Socialism is slavery

What’s key to understanding Obama’s presidiency? He ran as a centrist, promising to unite America with promises like cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. (What do you call a ‘tax cut’ when you don’t pay any taxes?) Once elected, The-One Party government has proposed zero tax cuts and quite a few tax increases and proceeded to balloon the deficit beyond any previous government.

As he reveals what his actual policies are we find more and more government intervention and takeover. Total transformation of the United States of America is his stated goal and he intends to deliver.

Let's look at the deficit. We were told that we must elect Democrats because Bush was such a profligate spender. Democrats ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism. All lies.

You can see the Bush/Congress budgets from 2000 to 2008. Notice the tall red lines to the right starting at 2008 there. These are not Bush budgets, they are the Obama/Democrat congress budgets. The difference is exponential.

obama-debt

What is happening since the election of Obama and a completely Democrat controlled congress is a government completely out of control. Bankruptcy cannot be far behind. These budgets are unsustainable.

Add to this the nationalization of the auto industry, the healthcare industry, and the financial industry and what you have is the beginning of total government control of every aspect of our lives. There will be no freedom of speech to criticize your employer when it is the government providing your job. There will be no free speech at all after the government 'bailout' of the press. The government will own the presses.

This is the left's top down approach to democracy and it is Obama's method of madness. The best and the brightest make decisions and plan the economy for the benefit of all the people. In essence, the government controls the people. Since we are the government, they say, it's all ok. But this is how socialism works, (or rather doesn't work). This is a giant left turn off the cliff and into total government control. Total as in totalitarian. Eventually nothing is exempt from that control.

Once the government is paying for your healthcare, guess what, they will be deciding what foods you will be allowed to eat, and how much you exercise.

The left has no plans or principles that will prevent every minute detail of your life coming under the control of some government agency, basically allowing some beauracrat to step in and hassle you to death. As government takes over more areas there will be more reason to take over more. You will be fined, harrassed, monitored and eventually incarcerated if you do not do whatever some government busy body wants you to do. --And it will all be for your own good of course.

This is nothing less than slavery. But it is the change that Obama promised. This is the way he will 'set us free'.

Posted by Eric Simonson at May 21, 2009 3:49 PM
Comments
Comment #281852

Good thing we don’t have a Socialist economy. We have what we have always had since the Great Depression, a mixed economy, which marries capitalism and socialism to achieve the best of both worlds, as well as some of the negative consequences of each.

Pure capitalism exists NOWHERE in the world. Pure socialism exists NOWHERE in the world. And the reality dictates that there are very good reasons for this. Neither is as good as a mixed economy in which capitalist formation and innovation and efficiency are married to government oversight, regulation, and compensation for the negative consequences of unbribled greed which is the heart and soul of capitalism which always seeks monopoly and complete control of pricing to maximize profitability.

Amen and thank Buddha we have progressed in our real world economics, well beyond the purist ideological debate of capitalism vs. socialism. The combination of both to compensate for the worst of each, is by far the best economic system in place in the real world today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 21, 2009 4:17 PM
Comment #281857

“There will be no freedom of speech to criticize your employer when it is the government providing your job.”

Eric there is no freedom of speech at private business now. You can be fired at will for no reason or for any reason. Only the government is limited by the constitution, not corporate America.

“There will be no free speech at all after the government ‘bailout’ of the press. The government will own the presses.”

The press has been consolidated under corporate control until it has ended up the mess we see today Eric. You can blame the government all you want but corporations only want profit Eric, they are not concerned about your free speech rights as they do not have to print anything that doesn’t sell.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2009 6:29 PM
Comment #281858

Funny, I didn’t know I was a slave when I lived in Social Democrat-controlled Germany. Somehow, I escaped slavery by just cruising back to the States - no underground railroad needed for me.

Huh… the experience of reality doesn’t match Eric rhetoric in the slightest. I wonder how on earth that could be?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 21, 2009 7:13 PM
Comment #281862

David,

That’s the direction we are headed. What we have now is still termed a ‘mixed economy’. But just this year the government has in fact taken over and owns general motors. Obama is attempting to run the auto industry just like Hugo Chavez would. Is this the right direction in your mind?

Posted by: eric at May 21, 2009 9:01 PM
Comment #281863

j2t2,

Last time I checked the constitution applies to everyone. A corporation can no more use force to suppress your speech than the government can. Oh wait, the government is the entity with the monopoly on the use of force isn’t it?

Why is it that the biggest corporate entity in the world is exempt from liberal hate? How much more power does the government have over you than any corporation? Especially when you can leave a corporation. You can petition the government to redress wrongs and crimes done by corporations, but what if it is the government doing the crime, what then?

This is why the idea of a limited government is so important. The government’s job should be to enforce the laws and make sure private tyranny doesn’t happen. But if it is the watchdog that runs everything what then?

Posted by: eric at May 21, 2009 9:06 PM
Comment #281864

Eric-

What’s key to understanding Obama’s presidiency[sic]? He ran as a centrist, promising to unite America with promises like cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. (What do you call a ‘tax cut’ when you don’t pay any taxes?) Once elected, The-One Party government has proposed zero tax cuts and quite a few tax increases and proceeded to balloon the deficit beyond any previous government.

Nice bit of logical gymnastics. A cut down to a negative effective rate is still a cut. And that’s the only way you say that cutting taxes for 95% of Americans doesn’t count.

I just have to smile at the thought of Republicans suddenly becoming the party of opposition to tax cuts. I guess if we get credit for it, then it’s not a tax cut. It’s a redistribution of income to the lucky-duckies who aren’t rich or financially comfortable enough to experience the absolute ordeal of paying 39 percent on their income.

Oh, when will the horrors of pseudo-socialism end!?!?!?

As for blowing up the deficit, I will not hurl all the invective at you that having the temerity to mention the deficit, given what your party willingly did, enthusiastically did, and with their alternative to the Obama plan was quite will to do once more, that you truly deserve.

Democrats had the deficit under control. Bush spun them, knowingly, way out of control, and hid much of the expense of his wars and his tax cuts. I know. You have an excuse for this. If Republicans didn’t pair an excuse with a Bush policy, supersymmetry would break down, and quantum physics would go completely out of whack. Well, excused or not, there’s plenty in Obama’s Budget calculations that A) Bush spent anyways but didn’t budget for, and B) Bush hand most of to Obama, in the form of TARP, The Auto bailouts, the War, the unbudgeted expense for disasters, etc.

If we are truly to calibrate the numbers here, we must remove all that Bush handed Obama, consider the Stimulus a one time charge (since we’re talking about the real growth of government, and not a temporary recovery plan), and then talk about the growth of government.

But since when do Republicans actually allow for real world nuances in their numbers? That might actually force them to abandon ideology in these situations. Horrors of horrors. America must have failed conservatism, not conservatism America.

As he reveals what his actual policies are we find more and more government intervention and takeover. Total transformation of the United States of America is his stated goal and he intends to deliver.

Muhahahahahaha, muhahahahahaha!

What? Oh, sorry, I was cackling my evil laugh, true to your Snidely Whiplash presentation of the Democratic Party.

Seriously, though, we got two auto companies that are likely to be allowed to go bankrupt, rather than be bailed-out once more, and the Banks were put on the government teat, along with our friends at AIG by the Bush Administration, who made this incredibly comfortable for those banks. Obama, in turn, made this very uncomfortable, so that many banks balked at remaining for any longer than they have to on Corporate Welfare (which, lets face it, the Republicans did a beautiful job of keeping the corporations on, claims of free market philosophy notwithstanding.) Obama also balked at actual nationalization of these banks.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is Eric Simonson’s idea of a raging socialist.

Healthcare? You know, at this point, private healthcare has beaten government-sponsored healthcare to the punch on virtually everything that advocates of private healthcare predicted would happen if America turned to socialized healthcare. This failure, principly under Republican leadership, has more or less made it to where people literally have nothing to lose by going with socialized healthcare.

Also, people are paying for all the inefficiencies in rising medicare costs, which have basically pegged themselves to healthcare costs in general, in overpriced pharmaceuticals, and in indigent healthcare costs that due to our humane emergency care laws, we shell out anyways, one way or another.

Obama’s approach is about ending this idiocy and lunacy. If we’re going to have to pay people’s healthcare costs, one way or another, we might as well pay for them through a system that works efficiently, whether that’s a strongly regulated healthcare system with added public options, or a a single payer socialized healthcare system.

Eric, you want the rest of us to buy into this notion that government management of healthcare, government mitigation of the financial crisis, and government’s softening of the car company’s rough landing constitutes the dawn of some evil empire of government intrusiveness, via a slippery slope argument, which posits a ridiculously small amount of faith of American’s ability to moderate government.

But of course, I wouldn’t feel much empathy for the rest of America’s ability to moderate things, if I were a Bush Republican, whose party’s big policy initiatives were the excesses being moderated.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2009 9:29 PM
Comment #281866

eric

“Add to this the nationalization of the auto industry,”

yes eric you and i will soon be able to drive our very own american built LADA, or if you prefer the obamamobile. i can’t wait, how about you?

hey freedom of choice is over rated anyway, right?

Posted by: dbs at May 21, 2009 9:49 PM
Comment #281869

>That’s the direction we are headed. What we have now is still termed a ‘mixed economy’. But just this year the government has in fact taken over and owns general motors. Obama is attempting to run the auto industry just like Hugo Chavez would. Is this the right direction in your mind?

I drove to the east side of Houston, today, and some Republican told me I was driving to China. I looked at him kind of strangely, then realized he simply could not let go of his 80 year old rhetoric. I patted him on the head and gave him a lolipop for his trouble.

David, I lol’ed when I read your response, It was like we colluded and you wrote exactly what I was thinking. Poor Eric will just never get into the Illuminati and Commie meetings for our coordinated take over.;)

Posted by: gergle at May 21, 2009 10:26 PM
Comment #281870

“Last time I checked the constitution applies to everyone.”

Check again Eric. The constitution gives you free speech rights as it pertains to government.

” A corporation can no more use force to suppress your speech than the government can.”

Eric you didn’t mention use of force in you misleading rant, you said “There will be no freedom of speech to criticize your employer when it is the government providing your job.” A corporation does not need to use force to remove you from your job, it can simply fire you. Should the government violate you free speech rights you have recourse via the constitution well until Bush started using free speech zones for protesters, but that was ok with you wasn’t it.

“Oh wait, the government is the entity with the monopoly on the use of force isn’t it?”

Yep but them we were talking free speech not use of force wasn’t we?


http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/01/ps3-dev-talks-about-getting-fired-for-talking/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080714151957AAgY4ol

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2009 10:32 PM
Comment #281875

Eric
My mother is 87 yo. She lost her hearing some time ago. One of her eyes has failed totally. She developed an infection in the other that required a cornea transplant. Myself and two sisters have our own families to support. We work for a living and would have been forced to do things like deny our children college if we had had to pay for the operation. We were not. My mother is on the socialist medicare. Now my mother can see her great grand children. She can stay in touch with the world and not laspe into dementia. We all,especially her, have gainned a measure of freedom from socialism, not slavery.

Posted by: billls at May 22, 2009 12:40 AM
Comment #281879

bills

“Myself and two sisters have our own families to support. We work for a living and would have been forced to do things like deny our children college if we had had to pay for the operation.”

so what you’re saying is that since you would have had to make a difficult decision regarding your own family, ie take reponsibility for thier welfare, and doing so would mean denying something to another member of your family, that the tax payers ie others should bear that burdon. nice.

Posted by: dbs at May 22, 2009 8:53 AM
Comment #281880

bills

“We all,especially her, have gainned a measure of freedom from socialism, not slavery.”

yes, but those forced to pay for it have not. they have been inslaved to pay for your needs when that should fall on your shoulders not thiers.

there’s an old say that gos ” a lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.”

Posted by: dbs at May 22, 2009 8:57 AM
Comment #281887

dbs-
We can talk about simplistic moral melodramas, or we can speak about the way our disregard for others comes around to bite us in the ass. Other folk’s problems have a way of becoming our own, nowadays, even if we don’t bother to intervene.

The guy who has to go to the emergency room because his terrible healthcare becomes a burden on you as the hospital has to shift the costs to you to cover him. The more people end up without healthcare, especially as pre-existing conditions start to pile up in the aging populace, the more your prices begin to reflect their inability to pay. What do you suggest then, to maintain your freedom, that people simply live healthier? A good point, but that doesn’t always prevent health problems, now does it, nor does it prevent accidents and injuries from occuring, as they inevitably do. Do you suggest emergency rooms turn away people to die or be crippled, so as not to saddle us with the costs?

The truth of the matter is, no matter how we try to free ourselves of the obligation to be our brother’s keeper, we still end up paying for it when their misfortunes affect ours.

The logic of the Republicans in all this is an endless escalation of the purity of free-market economics, with the notion that only when market forces are the sole determinant of what happens in a society’s economy will the market function like it’s supposed to, helping us deal with scarcity and all those other things.

Unfortunately, there’s a major flaw in this purist’s argument: Markets function in part as they are supposed to because their are legally enforceable sanctions for breaking agreements, for fraud and unscrupulous practices. Without those laws, without those rules, the economy degenerates into a situation where proper valuation, proper negotiation are compromised. Worse yet, certain economic arrangements and practices can cause the failures of one cluster to spread in a way that is not so much a consequence of supply and demand, as a consequence of the breakdown of the proper function of the market.

You call the rules that are being put back in place slavery. What is slavery?

Keeping your interests free of conflicts, so you can serve one set of client’s faithfuly, rather than multiple sets with an ulterior motive?

Keeping business from getting too big to fail, so we can allow that to happen, rather than prop them up for fear that their failure could send us into a depression?

Keeping businesses from trading derivatives in the old haphazard way, enforcing order on the very instruments that nearly destroyed the economy?

Keeping Credit Card Companies from arbitrarily loansharking people’s debts, practices that only make sense if their aim is to sell of people’s debts as derivatives and securities?

Keep that one firmly in mind, because that’s the kind of system that made the housing meltdown possible. These companies use the secondary debt market to avoid facing the facts on what happens when you endlessly endebt people.

America needs a strong economy with productive businesses that make real goods and perform real services for people, rather than acting like financial parasites.

We don’t need our economy enslaved to a system where fulfilling the greed of individuals is the highest calling. We need a society that exists beyond just the economy, where values can override considerations of avarice as the primarly concern.

I think most people would not consider themselves enslaved by the government, but enslaved by a system that increasingly demands every second and every inch of their lives to serve other people’s enrichment.

Folks aren’t looking for socialism; they’re looking for a brand of capitalism that doesn’t exclude them from the rewards of work and investment, that doesn’t merely serve the interests of the rich and powerful.

But that’s what the Republicans call it. They want to see things in terms of social Darwinism, winners and losers in a system where market forces are the selective pressure.

Trouble is, an economy is meant to serve people, not be the whole affair in the governance of our lives. Does the market rule us, or we the market? Granted, not every restriction of the market creates the desired effect, but the market itself requires external governance to function properly.

We have to consider that if we want to be as free as we can, we must not be so quick as to reject interventions in the market, and sometimes substitutions for it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2009 11:25 AM
Comment #281888

“Why is it that the biggest corporate entity in the world is exempt from liberal hate?”

Eric why is it the righties always go directly to hate with no stops in between? For me it is not hate but a dislike for those that direct power in a way that I find detrimental to myself and the Country. Capitalism and corporations interfere with our representative democracy to often and needs to be curbed IMHO, of the excesses that lead to such inequalities in our society.

Is it hate of the government for you or perhaps something less than hate? BTW I don’t see the federal government as a corporate entity as many on the right like to think it is.

“How much more power does the government have over you than any corporation? Especially when you can leave a corporation. You can petition the government to redress wrongs and crimes done by corporations, but what if it is the government doing the crime, what then?”

These days, with the government doing the dirty work of the corporations I often wonder which entity has the most power. Our elected officials are bought and paid for by corporate lobbyist and the laws passed reflects this partnership. Our no bid contracts reflects this partnership.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2009 11:53 AM
Comment #281896

eric said: “But just this year the government has in fact taken over and owns general motors. Obama is attempting to run the auto industry just like Hugo Chavez would.”

That’s a huge conclusion jump NOT born out by fact or evidence. Yes, the government is the primary shareholder. No, Obama is making NO moves on Ford, Chrysler is in bankruptcy court and being dealt with accordingly, and GM is headed to bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy courts do not give management of defaulting corporations over to the President to run.

Your comment is just more Republican hyperbole and scare tactics having no basis in fact or reality. And it would take a truly uninformed person to buy your comment unquestioningly, as if Obama doesn’t have enough in his daily life to manage or that he always wanted to be an automotive mogul. It is just preposterous.

If you want to go after Obama, go after him for for repeating GW Bush’s unconstitutional defense of thought crime and preventive detention of persons for things they MIGHT do, as opposed to crimes they have committed. Obama stepped in it huge on that one, and I will rattle the rafters with you on damning Obama for that one revealed in yesterday’s speech.

He condemned Bush/Cheney and then turned right around in the same speech and announced he would pursue their very same policy and use exactly the same unconstitutional defense for doing so as Bush/Cheney used.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 22, 2009 5:14 PM
Comment #281900

Eric -

Hm. Conservatives are certain that low, low taxes and minimized regulation of all sectors (especially the financial markets) are the path to national prosperity. Any system with higher taxes and significant regulation are ‘socialist’ and somehow evil, and certainly a path to ruin.

So, um, Eric - can you show me ANY modern industrialized democracy that is currently using the low level of taxes and regulation you believe should be followed? Can you name even ONE?

On the other hand, I can show you PLENTY of examples of other countries that DO have the low effective tax rates and the deregulation that conservatives crave…and they’re ALL third-world countries.

Gee, do ya think there might be a pattern here? Naaaaah! Such a concept would be unpatriotic to the oh-so-American conservatives…. Their ideology is SO much more trustworthy than facts and proven history….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at May 22, 2009 5:44 PM
Comment #281901

Oh, and one more question - can you describe exactly how WWII pulled America out of the Depression?

(Despite the hard evidence that we were out of the Depression in 1936 (as shown by all economic indicators except unemployment (which always lags the other indicators anyway)))…and that what we had from 1937-1940 was a separate recession….)

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at May 22, 2009 5:46 PM
Comment #281921

Glenn if you look at your history I believe you will find that due to the elections in ‘36 the government spending and many programs that helped to get people working slowed considerably due to the influence of the conservatives.In addition some of the programs that helped to get people working were done away with. Because FDR felt the pressure to cut the deficit and such we fell back into a deep recession that wasn’t resolved until WWII.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2009 10:22 PM
Comment #281930

j2t2, and WWII rectified the economy with MASSIVE government deficit spending putting masses of workers into the workplace for the war effort. The problem with FDR’s spending programs was that they weren’t enough in a short enough span of time. WWII corrected that in less than a year, putting more people into the work place and military through tax dollars borrowed, than held jobs prior to the Stock Market crash in 1929.

It’s one of those inconvenient truths so many on the Right, aspiring to be in the minority of very wealthy or independent, simply cannot and will not acknowledge. To do so undermines the system that supports a minority wealthy and independent class, to which they aspire.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 22, 2009 11:33 PM
Comment #281933

Eric, I colud not help but wonder, do those Bush buget numbers include the thrice annual emergency spending measures to finance two wars?
As to slavery, give it up, please.
Take a moment and just look at our private health care system. I have a wife and son with muscular dystrophy. My premium for just them is 600 a month. The insureance typically covers about 1/4 of their costs. leaving me owing about the rest of my annual income in un-covered expenses. I am often having to wait up to two months to get them to any other specialist they need, provided that specialist is an “in network provider.” By the way, can you define the term “Double Max?” If not, you have much more to learn on the true status of healthcare.

As to free speach, you might find this hard to believe but I had more protections of speach in the Army than I do out here. The Constitution clearly states “Congress shall make no law” my employer is under no such obligation!
As to the markets I present this analogy.
Let us say that I live in a first floor apartment, and I wish to set fire to it to collect the insurance on the contents and get out of my lease early. there are laws to prevent me from doing this if I respect them and punish me if I don’t. They serve to protect the landlord and the people in the
apartments on the second and third floors. What type of socilism is this?
And yes I do believe that the deregulated markets set EXACTLY this type of fire.

Posted by: Ted at May 22, 2009 11:46 PM
Comment #281935

dbs
Pardon me! Myself and family pay plenty in medicare taxes. I for one am proud to do it. Special circumstances hit individual families where the medical cost burden becomes severe and acute.It will hit you and your family also,it is just a matter of time, and I will still be paying medicare tax to help pay for it.Thats ok. Its part of being a responsible citizen.

Posted by: bills at May 23, 2009 12:42 AM
Comment #281938

Eric et al
BHO is decidedly not a socialist. His administration are the ones resisting nationalization of zombie banks. The much more socialist solution to health care delivery, single payer, is not even being proposed. The sky is not falling. You do not need to build that fall out shelter. Take a deep breath. I am saying these things because only fear can lead to such a backwards view of historical context. It was not the BHO administration that suspended habeas corpus, engaged in extensive warrantless wire taps or sought to find out what library books we were checking out. That was those other guys.Its not the Democrats that want the government to control what goes on in every uterus in the country. A few timely and practical business regulations do not socialism make nor does a coherant energy policy, or health care plan. There appears to be a great intellectual vacumn on the right. The Bucklys and Kirkpatricks have passed away to be replaced by populist fear mongering. There is no basis for your article.

Posted by: bills at May 23, 2009 7:26 AM
Comment #281948

bills

“Pardon me! Myself and family pay plenty in medicare taxes. I for one am proud to do it. Special circumstances hit individual families where the medical cost burden becomes severe and acute.It will hit you and your family also,it is just a matter of time, and I will still be paying medicare tax to help pay for it.Thats ok. Its part of being a responsible citizen.”

i don’t want, or need your money. if i find myself in your situation i will sell my home, or what ever i need to do to take care of it. my problems are not yours, or anyone elses problems. why should the rest of us sacrifice so you don’t have to?

do you really believe that those taxes you’ve paid into medicare would have covered your moms surgery. i’m guessing it was probably in the 10s if not 100s of 1000s. i understand that it may not seem fair, but sometimes we have to make tough choices. why should everyone else be responsible for making sure you don’t have to make those choices. a college education is not a right, and neither is medical care. sometimes you have to decide which is more important. it may suck, but thats the way it is. do i save my mothers life, or do i give my kids a college education. which is more pressing.

Posted by: dbs at May 23, 2009 5:37 PM
Comment #281963

DBS just said he does not want even normal health insurance. Sounds fine by me, that is your choice not mine.

”. i understand that it may not seem fair, but sometimes we have to make tough choices. why should everyone else be responsible for making sure you don’t have to make those choices”

Please cancel your health insurance if you have any asap. But on the other hand, you will take your “charity/gambler” insurance most likely. BTW, considering most people pay medicare through most of their lives, and the dollar always seems to drop in value by by what seems at least 10% every decade. They probably paid more then their fair share.

Posted by: kudosupreme at May 24, 2009 7:21 AM
Comment #281965

dbs-
I think the ultimate problem is that people can still make such sacrifices, and end up unable to deal with the crisis. And then what’s left? Ruin. And if it happens to enough people? Then it becomes everybody’s problem, and for the sake of not having to care for individuals in trouble, you end up making society pay the prices in loss of economic vitality and upwards mobility.

And then, of course, philosophies that aggressively try to take advantage of class differences to motivate radical change become more attractive.

The irony here is that you can far more easily provoke people of lower socioeconomic status to true socialism, if you’ve basically defeated the liberalism that Republicans label falsely as such. There are plenty of people at this point who would just as soon have government rage through the china shop like a bull, rather than carefully and conscientiously go through the system making reforms.

People are tired of being told they are on their own by folks higher up the ladder who seem to be getting all the help they could ever want from the government. They want fairness. They also want less ideology in control, and more practical governance. Maybe Republicans are willing to let everything go to hell to make their points and promote their ideas, but the Rest of America wants a sustainable way of life.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2009 9:21 AM
Comment #281974

dbs,
2 years ago I found out my wife was pregnant. This was a surprise to both of us, we were planning on waiting a little longer. On my wife’s first OB visit we found out that she not only was pregnant it was identical triplets. The moral of this story is that 2 years later and over $1 million in medical bills later. We almost used up our family LIFETIME maximum from the insurance company. The girls spent 10 weeks in the NICU, returned to the hospital 2 more times for complications. I tell you this so you can fully understand your $250K house can be spent on medical bills in less then 3 months. Hell the girls didn’t even have any big issues, get the picture. Had that devastated our family, that would be one less productive member of society working. Just knowing that they got medicade to pay the difference between what the insurance paid and what we owed made it so I could go to work everyday and do my job. Sometimes we need help and the only one out their that can help is the government (I would prefer it wasn’t that way but we don’t get to choose).

Posted by: timesend at May 24, 2009 5:00 PM
Comment #281975

kudosupreme


“Please cancel your health insurance if you have any asap.”

if i pay for it why should i cancel it?

” But on the other hand, you will take your “charity/gambler” insurance most likely.”

what the hell are you talking about?

“considering most people pay medicare through most of their lives, and the dollar always seems to drop in value by by what seems at least 10% every decade. They probably paid more then their fair share.”

so you’ll show me proof of this right?


Posted by: dbs at May 24, 2009 6:12 PM
Comment #281976

timesend

i would say your situation is not very common. you also need to remember it was not the gov’t that saved you, it was your fellow citizens, many of whom donate to charitable organizations who help with these types of situations. one i know of is the schreiners.

Posted by: dbs at May 24, 2009 6:21 PM
Comment #281978

dbs wrote “you also need to remember it was not the gov’t that saved you, it was your fellow citizens…”

Did I miss something? Timesend wrote that Medicaid paid the difference, not private charity.

Private charity is admirable. However, private charity cannot meet the unfunded or underfunded health care financing needs of this country. Timesend described how even those with private insurance can find themselves destroyed economically by medical circumstances not highly unusual or extraordinary.


Posted by: Rich at May 24, 2009 7:04 PM
Comment #281979

rich

“Did I miss something?”

yes you did. both charity, and medicaid are funded by private citizens. one through voluntary contributions, and the other through force of gov’t. either way you cut it the money comes from your fellow citizens. gov’t may dole it out but it does not belong them. they had to first forcefully take it from someone else.

Posted by: dbs at May 24, 2009 8:04 PM
Comment #281981

“both charity, and medicaid are funded by private citizens. one through voluntary contributions, and the other through force of gov’t. either way you cut it the money comes from your fellow citizens. gov’t may dole it out but it does not belong them. they had to first forcefully take it from someone else.”

I have never been forced to pay my contribution to Medicare/Medicaid dbs. We have decided as a nation to pay the insurance required to support this porgram and do so voluntarily. Only those who violate the law and thereby become criminals are subject to the use of force by refusing to pay into the program. Even then very few if any have been subject to the use of force for refusing to perform their civic duty. Do you know anyone shot for not paying medicare/medicaid taxes?

You see in a representative democracy we the people have decided that having this type of program is beneficial to us and have voted it into existence. Your fellow citizens and the government are actually one and the same. Those elected to office and those hired to serve in the government are the ones that act as the procedural part of a representative democracy, those that vote act as the substantive part of our democracy.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2009 8:42 PM
Comment #281982

dbs.
Perhaps you do not understand how medical insurance works. You’re paying for it has nothing to do with the idea of you getting rid of it. It is your way of thinking of why you should get rid of it. You said “why should the rest of us sacrifice so you don’t have to?” Now unless if you do not agree with yourself, this is stating that you do not support insurance, because as some people in the insurance policy get sick, everyone’s premiums increase, not just the person who gets sick. Then again, this would happen even if nobody had insurance because of supply and demand.

You seem like a confused person. At first you talk how you do not believe in charity, and then in later posts you act like you care.

What do you mean by force of government? I thought you agreed to the rules of a democracy by living here? If you do not like a democracy, I suggest you either leave this country, or vote for not having a democracy.

Posted by: kudossupreme at May 24, 2009 9:54 PM
Comment #281988

j2t2

“I have never been forced to pay my contribution to Medicare/Medicaid dbs.”

i suggest you try not paying that portion of your taxes, and let me know how that works out for you. if they tell you it’s OK then your right you’re are making those contributions voluntarily. however as i suspect you will receive a notice saying ie pay up or else, in which case those contributions are not voluntary.

the entitlement mentality in this country has become a problem. just because you need something you can’t provide for yourself doesn’t mean someone else is obligated to help pay for it, and using the gov’t to force them to help pay for it is wrong.

Posted by: dbs at May 25, 2009 8:14 AM
Comment #281989

kudossupreme

medical insurance is a product that spreads risk over a large group of participants in order to provide coverage to the small portion that may need its services. a gamble if you will. once again if chose to pay for it, i am accepting it’s terms. if i chose not to then i will not be covered. that’s my choice. why again now should i be forced to participate against my will?

“You seem like a confused person. At first you talk how you do not believe in charity, and then in later posts you act like you care.”

charity is voluntary. people donate to charity of thier own free will. the gov’t taking $ from me to pay for someone elses needs against my will is stealing. the key phrase here being FREE WILL. just because i don’t believe in mandatory entitlements doesn’t mean i have no sympathy for others. just because someone can’t provide something for themselves doesn’t mean someone else is obligated too. it seems it is not me who is confused. i clearly understand the difference between charity, and gov’t theft.

Posted by: dbs at May 25, 2009 8:31 AM
Comment #281990

kudossupreme


“What do you mean by force of government? I thought you agreed to the rules of a democracy by living here? If you do not like a democracy,”

first off this country is not a democracy. it is a representative republic. a republic with a constitution that outlines exactly what the powers gov’t are, and redistribution of wealth is not one of them.

“I suggest you either leave this country, or vote for not having a democracy.”

well, first off i’m going nowhere, and will fight to take the country away from those of you on the left. second, as i’ve indicated above i don’t need to vote not to have a democracy because this country is truely not a democracy, or the majority would be able to vote to take away your constitutional rights, which it obviously cannot.


Posted by: dbs at May 25, 2009 8:43 AM
Comment #281995

dbs-
Redistribution of wealth is one of those powers. Taxation, especially the income tax, is written into the constitution. It just can’t be done arbitrarily.

And while we are a representative republic, we are a Democratic Republic. We elect our representatives with votes, and they in turn vote on matters themselves.

You know, the trick is, you’re trying to apply a paradigm of governance that worked best when most people lived on farms or in towns that were out in the country. But that condition hasn’t held in this country since the 1920s.

We’ve had a civilizational change in this country since then. The technology has completely changed our way of life, and our society has evolved considerably since then.

The Framers did not create a system where such change would be ignored.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2009 9:50 AM
Comment #281996

j2t2

“You see in a representative democracy we the people have decided that having this type of program is beneficial to us and have voted it into existence. Your fellow citizens and the government are actually one and the same. Those elected to office and those hired to serve in the government are the ones that act as the procedural part of a representative democracy, those that vote act as the substantive part of our democracy.”

regardless of what, or whom you think the gov’t is, it is restrianed by the limits in the const. if a power is not listed in the const. the gov’t cannot exercise it. unfortunately as of late the const. seems to have become what many in gov’t view as a roadblock in carrying out thier agenda, and so they ignore it. this is what the framers were concerned about, and obviously with good reason.

Posted by: dbs at May 25, 2009 9:56 AM
Comment #282003

“regardless of what, or whom you think the gov’t is, it is restrianed by the limits in the const. if a power is not listed in the const. the gov’t cannot exercise it.”

I agree dbs and this is exactly why I would prefer a medicare/medicaid system in this country. The private insurance companies are not bound to the limits of the constitution and serve only the profit motive. Healthcare is to important to leave in the hands of those whose only objective is to make as much money as they can off of the ill and sick in this country.

“unfortunately as of late the const. seems to have become what many in gov’t view as a roadblock in carrying out thier agenda, and so they ignore it. this is what the framers were concerned about, and obviously with good reason.”

I agree dbs only I would add that it has been going on much longer than just recently. When you consider the 14th amendment was added to the constitution to deal with slavery and within a short period of time it was decided by a clerk of the court that it included corporations is a shining example of abuse of the constitution. We live with this mistake to this day, much to the detriment of the free enterprise system and our representative democracy.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 25, 2009 11:53 AM
Comment #282026

Socialism is slavery and conservatism is Nazism.

Why do people feel that they cannot make their points without hyperbole?

Posted by: politico08 at May 25, 2009 7:54 PM
Comment #282036

DBS
I will apologize, I thought when I said democracy you would understand it like most republicans do (See Bush). Most people consider democratic republic a form of democracy. But then again, you didn’t argue against my point, you changed the subject.

Posted by: kudossupreme at May 25, 2009 9:37 PM
Comment #282052

“…. and what you have is the beginning of total government control of every aspect of our lives.”

Got some bad news for you.

In one way or another, from birth to death (and even a bit beyond death) the government already controls and regulates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of your life.

And it’s been this way for many, many years.

Posted by: shadowman at May 26, 2009 12:14 AM
Comment #282059

kudossupreme

you appearently didn’t read both of my responses, or didn’t understand them.

comparing private health insurance which is purcahsed, or participated in voluntarily, and gov’t medical entitlements, are not the same thing. telling me i should cancel my health insurance because i don’t believe in forced participation in gov’t run programs makes 0 sense. you then go on to state that i don’t believe in charity which is nonsense. where you got that idea i’ll never know. the only thing i could conclude was that you think private charitable contributions, and gov’t run programs that don’t give me the option to opt out, but instead force me to help support them are no different, for the simple reason that they both assist people that don’t have the means to pay for something. hey but go ahead and try and spin this response like you did the others, no big deal.

Posted by: dbs at May 26, 2009 11:26 AM
Comment #282061

kudossupreme

you said this country was a democracy, and i said it was representative republic. you changed my response, not the other way around. where did i say it was a democratic republic?

Posted by: dbs at May 26, 2009 11:48 AM
Comment #282064

I guess I am one of those people who don’t pay income taxes, I have payroll taxes around 10% of my check every 2 weeks goes to the government. Now you may come out with the rhetoric that the tax percentage for the wealthy is much higher, guess what? I just don’t feel bad for them, I wouldn’t even feel bad if they were taxget ed 80%. I would trade places with them in a heart beat, ask anyone if they would rather have 20% of 2,000,000 a year or 90% of 40,000 dollars a year and kick up your physical labor by 80% and if you are lucky enough to get health care pay more for it. Yeah it seems really unfair to the wealthy, and just in case you break out that the tired old rhetoric that they worked hard for their money and is it fair, I will trade my work for their work any day of the week and we will see who cries uncle first, just because somebody was very fortunate and was able to make more money than most doesn’t mean that they work harder than most.

Posted by: Dustin at May 26, 2009 12:40 PM
Comment #282077

Dustin

the amount taken out of your check for soc. sec. is 7% your employer pays the other half.

“I wouldn’t even feel bad if they were taxget ed 80%. I would trade places with them in a heart beat, ask anyone if they would rather have 20% of 2,000,000 a year or 90% of 40,000”

this is a perfect example of class envy. be angry because some are better off than you. there are those who would be happy with 90% of 40k. there will always be those that have more than you do. there will also always be those who have far less.

Posted by: dbs at May 26, 2009 7:03 PM
Comment #282089

dbs, isn’t the employers half of SS taken into account when hiring? In reality the employee takes home less per hour because of the employers SS contribution. Just like corporate taxes are passed to the consumer the employers share of SS and FICA are part of the employees total earnings.

Although you make the case for class envy, it seems the corporate management of many corporations have indeed taken advantage of their position to line their own pockets without increasing their productivity such that it would justify such an increase in earnings. They use the income of a rock star, actor and/or athlete to justify their greed yet lose their company many millions of dollars as their investors lose their retirement income to the falling stock prices. They use the corporate lobbyist to demand tax cuts on their earnings without regard to the damage done to the budget of this country. It is not envy IMHO it is the lack of a moral backbone on the part of these CEO’s that causes the anger over the increasing income disparity we have seen under the conservative ideology of supply side economics.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 26, 2009 10:32 PM
Comment #282103

dbs
So your parents are not now or ever will be on Medicare. How about your wife’s. So you will not ever be?I suppose you will also send back your SS checks? How about if your house catches fire. If the fire dept shows up won’t other people be paying for it. How about if a burgler breaks in and the police respond. Its just not fair that other people have to pay for police and fire protection for you. You should be responsible enough to pay for your own security and pay firemen to sit around waiting for you to need them.Stay off the socialist highway system while at it. If you can’t afford to build your own bridges then just stay off them.There is no right to use them. Its not fair but life is full of tough choices, correct?

Posted by: bills at May 27, 2009 2:04 AM
Comment #282111

j2t2

the employers portion of soc. sec. is considered a business expense. they deal with it that way. i was self employed for many years, and still would be if the economy hadn’t dumped. i payed all of my own soc. sec. half was deductable as self employment tax.

Posted by: dbs at May 27, 2009 9:11 AM
Comment #282112

bills

first comparing soc. sec., and medicare, with services like police and fire doesn’t make any sense. with that argument you could justify levying a tax for just about anything, so where does it end. i’m not opposed to paying taxes for services like police and fire, or to maintain infrastructure like roads bridges etc.. your right i will take my soc. sec. because i paid for it, but remember i didn’t have a choice to not pay for it. the same gos for medicare. BTW i’m forced to pay for road maintainence every time i buy gasoline. if i choose not to drive i won’t need gasoline, well except for maybe my lawn mower. if there was an opt out provision for these gov’t services them those who opted out would have no right to them. at least that would then be my decision.

“There is no right to use them. Its not fair but life is full of tough choices, correct?”

the venom is pointless. you’re certainly entitled to disagree with my point of view, which you obviously do, but that doesn’t make my point any less relevant. unforseen things come up in our lives, and sometimes we have to make sacrifices. sometimes painful ones, but that doesn’t mean we should force others to fund gov’t programs so we don’t have to make those choices.

Posted by: dbs at May 27, 2009 9:39 AM
Comment #282576

I know I’m a bit late to the party but I just want to say that this is so typical of Republicans. Everything that Eric is talking about is the result of someone having to come in and clean up a mess left behind by their FAILED conservative ideology. Yes, conservatism failed.

The red ink on the chart is from putting the two wars, fought mostly off budget, back on the books. Don’t forget the TARP from the failure of deregulation and the stimulus spending to keep the consumption up to fight off another Republican Great Depression.

This is your mess. Stop blaming everyone else for trying to clean it up.

Posted by: zLocke at June 7, 2009 3:12 AM
Post a comment