Posted on 09/01/2009 11:18:03 AM PDT by Ohioan
There is no "Crisis" . . . Throughout medical history, the concept of medical insurance was unknown. Nor does the present availability of insurance, create an inalienable right to be provided with same... What is any form of insurance, but an expense incurred to narrow the parameters of future risk. Health insurance does not reduce the amount of money Americans spend on "health care"; in a macro sense, it actually increases such. The benefit to an individual is simply in narrowing parameters of what he or she might have to spend in some future contingency. . .
To suggest taxing someone, who does not have the benefit of the services of a non-insured individual, to provide what must be viewed as an earned luxury, in response to an imaginary "Crisis," is to distort the market for both labor & health care--as well as for insurance. The additional clerical services required, beyond any pure "health care" that might result, would be an additional allocation of American resources. What such allocation would buy would be a wasteful & expensive redistribution of the fruits of the labor of the more productive, for a luxury that makes no sense in either economics or morality. . .
It serves no public purpose to provide health insurance to the indigent, against expenses that such persons would never bear: Far cheaper to simply pay the reasonable health care costs of those actually in need, than attempt to do so through the medium of subsidized insurance. Better, yet, to actually cut to the chase; to get the Federal Government out of civilian health care; to return to pre-Medicaid America, where health services to the poor were provided by physicians who honored their Hippocratic oath, and in charity wards of locally directed hospitals . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at pages.prodigy.net ...
In the body of the article, we explore some of the vital issues that are not being discussed in Washington—and won’t be, unless we can stir up some discussion on them.
Is this a Communist Invasion? Where did these people come from...Holy Makerel.
The sad reality is that there have been Marxist cadres, and their soul sisters, working for this on American University campuses for three generations. When Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe, they let normal Americans think that the Marxist assault was over, but they continued without missing a step.
The problem is not so much the hard core who have worked to undermine the America that the rest of us value, but those who they have systematically influenced with dishonest and deceptive arguments over those three generations. Their influence in the giant teachers' union, the NEA, has certainly been a major factor. Most kids get out of grade school with a very distorted view of American history, culture & public institutions.
Bump
there is no way we can make it work ....every gimme program in the country gets a fee everytime a claim is processed.....they all get a kickback...
Damn I hope we can get rid of em. This is ridiculous. They caught us with our pants down. Just like Pearl Harbour.
To continue my previous response to your query, as I state in the article that is the subject of this thread:
That the Obama plans are Socialistic is obvious. But there are many forms of Socialism. Can they be correctly described as Communist, National Socialist or something milder or more novel? The Speaker of the House, Mrs. Pelosi, has described ordinary citizens attending "Town Halls" to protest Obamanist proposals, as "Nazis." Mrs. Pelosi either does not understand National Socialism, a movement which sought & achieved virtually absolute control over all aspects of German life, or she simply does not care to be accurate. Those protesting a Federal take-over of personal health care are the ideological opposite to Nazis. But Obamanist threats to report those in opposition & to introduce strong-armed tactics to intimidate, are right out of the Nazi playbook. A likely psychological interpretation of Mrs. Pelosi's rhetoric, would be that she has projected her own totalitarian tendencies on others.
But what about those who support a medical take-over? Angry Conservatives & moderates are all over the Leftist menagerie in seeking to define the Obmanists, from "Communist," "Marxist," "Nazi," to mere terms of derision. Does precision require European nomenclature? Clearly Obama is a Collectivist Utilitarian. He seeks a collective, continent wide, solution to the health wishes of a clientele at the expense of individual Americans. He would verbally clothe himself in morality, but offers no legal, Constitutional, rationale for extraordinary proposals--only a sham pragmatism. Pretended utility, not law or morality, is his only real argument. While not all Collectivist Utilitarians are Communists or National Socialists, the Communists & National Socialists were the most successful of Europe's Collectivist Utilitarians in achieving sweeping aggrandizements of centralized power. The differences between Communists, Nazis, Obama & other radical Socialists, are not particularly significant in the American context. Our institutions were never premised on a Utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" shibboleth, but on the dignity, responsibility & accountability of the individual. The Constitution, so far from being designed to rally the mob, was carefully & precisely crafted as a defense against same.
To what extent the new generation of American Totalitarians may be described as "Communistic," is not the key question. Whether they borrow more from European Communists, Nazis or what have you, they are fundamentally at war with the premises which made modern America possible. Unless we can awake our fellow citizens to fully understand the true dichotomy, it is all over for us.
Why would anybody want to be a Communist? It sucks. These people are SICK!
The idea that there is "economy" in injecting the monstrous Federal Bureaucracy into the day to day affairs of the people, whether the subject is health care, education, or home purchases, is ludicrous. It always means added expense, added burdens on the productive, working American.
Except that the Japanese gambit was a mistaken calculation, driven by imperialist ambitions. The Communists and their soul mates (Socialists of various hues) are driven by pure hate. They do not let defeats along their path deter them, because they do not have the same motivations that drive normal people. Too many Americans have let themselves be gulled into trusting the "idealistic" pretensions of the Marxist influenced movements. Too few look at what they advocate from an actual functional--as opposed to a verbal--sloganized--perspective.
Jeez it is going to be like trying to get rid of a flea infestation. They are popping up everywhere.
Not a bad analogy. However, if the 'worm' once turns; if those indoctrinated into the pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-altruistic world of the modern Left, once really start to wake up to how truly they have been misled, the whole thing will collapse here, just as it did in Russia. Our mission must be to trigger that wake up.
A lot of the younguns have no clue what Communism is.
This is why we need to break the debate down into functional analysis of what works and does not work; what is right and what is not right. Those are two separate categories, both essential to an understanding of what we are up against.
Too many Conservatives are simply able to address one or the other, not both. Thus we have those focused on the fact that the free market works best; while others are focused on the Natural Law, and the principles of the Founding Fathers. While I deplore the use of Utilitarian rationalizations for the Free Market, as opposed to the Natural Law considerations which from Magna Carta through the Declaration of Independence & Constitution were the dominant philosophical reasons for the development of our position, the fact is that our traditional system is both morally and pragmatically right. We need always be aware of both facets.
Only when we make the resulting points clear, can we effectively address the hate-driven academic spokesmen for the not so brave, hate-driven world, being forced upon us.
This “healthcare” bill has little to do with “healthcare”...
No, it doesn't! It is about the extension of Federal power into the daily lives of the people, or as stated in the article:
The Obama proposals involve an additional taking of the fruits of the labor of productive Americans, to benefit a growing political clientele for Collectivist Utilitarian organizers. The gambit is not about better health care; certainly not about cutting the total cost of American health care; but increased dependency & control.
bump
But you have to be very simple when dealing with the simple minded. Look they got in just repeating Hope and Change over and over. My God. The boob tube brainwashed the imbecile masses in to voting for a Communist. The networks get their orders direct from the White House now and co-ordinate the hypnosis.
Obama used techniques very similar to those which propelled Hitler to power in Germany. The repetition of key words is not a new technique, and in conveniently engineered settings can be very hypnotic. The average German in 1930 to 1933 Germany was well educated and intelligent, but millions were held spell-bound by the carefully orchestrated presentations. When University graduates can be conditioned to shout "Seig Heil" in unison, after a leader rants about "new orders," "a classless-casteless Germany," and "One Leader, One People, One Will," or the like, you see the potential of the true Demagogue.
The Obama decision to accept the nomination in a large Stadium, rather than a convention hall, was further evidence that he understood the Nazi playbook. There was nothing accidental about the choice. It conveyed, as it was intended too, a feeling of power in numbers; inevitability in massed solidarity, etc., etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.