The Carpetbagger's Coffee Social
Universal Health Care
Posted by libdrone • 10/06/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS]
Tags: health care crisis, universal health care
Extensive and substantive discussion on the health care crisis in America
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/universal-health-care-yay-or-nay#comment_...
User Comments
-
Extensive seems almost an understatement.
I'm beginning to consider starting an issue blog. I was really worried about this thread early one, because it's such an emotionally charged issue and my views are not really favorable to either to the main two political thought groups here in the US.
But I've been getting mad emails about people joining my neighborhood and adding me as a friend today during this debate. That is a pleasant surprise.-
Strange as this may sound Dane, I like and respect you most when we are of drastically different views and opinions and manage to talk about those differences. I can round up an amen chorus any time I feel the desire. Someone sharp enough to call me on my bullshit is a much more precious find.
-
-
Having just taken the time to completely re-read the entire thread I have to say that given the number of thoughtful and substantive participants and the many good arguments for and against a number of possible solutions, this thread really does represent the Best of Blog Catalog discussions and its inclusion in this space is very much in keeping with the theme the group was created for.
-
Well, I'm still trying to get over Dane equating Hillary's plans with socialism. Or should I have posted this comment in the "Do you think I'm full of it thread?"-
And you would categorize her as?
Come on. You're an intelligent articulate guy. If you think I'm incorrect, fine. But provide some reasons. Simply asking if I know what socialism is or expressing credulity isn't a valid rebuttal, stoneman.
If I'm wrong, show me how. -
I just started to, but I think I'd rather hear how you think you're right. Your use of the term "socialism" sounded like sloganeering more than thinking, but your desire for dialog here suggests that perhaps you have an idiosyncratic definition of socialism of which I am unaware. Since I've also heard references to Libertarianism, I suppose much of our current state might even look "socialist" to you. But that is just speculation on my part. Instead of my attacking a straw man, how about you explaining your terms? Then I can be sure we are talking about the same thing.
-
-
Sure mark,
Socialism is an economic model that seeks central planning and common ownership of the means of production and the distribution of wealth with the stated intent of eliminating class and establishing equality, generally with the common ownership and planning controlled by a governmental body.
I don't oppose socialism because I am a Libertarian. There are indeed Socialist Libertarians. Not many, but they exist. I oppose Socialism because I am a Capitalist. Socialism can be combined with any of several political models to a lesser or greater extent, just as Libertarianism can be combined with any of several economic models to a lesser or greater extent.
I make the statement that Hillary Clinton is a socialist because her policy views tend to overwhelmingly move toward and favor more central power and planning, more wealth distribution and more governmental control over private concerns. That she does not outright call for the immediate installing of a Marxist Utopia, does not change that her policies lead inexorably to the goal of a socialist economy.
As to portions of the US state looking socialist to me, it is a fact that the US is currently a mixed economy comprising aspects of both socialism and capitalism. I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
Finally rest assured that I do not obtain any of my thoughts or ideas from bumper stickers.
-
Perhaps this is a whole new thread....
-
P.S. My question still stands. If you would not characterize her as a socialist, what would you characterize her as?
-
-
Given that pretty standard definition of socialism, I do not understand the leap from the points outlined at www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/ to your statement that "her policies lead inexorably to the goal of a socialist economy." The burden of proof still lies with you.
-
I don't draw the conclusion from a single issue. And definitely not from a single webpage I've never visited. That would be rather silly wouldn't it?
I also have no overwhelming desire to prove it to you. If you want to discuss it, fine. Otherwise, well what does it really matter?
-
-
Fair enough, though I am still trying to figure out the socialist angle. The reason? You're not the first person I've heard who sees plans to expand government involvement in health coverage as some sort of backhanded way to socialize medicine. It is also coming up in the debates about SCHIP. I understand fiscal conservatism. I understand arguments in favor of a limited state. But I do not get the accusations that more government involvement will "inexorably" lead to government-rationed health care. There are too many intermediary steps in the logic that need explaining. And maybe I will never be able to get it, since such arguments seem to entail some sort of seeing into the future, which I don't think human beings are any good at.
-
Increased government involvement in (control over) healthcare certainly isn't a move toward capitalism.
What you are not considering is that in our political structure it is the politics of increments that wins the day. Whether this is about taxes, gun control, healthcare or any other issue. This is the one arena in US American culture where the long view is dominant. To advance any agenda requires the incremental consolidation of favorable policy gains. very rarely does anything dramatically shift with a large leap from one direction to another. Generally, on those occasions when it does, it comes from the Judicial, not the Legislative.
And again. I'm not talking about "healthcare" when I say that Hillary is a socialist. Think about her policies as a whyole and ask yourself wheather some one who's primary issue were the strenghtening of capitalism would serve their issue by voting for Hillary. I think you will find you must answer no. -
I fail to understand why capitalism must be 100% laissez faire. If it were, we could turn over everything to a handful of corporate giants. Should we throw out all anti-trust laws? (On a tangential note, I do not see why we give corporations "person" status.) Viewing politics as a dichotomy between capitalism and anti-capitalism doesn't work. Democrats are all for capitalism. But there need to be rules. Without them you risk massive abuses and even social stability.
But you are using a line of argument that has a long tradition in this country. I'll be glad when enough people finally start seeing through it. -
I believe that you are making that connection for yourself. As I pointed out it is possible to be politically Libertarian and economially Socialist. I never said it wasn't possible to be a Democat and a Capitalist. Some Democrats are and some aren't. Some Republicans aren't all that friendly to capitalism either.
Why try to suggest I am making it a political dichotomy when I expressly said it wasn't just a couple posts up this thread. Hillary favors movement toward socailism in economic matters and I favor movement toward freer capitalism. Politicaly, there are issues I agree with her on that many (most even) who are strongly capitalist do not.
Where did I say anything about antitrust laws? You are making an assumption that may or may not be accurate about what I think of antitrust. But I'm done answering your questions until you see fit to answer any of mine.
The reasons I would not vote for her are economic, not political. -
Questions? I guess you've given me enough to go on here. I see Senator Clinton as pretty much in the political center of the Democratic party at present. I also see her as a pragmatist, like her husband, not an ideologue. An example of that would be the major shift in her approach to crafting health care policy. Now she's got many segments of corporate America on her side. Another example is her stance on Iraq, which really annoys groups like Move On.
I'm still not sure I'll choose her in the Democratic primary, but I'm a lot more comfortable with her now than I used to be. She appears to be losing the polarizing effect she had earlier. She's also tough as nails, which is a good thing for the job she wants.
But it's early days. I have not yet formulated a positive characterization that I can explain very well. I'm just clear about which party I'll be voting for and what rhetoric is wearing thin with me.
My thinking is also somewhat colored by my years of living in Germany, whose Christian Democratic (read: conservative) social policies make many of our Democrats look positively conservative in comparison.-
The European experience offers another perspective that might interest you. Like here in the US, it built up a welfare state, but much more extensively than we ever did. (Caveat: don't equate "welfare state" with "welfare" as we have known it. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state .) But globalization and demographic challenges (low birth rate and growing imbalance between number of retirees and workers) are undermining the European welfare states. Ironically, Social Democrats need the nation state to promote their program, but the nation state in charge of its own economy is increasingly a thing of the past. Social Democrats are learning that internationalism and the welfare state do not mix. And they're changing their ways towards much more market-friendly solutions. Example: New Labor in Britain. The SPD in Germany has gone the same way.
What does this have to do with the question at hand? Well, Republican fears that increased government involvement will lead to socialization do not account for globalization and the massive fiscal challenges that the retiring baby boomers are presenting us with. Simply put, there is only so much government can do. Democrats like Clinton know this. The trick question then becomes how we use the resources available, not how we change the economic system from capitalist to its antithesis.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
