond the most cursory care from Obamacare. Certainly less than I can get now.

"As DeToq says this is the difference between Socialism, and Democracy..."

I disagree. The Democracy will inevitably bring in socialism no matter you like it or not.

The current president, who is a socialist, was elected by the people in a democratic election.

Until we figure it out how to get the blood out of turnip, we have no choice but to have a public health care paid by the rich, who has the money.

I know it is not fair. But I think the rich will benefit eventually by having healthy work force to make more money for them.

"Chang, you ignorant slut. If the free market had decided, segregation would not have happened."

Let's go back a little. It was the free market that promoted slavery.

When the government said "No more", the South said, "Leave the market alone. Otherwise, the economy will collapse due to additional labor costs. We cannot afford to free the slaves (public health care)!!."

And the government said, "Bull shit".

Jay R.: Hey, "kishke" (if that's actually your name), are you a bigoted hater? Why would you come here just to be so nasty?

I was making the point that if communism is so wonderful, as Chang claims, then he should have remained in China (assuming he's Chinese), where it's still in effect, and not come here. The fact that he's here and not there tells us that he doesn't actually believe it's so great.

I said "if that's actually your name" not to point up any use of a screen name, which I obviously have no problem with, but to explain why I assume he's Chinese, and to say that if he's not, my comment obviously doesn't apply. No bigotry or hate intended at all.

Kishke, with all due respect, your 12:35 comment made little sense. I'm not convinced that Chang is a communist, and don't see how being Chinese would necessarily make him one. I do think he's wrong in many respects (sorry Chang), but that's another matter altogether.

Lotta guys, if they dig themselves into a hole, woulda quit digging.

When the government said "No more", the South said, "Leave the market alone. Otherwise, the economy will collapse due to additional labor costs. We cannot afford to free the slaves (public health care)!!."

Put the shovel down and climb out of the hole.

You obviously know dick about American history.

It had nothing to do with "the market" and everything to do with getting the southern colonies to back the Revolution.

Also known as "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Chang:

I disagree. The Democracy will inevitably bring in socialism no matter you like it or not.

It doesn't have to. That it does is a defect in humans who always want something for nothing, especially if they can take it from someone else.

Chang:

The current president, who is a socialist, was elected by the people in a democratic election.

A socialist who spent the entire campaign running as a centrist. Those of us who never supported him tried to warn you, but you voted for his socialist ass anyway, and never believed that he actually meant all those socialist things he said when he was in the senate and earlier.

Chang:

Until we figure it out how to get the blood out of turnip, we have no choice but to have a public health care paid by the rich, who has the money.

Right. Penalize those who make the money, and they have no incentive to do so any longer. This abomination goes through, the private insurance industry is dead - millions of unemployed right there. The small businesses that can't afford to either pay the fines or buy health insurance? They're gone too.

Chang:

I know it is not fair. But I think the rich will benefit eventually by having healthy work force to make more money for them.

Have you ever wondered why the US leads the world in productivity? Because we don't do hare-brained socialist bullshit like have the government try to run everyone's health care.

You need to accept the uncomfortable fact that with as incompetent as the Canadian and British are at managing their health care systems, our government will be FAR worse.

What next? Wearing guns to health care symposiums?

The President endorses it. Why don't you?

When the government said "No more", the South said, "Leave the market alone."

Actually that was Southern government responding to Northern government. Subsequently, government started a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

The biggest problem with government is that it's hard to opt out, which magnifies the impact of its mistakes. That's great when it's me forcing my beliefs on you but not so great when you're forcing your beliefs on me. In contrast, when a company does something I don't like, I can buy some other company's product instead. That's the beauty of Federalism: the federal government does as little as possible and state governments can take different approaches to solving problems. Not only is it easier to move to another state than to another country, but trying different things simultaneously frequently leads to a more rapid solution.

Daddy: Here's what Chang said:

"All comrades must do their utmost to benefit the good of the people!
I guess it sounds better in its original Russian."
It sounds good in English, too.

I take that as a defense of communism.

"You obviously know dick about American history."

Dude, you picked a wrong blog to say that. Where the hell is Conan?

@Brian: "You need to accept the uncomfortable fact that with as incompetent as the Canadian and British are at managing their health care systems, our government will be FAR worse."

If for no other reason than the U.S. system would have a lot more people to look after.

Whoops, I missed a good one:

Until we figure it out how to get the blood out of turnip, we have no choice but to have a public health care paid by the rich, who has the money.

The rich don't have enough money to pay for public health care. Neither do the middle class. Tax receipts might, if we're lucky, top a trillion dollars this year. That's the budget we have to work with for everything.

The government has the perfect opportunity to show that it can control medical costs: Medicare. Instead it uses Medicare to distort the system, making health care more expensive for everyone.

"I disagree. The Democracy will inevitably bring in socialism no matter you like it or not."

Yeah? Bull. This happens when people accept that they work for the government, and NOT themselves. I don't think "O" is a socialist, I think he is interested in power. Once it is threatened, he will retreat. Or. In the most foolish turn of events in history, the Dems do in fact ram all this through without support, alienate 70% of everyone, and in the mid-terms next year get voted out wholesale.

Right now there are a WHOLE lot of people who are looking at what the gov't is trying to do, and realizing that conservatives mentioning "Wealth Redistribution" last fall were not wrong.

Currently most people in the country are against these plans. Especially those 50% of us that pay 96.4% of all income taxes. The RICH? shyeah, as IF. It doesn't take much to pull yourself back out of the system if you are rich. Meaning you work less, try less, make less. At which point there is less money coming in to the treasury, at which point EVERYONE is taxed more. Including me who is not rich.

If you REALLY like to give the government all your money, FEEL FREE TO DO SO. Nobody will stop you. Interestingly enough the architects of all this stuff, ESP in the administration, not only do not pay extra, they often try to dodge their taxes.

HMMM. Makes you wonder what it's all about, huh?

"The biggest problem with government is that it's hard to opt out, which magnifies the impact of its mistakes. That's great when it's me forcing my beliefs on you but not so great when you're forcing your beliefs on me."

We call that Democracy. The majority rules.

The key is that the socialist government must know the tipping point, where Bill Gates said to himself, " I am done working. I rather watch the reruns of Seinfeld instead."

I think the dumb majority can force their beliefs on him up to that point. I am not saying I am happy with this. I am just pointing out the reality of it.

Daddy:

Doesn't the redistributionist crap Chang has been spewing bear out my contention that he is a communist?

@Chang: "We call that Democracy. The majority rules."

If you haven't already been flamed for this remark, you will be. We're not a democracy, we're a republic, which is a little different, being represented by an elected Congress and bound, supposedly, by a Constitution which delineates what the government is actually allowed to do to its citizens. Further, by saying that the majority rules, are you really saying that the majority is entitled to help itself to whatever it demands of you? How would you like to be subject to the whims of the majority?

@kishke: "Doesn't the redistributionist crap Chang has been spewing bear out my contention that he is a communist?"

Kishke, I'm not inclined to argue the point. I'll leave it to Chang to say whether he's a communist. I'm pretty sure he's not a libertarian, and in any case, lots of people are arguing with him better than I can. What grated on me was the "why are you here and not there, Chang?" remark, which struck me as unnecessary, although I may be overreacting.

Daddy: I have no patience for a communist (or socialist) who immigrates from a country where his chosen form of government is in power, and then calls for the same to be implemented here. If he likes it so well, let him stay home. I'm all for calling people out on such hypocrisy.

Given Hawkings preference for national health care, and Brian's dimwitted grunts, I would have say the argument for national health care has won the day.
Next waa-waa for the right?

Does it matter if he is a communist? That is one of those loaded words with alot of negative connotations, but its certainly more rational to debate the merits of any assertion or idea, not simply cast aspersions on one another.

But Chang does make ONE very good point, Democracy itself brings socialism. How? We're seeing it now as more and more people get addicted to government hand outs.

"Democracy survives until the people realize that they may vote themselves gifts out of the public trust."

We're seeing that now little by little, its not inevitable at this point, and there are huge sectors of opposition that grow daily as more invasive and divisive details are revealed to the public, but what we see are the stirrings of an ugly and invasive set of socialist programs.

Taxing the rich is a constant battlecry, but the wealthiest 1% of the population already pay 50% of the nation's income taxes, just how much more are they supposed to pay? How much is the government entitled to take from ANY citizen, no matter how rich or poor they are?

Tax the rich is the same as saying, take it from someone else so I don't have to pay for what I use.

Democratically decided or not, how is that even remotely reasonable?

Why should I strive to make more money, if I know that I won't get to keep any of it?

And what is to happen to medical care when doctors are told they can be sued for huge sums but can only charge tiny ones?

People might travel to Canada to buy meds, but nobody goes up there for a medical appointment, and there is a reason.

I DO think we need some manner of healthcare reform.

But I do NOT favor the federal level of involvement. This is something that states should be seeing to.

A federal program puts far to much power into the hands of the federal government, and it already has more than it should many times over.

Let's go back a little. It was the free market that promoted slavery.

When the government said "No more", the South said, "Leave the market alone. Otherwise, the economy will collapse due to additional labor costs. We cannot afford to free the slaves (public health care)!!."

And the government said, "Bull shit".

Posted by: Chang

Chang you do need help on your history

Chang, Lincoln was of the opinion that slavery was a states rights issue, after being elected presisdent his reiterated his campaign promise of not outlawing slavery.

After the south split off he wrote to the repersentives of the southern states that if they quit the rebellion they could keep their slaves.

The only reson slavery became the issue which the war revolved around was because the south forced the issue.

The emancipation proclomation only freed the slaves in the states that were part of the rebeillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

That's what the government did about racism. Part of the problem, as usual.

Let's go back a little. It was the free market that promoted slavery.

Huh? A free market is one in which every participant if free to sell his services (or the goods he has produced). A slave is hardly free to sell his services to the highest bidder.

To have a free market, labor must be free to sell itself.

Slavery is incompatible with a free market.

Slavery kept the South's labor rate artificially low which meant immigrants and non-landowning workers left to go to non-slave states where they could find work.

Without new industries and new market players, the Southern economy stagnated.

With the influx of new workers and ideas, non-slave states grew in population, material wealth, and political influence.

When war finally came, non-slave states had large numbers of immigrants in need of jobs who could be turned into soldiers. The South did not. The North sustained huge losses and never flinched. The South felt every loss.

Econ 101: The government's role in a free market is to keep some players from erecting artificially high barriers to entry in order to establish a monopoly or oligpoly.

I say "artificial" because there are some industries or markets in which the high barriers to entry are natural (e.g., utilities, auto manufacturing).

Dude, you picked a wrong blog to say that. Where the hell is Conan?

Don't look at me. I'm with them.

I told you before, read a book on American history that was not approved by the Party.

lujlp - keep in mind also that the south started it by trying to get the federal government to intervene in Kansas. They felt that the Missouri Compromise required Kansas to be a slave state, and due to the mass emigration of New Englanders to the area, they actually voted themselves a free state.

This hacked the south off so much (because it meant that they were outnumbered in the senate) that they seceeded rather than tolerate the country doing what was morally right, and what should have been done (but for pragmatism) a hundred years prior.

You're right that Lincoln was content to leave slavery be, even though he himself was an abolitionist. But when the South forced the issue, it became "Fuck me? No, fuck YOU!"

Please note that Confederate script is not legal tender.

douchebag:

Given Hawkings preference for national health care, and Brian's dimwitted grunts, I would have say the argument for national health care has won the day.
Next waa-waa for the right?

Shut up, he explained.

This hacked the south off so much (because it meant that they were outnumbered in the senate) that they seceeded rather than tolerate the country doing what was morally right....

There were a few other issues, but you're right that being outnumbered in both the Senate and the House left the South feeling increasingly powerless.

The South felt the North was ganging up on it when several laws and tariffs were passed without regard to their impact on the South's overwhelmingly agrarian economy.

There were also emotional issues (almost 100 years of hurling insults at each other had left both sides unable to compromise).

The South needed to ship its cotton, indigo, and tobacco overseas. The North wanted protection from overseas competition. With more Congressional representation, the North won that argument.

Tennessee and Kentucky were slave states. Tennessee seceded, but Eastern Tennesse remained loyal to the Union, as did Kentucky. Western Virginia refused to secede and was made a separate state. Why did these pro-slavery areas not sedede? Coal. These areas made their money selling coal to the industrial and urbanized North. The agrarian South didn't buy much coal.

A debate over healthcare becomes a debate over slavery in the American south?

One reason I wish that high schools required debating classes.

Its one of the cardinal rules of debate to stay to topic, stick to the issues relevant to the subject, avoid personal attacks, and debate the facts.

True our politicians and media spokes persons usually fail miserably, but that is no excuse for us to fail in the same way.

Guess what, Robert? This isn't Harvard Debate Society. It's a blog.

Which is more of a conversation than a debate. It moves and changes.

Although if it weren't for the ignoramus Chang trying to compare the sacking of the rich for the imposition of universal death care to slavery, we wouldn't be having to educate his ignert ass.

It doesn't need to be the Harvard Debate Society. But is a little logic to much to ask?

You tell us, as you seemed to entirely miss the explination brian laid out at your feet

Also your call to keep the disscussion on track is a little odd dont you think?

Wasnt it you who brought up the idea of slavery being a requirement of societal development on a thread about the divinely inspired origions of the bible?

so I-holier the day is won or lost because a really intelligent guy backs the government who he has to thank for keeping him alive since he is using an astonishing amount of health resources for one person... and because you aren't willing to take on brian point for point?

I'd say that means you LOST. I have lotsa respect for Stephen, but if he was merely a promising young grocer instead, the outcome would be far different. He is SO FAR out of the norm that he isn't representing anything but himself.

Meanwhile the people of the UK that have various kinds of cancers really prove the point in a demonstrable way. Their outcomes are statistically far lower than in the US, even though they have the same technology. Their system is their problem. If it was a shining beacon on a hill that helped eveyone, and everyone was healthier, lived longer, and it cost far less to administer, you'd think it would be hard to argue with. But it isn't. It doesn't do any of those things THERE. How would it work on the scale we have? We are a lot bigger and far more diverse in every respect. That makes comparison harder, not easier.

Propose something that will work here. Or don't you have the brainsalad for that?

>>I have lotsa respect for Stephen, but if he was merely a promising young grocer instead, the outcome would be far different. He is SO FAR out of the norm that he isn't representing anything but himself.

To be fair to Hawking, that's not quite the case SwissArmyD.

He made a really productive stink at Cambridge University (he's senior prof there) to get reasonable access to specialist libraries & rare books collections for disabled students. I remember at the time there was a lot of shit going on about his private life (and he was shrinking from the publicity) but he kept up the fight because he said he owed it to any student in a wheelchair.

Sio writes: "government is more caring than some suit in a cubicle"

Sorry, wrong, go to the back of the line. A government bureaucracy is the epitome of "suits in a cubicle". Instead of yearning for profit and bonuses, bureaucrats play empire-building and office politics.

The difference is: bureaucracies are forever. Businesses occasionally go through phases of firing the incompetents. In government, they just accumulate seniority.

Not at all odd lujlp, as that was more or less the primary topic of discussion, given that the initial assertion was over the evil practices in civilizations at the time those "holy books" were written.

Proponents of government health care, I have one simple question:

If the idea is so wonderful, why does congress exempt itself?

Why did Obama refuse to endorse it for his own family?

If it is so wonderful, why do people from countries WITH socialized medicine come to the United States, while people in the United States do not go elsewhere?

How do we get rid of the program if it turns out to be a bad idea? Ever seen a government program go down at all? Those huge bureaucracies are harder to get rid of than rats in a sewer system.

And how do we pay for it?

Tax the rich? But they already pay for half the taxed income in the country, how much more does the government have a right to?

Swiss -

I think if you talk to them long enough, you'll find that most of the progressives that support the imposition of Soviet-style socialism (which is really techno-feudalism) honestly believe that they will be Party members, and therefore exempt from all the bad things they intend for "The Workers".

I don't know if they're really that stupid, or they just think WE are.