She writes as though she thinks the point of this bill is health care, not a massive expansion of government at the cost of personal liberty.

Seems to me that there are two kinds of politicians who could support the health care bill. First, those who (as BlogDog says) cynically want to increase government power. Second, those who are starry-eyed idealists and actually believe it will work.

The astounding thing is that anyone over the age of 10 can actually be naive enough to be in the second group.

Bradley, how true. As I said before, universal health care is practiced by nations who have resigned themselves to being taxed out of the lion's share of their own income. The U.S. does not accept, nor will it ever accept, this idea.

The pack mule can only carry so much weight before its back breaks. Obamacare is throwing a trillion dollar anvil on top of the weight of TARP, bail out, stimulus, as well as social security and medicare ( both of which we are told will be bankrupt soon ). The over all debt which our "leaders" seem to willingly inflict on us is staggering and leaves me depressed. This is truly inter-generational theft.

Attend a tea party. Vote the bums out.

I will pile on a bit here, but...she is not cognizant that this is the type of crisis (the economy) that Rahm Emanuel was talking about "not letting go to waste." It's simply another way of centralizing power over the economy to the federal government.

Obama is not a socialist; he is a corporatist. Like FDR, he believes in an elite combination of politicians and business leaders to lord over the citizenry. He has no trust in individual freedom, ambition, or entrepreneurship. He will pay lip service to these things, but he does not believe in them. If he did, he would never foist this albatross on the American people.

"Steel yourself for the deafening screams from the careerist professional class of limousine liberals when they get stranded for hours in the jammed, jostling anterooms of doctors' offices."

That won't happen because they'll create special provisions for themselves. They're Too Important to stand in line, dontcha know.

As I said before, universal health care is practiced by nations who have resigned themselves to being taxed out of the lion's share of their own income. The U.S. does not accept, nor will it ever accept, this idea.

That's true, but the way this bill does it is not by taxing us, but by requiring us to purchase insurance, whose price will of course go up. But that'll be the fault of the evil insurance companies, not the kindhearted government! It's quite a clever piece of misdirection really. No new taxes necessary (at least for most people), but we'll still be paying more.

A socialized system requires a trade-off. On the surface, you trade taxes for services. But the real trade-off is deeper. You trade aspirations for security.

A capitalist system is inherently risky. With freedom comes risk. The freedom to try means the possibility of failure and the risk of starving.

The US has, up to now, been pretty good at mitigating the sharpest edges of that risk while maintaining a very high degree of economic freedom. Poor people aren't starving in the streets and they're not rioting for bread.

But now, too much [media-hyped] worry about downturns in a massive economic system over which they feel they have no control or into which they feel they have no input has left people valuing security over freedom.

What they don't realize is that with security comes lower aspirations. Until no one in society has any ambition higher than a modern version of medieval serfdom.

And with serfdom comes a ruling class. The ones who have more security, more freedom, and the power to take from the rest.

"That's true, but the way this bill does it is not by taxing us, but by requiring us to purchase insurance, whose price will of course go up."

I have to say that I don't have much of a problem with making people purchase health insurance. It's no different than mandating drivers buy auto insurance, IMO. Why should the rest of us subsidize feckless people?

BTW, some of the reason that insurance premiums are so high is because the hospitals offload the costs of the uninsured onto the insurance companies. Ever wonder why the hospital charges you $50 for an ace bandage or $100 for a bottle of aspirin? That's why.

"Bradley, how true. As I said before, universal health care is practiced by nations who have resigned themselves to being taxed out of the lion's share of their own income. The U.S. does not accept, nor will it ever accept, this idea."

Those countries aren't paying for an enormous military either. Our defense budget is more than the rest of the world combined. Just why are we paying for Europe's defense 20 years after the fall of the Berlin wall?

I have to say that I don't have much of a problem with making people purchase health insurance. It's no different than mandating drivers buy auto insurance, IMO. Why should the rest of us subsidize feckless people?

It is different than mandating drivers buy auto insurance, because people can decide not to drive. People can't decide not to get sick, but they can decide not to be treated--or at least they could, if the government would let them.

BTW, some of the reason that insurance premiums are so high is because the hospitals offload the costs of the uninsured onto the insurance companies.

Not just the uninsured, but the Medicare patients as well. So what happens when everyone is paying Medicare rates to the hospitals?

Many problems are caused by the government mandate that hospitals treat uninsured people. It would be better to remove that mandate, and then help poor people via a welfare-like system of vouchers for medical care.

Many problems are caused by the government mandate that hospitals treat uninsured people. It would be better to remove that mandate, and then help poor people via a welfare-like system of vouchers for medical care.

They won't do that b/c then the true cost of the program will be revealed, in the form of higher taxes. Congress loves unfunded mandates; they look like nice guys and they avoid raising taxes. Of course it's really an indirect tax, but people don't realize it. More misdirection.

I have to say that I don't have much of a problem with making people purchase health insurance. It's no different than mandating drivers buy auto insurance, IMO. Why should the rest of us subsidize feckless people?

That would be fine if there was a free market in insurance and in medical care, so you could shop around for the insurance and care you need, at the price you'd like to pay. But there isn't a free market. You can't buy insurance across state lines; insurers are required in some states to accept people with pre-existing conditions, i.e., people who are already sick; in many states, they cannot offer a simple, cheap, catastrophic-care insurance with a huge deductible. Hospitals have to treat all comers, so that you have emergency rooms treating non-payers for rashes and colds. All this drives the price way, way up.

> That won't happen because they'll create
> special provisions for themselves. They're
> Too Important to stand in line, dontcha know.

> Posted by: Cousin Dave at November 11, 2009 8:43 AM

&

> What they don't realize is that with security
> comes lower aspirations. Until no one in
> society has any ambition higher than a
> modern version of medieval serfdom.

> Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at November 11, 2009 9:12 AM

Two sentiments worth repeating.

That won't happen because they'll create
special provisions for themselves.

As Congress, in its unmitigated chutzpah, has already done. I believe Paglia points this out too.

That won't happen because they'll create
special provisions for themselves. They're Too Important to stand in line, dontcha know.

As Congress, in its unmitigated chutzpah, has already done. I believe Paglia points this out too.

Isn't it kind of amazing that they cannot see the sheer hypocrisy of this? That their sense of self-importance is such that they see no need to eat their own cooking?

Just why are we paying for Europe's defense 20 years after the fall of the Berlin wall?

Ah, but you aren't! You are paying for the care and feeding of the bureaucracy. If you reduce the NATO commitment, you reduce the importance of an entire cadre of well-fed (and well-connected) bureaucrats. Can't have that...

"Isn't it kind of amazing that they cannot see the sheer hypocrisy of this? That their sense of self-importance is such that they see no need to eat their own cooking?"

Oh, they see it. They just don't care. Along those same lines, until Gingrich came along, Congress routinely exempted itself from civil rights and affirmative-action legislation.

"The US has, up to now, been pretty good at mitigating the sharpest edges of that risk while maintaining a very high degree of economic freedom. Poor people aren't starving in the streets and they're not rioting for bread."

How do you think this happened? Invisible hands?

Had there not been Bolshevik revolution, the US would not have created social security, minimum wage, unemployment insurance.....

The US ruling class saw what happened to the Czar and they wanted to avoid the same fate. They created social safety net for the pheasants to protect the US ruling class. It was never the other way around.

You wrote like no one is rioting for bread becasue of generosity from the capitalists.

Yeah, it's that safety net for the pheasants that makes us all human. Well, what about the parakeets? No safety net for them? Hmm???? You evil capitalist!

Peasant.

My English is getting worse. I blame the capitalists.

The US ruling class saw what happened to the Czar and they wanted to avoid the same fate. They created social safety net for the [peasants] to protect the US ruling class. It was never the other way around.

You betray your bias with the phrase "US ruling class." Lenin's brutal act of murder did not magically spur the US to look kindly upon its poor and destitute. FDR's grab for power converted private social programs into government ones, burdening the economy for decades to come.

Using your brand of logic, the "US ruling class" should have implemented reforms in 1789 when King Louis XVI was beheaded by the French Revolution. Or in the years after that when a succession of French aristocrats and members of the French ruling classes (old and new) were beheaded.

Pressure for social reforms was built from the ground up over a long period of time. The US has had labor disputes and has debated the proper role and reach of social legislation since before the Industrial Revolution.

Internationally, novelists, writers, and essayists pushed for social reforms for decades before Marx or Lenin came on the scene. Dickens, Wollestoncraft, Stowe, Greely, Stanton, and others challenged the status quo without ever knowing who Lenin or Czar Nicholas were.

Many social and labor reform laws were passed in the US long before the Tsar lost his head.

And, by the way, I think it was Dan Quayle who created the social safety net for the pheasants.

You wrote like no one is rioting for bread becasue of generosity from the capitalists.

Whether the social safety net was created from generosity or expeidience, the US has been, until now, pretty good at balancing economic freedom with social programs.

But, those social programs, like all social programs, have been growing exponentially and are slowly sucking the initiative out of the populace.

The danger is heightened by the current adminstration's proclivity toward expanding the government's role in the economy at a time when the economy cannot handle additional burdens.

Just as FDR expanded on Hoover's folly and deepened the Depression, Obama is expanding Bush's over-reach and the results will be just as ugly.

And, Chang, Lenin made a poor choice with Russia as the starting point of an international Communism transformation. Thirty years later, Mao compounded the error in China.

Marx's doctrine requires an industrialized state with at least a semi-educated populace.

Russia was not that state. The Russian peasants had been virtual slaves for centuries. Even after Peter and Catherine tried to implement reforms, the peasants remained chattel for the landowners (and could be bought and sold at will). Centuries of feudalism meant that illiteracy was rampant and personal initiative was non-existent.

Marx's transformation requires that workers lead the revolution. Lenin's substitution of peasants meant the intellectuals led the revolution. Those intellectuals were contemptuous of the very peasants they were "liberating" and, having become frustrated with their ignorance, again enslaved them.

"And, Chang, Lenin made a poor choice with Russia as the starting point of an international Communism transformation. Thirty years later, Mao compounded the error in China."

Are you telling me that Lenin and Mao failed in their own revolution? How can you call that a failure when the Soviet Union virtually ruled the half of the world for at least four decades? Didn't Mao successfully kick out the foreign capitalists from China with AK47s made in Soviet Union?

Had Mao not successfully initiated and finished Marxist revolution, the China would not have emerged as the next contender to challenge the US.

Most likely, it would look like current India or Philippines.

Had Mao not successfully initiated and finished Marxist revolution, the China would not have emerged as the next contender to challenge the US.

Socialism is being abandoned. Mao failed.

Unless you want to argue that it was worth 40 million murdered.

"Are you telling me that Lenin and Mao failed in their own revolution?"

Hell yes they failed. They came nowhere close to the social utopia envisioned by Marx. They found it necessary to imprison the entire population to prevent mass defections. Doesn't sound like a workers' paradise to me.

"How can you call that a failure when the Soviet Union virtually ruled the half of the world for at least four decades?"

And this statement squares with the Marxist critique of imperialism, how?...

"Hell yes they failed. They came nowhere close to the social utopia envisioned by Marx."

Fine. Then, Romans also miserably failed.

Chang, you still haven't read any non-party history books have you? You really need to get your head out of your ass and go read a history book that's not on the party's approved reading list.

...the Soviet Union virtually ruled the half of the world for at least four decades?

Enslaved half the world.

When East Berliners decided they wanted to live in the West, the Soviets built a wall to keep them in the East.

When the Hungarians decided in 1956 that they wanted to be free, they were brutally suppressed.

When the Czechs decided in 1968 they wanted to be free, they were brutally suppressed.

When people were given the opportunity to flee East Germany in the 1990s, the fled by the truckload.

If you lined up all the rafts and improvised floatation devices used to escape the worker's paradise of Cuba, you'd have bridge from Havana to Miami.

When people are desparately fleeing your system at the risk of their own lives, you've got a bad system.

When people are given the freedom to choose whatever system they want and the ones who have experienced your system loudly denounce and reject it, you've got a bad system. Not a single country that used to be Communist, when given given the freedom to choose, has kept Communism as its economic or political model. China won't either.

Had Mao not successfully initiated and finished Marxist revolution, the[n] China would not have emerged as the next contender to challenge the US.

It still hasn't. China makes great cheap stuff, but it does not innovate either in products or production methods - unless you consider the use of forced prison labor to be innovative.

Conan, gotta give you props for that, especially your take on the Chinese economy. China is what used to be called "crony capitalism", meaning that success is determined by what government/power structure connections you have, rather than by how well-made or innovative your product is. It's 1980s Japan all over again (minus the high level of education), and we saw how well that worked out in the long run when Japan did it. China is living off of its trade surplus, and that will only last until some other Third World nation undercuts its labor rates.

"Not a single country that used to be Communist, when given given the freedom to choose, has kept Communism as its economic or political model. China won't either."

Do you know any imperial capitalist colonizer nations still remain as capitalists?

I can't think of any. And I think that has something to do with Marx.

Do you know any imperial capitalist colonizer nations still remain as capitalists?

Colonizer or colonized?

Almost all of the colonizer nations have opted for some form of capitalism (even the old Soviet Union).

Of the formerly colonies of another nation (the ones colonized by capitalist nations as well as the ones colonized by communist nations), those that have not slid into outright dictatorship/thugocracy or reverted to Islamic rule have opted for some form of capitalism:

Singapore
South Korea
Taiwan
Botswana
Hong Kong
Brazil
India
South Africa
Poland
Czech Republic
Romania
Slovakia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
United States
Canada
Australia
Philipines
...and the list goes on.

"Almost all of the colonizer nations have opted for some form of capitalism"

What is some form of capitalism? What does that mean?

I think you meant socialism. The entire Western European colonizers became socialists.

We both know that Marxism in its pure form does not work in reality. But Marx successfully forced the imperial capitalists to become socialists.

I think you meant socialism.

If I'd meant socialism, I'd have said socialism.

Western Europe has been toying with socialism for many years. But, at best, Western Europe is only quasi-socialist. And, as recent elections in Europe have shown, the socialist model is being rejected by populations that are watching their recently liberated neighbors quickly catch up and even outpace them in economic growth.

The rapid growth of the Eastern European economies after unshackling themselves from state control have pointed out the flaws of a collectivist system that provides minimum economic security and in turn limits economic opportunity.

What is some form of capitalism? What does that mean?

It means an system in which capital is privately controlled. A system in which labor, goods, and capital are freely traded on the open market.

It means a system in which market demand determines the outputs of production and the apportioning of resources.

It means a system in which the individual is free to invest the fruits of his labor in a venture of his own choosing.

It means a system in which individual property rights (real property, intellectual property, etc.) are coded into law and not concentrated in the state.

Although Europe has toyed with socialism for years, property rights remained intact, economic and political freedom remained high, and state ownership of the means of production remained relatively low (not always as low as it should have been).

Even that modest experiment with socialism, however, has been a drag on the European economies from which it will take years to recover.

"It means an system in which capital is privately controlled. A system in which labor, goods, and capital are freely traded on the open market."

I would call that an Utopia, in terms of Marx. You and Marx share the same thing. You and Marx are hopelessly romantic and totally out of touch of reality.

Conan, the ship has already sailed out of harbor. And it is not coming back. You sound like a TV evangelist, who is promising me the eternal happiness in heaven after I decided that Jesus was a pot smoking mentally ill patient.

I wish what you said above was true. And I would like that. But it is not true. And it never will be. And that is the reality of it.

If you don't believe me, that is fine. But I will tell you that Europe will not go back to the imperial capitalist nations within your life time.

But I will tell you that Europe will not go back to the imperial capitalist nations within your life time.

Why are you conflating imperialism and capitalism? One has nothing to do with the other. The USSR was not capitalistic, but it was imperialistic. The US is capitalistic, but not imperialistic. Great Britain was both capitalistic and imperialistic. The imperial capitalist trope is typical communist propaganda.

As a Canadian, the fact that there's even a discussion in the States about anything but HOW to implement socialized medicine as fast as possible, blows my mind.

The current US health care system is the bogeyman here. All a politician needs to do to get unelected in a hell of a hurry is to have her/his opponents convince voters that they want to bring in American-style health care. It scares the hell out of us; left-wingers, right-wingers, doesn't matter.

I had a friend in New York state who got cancer a few years ago, and told me that afterward--and I haven't checked with him lately--that he was paying $9,000/year for health insurance. And people are worried about TAXES!? Really? People don't go bankrupt here for medical bills.

What kishke said.

It means [a] system in which capital is privately controlled. A system in which labor, goods, and capital are freely traded on the open market."

I would call that an Utopia, in terms of Marx.

Marx espoused his theories in a country undergoing tremendous change. Germany in 1848 was an agrarian collection of small countries and principalities rapidly undergoing industrialization. Within the next fifty years, Germany would become one nation, industrialize, defeat France in a war, and establish itself as the leading military power of Europe.

Marx argued the capitalists (money-men) controlled the non-labor means of production and thereby exploited labor.

Marx wanted labor to control production and allocate resources according to the labor input required. That's where the dictatorship of the proletariat comes in.

The problem is that with Marx's paradigm, manufacturing inputs are constant with labor the only variable. New and automated production methods, a knowledge economy, and modern logistics have negated much of Marx's argument.

Capital, today, in the United States is privately controlled. I am free to invest my money in stocks, bonds, or lottery futures. I can invest in my brother-in-law's crazy get rich quick scheme or I can put my money in a mattress, wherever I get the best return at the risk level I want.

I am free to sell my labor to the highest bidder. Given my education and background, the bids are considerably lower when I try to sell myself as a marine biology expert than when I am sold as a marketing analytics expert.

I am free to buy my food at Safeway, Lucky, Wal-Mart or anyplace where I get the best price and/or quality. And they're free to compete for my business with lower prices, more variety, or better service.

Is this Utopia? No, it's Iowa (well, San Francisco).

You sound like a TV evangelist, who is promising me the eternal happiness in heaven after I decided that Jesus was a pot smoking mentally ill patient.

Freedom doesn't come with eternal happiness, Chang.

The TV evangelists are the socialists promising you with universal medical care for all at no cost to society, housing loans for everyone with no risk, and lots of green/union jobs that pay $35/hour with no increase in the cost of living.

And, to the Romans, Jesus was a pot-smoking mental patient.

Kathy:

As a Canadian, the fact that there's even a discussion in the States about anything but HOW to implement socialized medicine as fast as possible, blows my mind.

As an American, I don't really give a fuck about your opinion, but I'll tear it apart anyhow. For fun.

The current US health care system is the bogeyman here. All a politician needs to do to get unelected in a hell of a hurry is to have her/his opponents convince voters that they want to bring in American-style health care. It scares the hell out of us; left-wingers, right-wingers, doesn't matter.

You should read the news more often. If we implement a Canadian-style socialized health care system, where will Canadians go for health care?

There are four little Canadians that would not be alive today if we had the same medical care system that you do, because there wouldn't have been open NICU beds in Montana to care for them.

Socialized medicine means the bare minimum care for all, and exceptional care for the random lucky person. It means rationing and premature death. It means government dictating your lifestyle to minimize their outlays.

I had a friend in New York state who got cancer a few years ago, and told me that afterward--and I haven't checked with him lately--that he was paying $9,000/year for health insurance. And people are worried about TAXES!? Really? People don't go bankrupt here for medical bills.

Sure, they don't go bankrupt. But they don't enjoy anywhere near the opportunity or prosperity that they do here either. Because government steals it from them in order to "protect" them.

Look at your tax bill some time. I'll bet that you pay a lot more in taxes than I do, and I'm already overtaxed.

I already have a mother, and she doesn't confiscate half of my money.

@brian

Canadians do not pay more taxes than we do. And they don't live in some bizarre state of lack of opportunity or prosperity. My goodness, it's just the country north of us. Maybe you should visit sometime.

Sonya:
Their health-care system is still crap, prosperous country or no. I know people who have suffered under it, and it ain't pretty. You didn't bother responding to that part of Brian's comment, most likely b/c there is no possible response.