PDA

View Full Version : Socialist/Fascist Health Care Bill Released



NJCardFan
06-06-2009, 12:46 AM
Don't know if this is the right forum or if this has been posted anywhere else but...http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gap9wCaolRYguYQesA2i2Yr98yLgD98KSOP00. You know, they're not even hiding that they want this country to be a Socialist/Fascist country anymore. These people just don't care. Once this is passed you're going to see unemployment go up and they'll all be scratching their heads wondering why. And the ironic thing is that the author of this bill doesn't take part in any of it.

lacarnut
06-07-2009, 02:29 AM
I seriously doubt that the Democraps will show us how they score the bill. In other words, just trust us and every thing will be peaches and cream and money will fall from heaven. Everyone will be covered and it will NOT impact business bottom line. :mad: These fools are going to fuck up this economy big time with the government getting involved in 1/6 of the economy. Will Obama pull another 31 year old punk out of his ass to become the new Health Care Czar. These czars are exploding all over the place.

hazlnut
06-08-2009, 11:25 PM
Don't know if this is the right forum or if this has been posted anywhere else but...http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gap9wCaolRYguYQesA2i2Yr98yLgD98KSOP00. You know, they're not even hiding that they want this country to be a Socialist/Fascist country anymore. These people just don't care. Once this is passed you're going to see unemployment go up and they'll all be scratching their heads wondering why. And the ironic thing is that the author of this bill doesn't take part in any of it.

You do realize that socialism and fascism are somewhat mutually exclusive concepts and they are generally considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum? Anyway...

Honestly, when you peal back the layers on the health care proposals put out so far--both Dems and Repubs seem to still be in bed with big medicine.

I read somewhere that 60% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills--maybe it was on this board. I'll try to find it.

Anyway--how much steam does the Kennedy Bill have? Is it even in the running anymore?

NJCardFan
06-09-2009, 01:12 AM
You do realize that socialism and fascism are somewhat mutually exclusive concepts and they are generally considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum? Anyway...

Honestly, when you peal back the layers on the health care proposals put out so far--both Dems and Repubs seem to still be in bed with big medicine.

I read somewhere that 60% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills--maybe it was on this board. I'll try to find it.

Anyway--how much steam does the Kennedy Bill have? Is it even in the running anymore?
Um, you no not your history do you. You do know that the true meaning of the Nazi Party is National Socialism, do you not?

hazlnut
06-09-2009, 01:44 AM
Um, you no not your history do you. You do know that the true meaning of the Nazi Party is National Socialism, do you not?

Yep. That's what the Nazi Party called themselves. Fox advertises themselves as "Fair and Balanced", buy doesn't make it so.

Like I said, despite how the Nazi's defined their brand of fascism, fascism and socialism are still generally considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/766px-European-political-spectrum.png

Constitutionally Speaking
06-09-2009, 06:59 AM
You do realize that socialism and fascism are somewhat mutually exclusive concepts and they are generally considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum? Anyway...

Honestly, when you peal back the layers on the health care proposals put out so far--both Dems and Repubs seem to still be in bed with big medicine.

I read somewhere that 60% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills--maybe it was on this board. I'll try to find it.

Anyway--how much steam does the Kennedy Bill have? Is it even in the running anymore?

They are ONLY supposedly polar opposites because the liberal institutions were revolted when one of their kindred spirits went all Hitler on them.

Before Hitler and WWII Fascism was all the rage amongst the liberal elite. They are two sides of the same coin.

Statist to the core. The state before the individual.

Look into it and you will find you have been lied to by your professors.

Mussolini was a Hero.

Will Rogers, Cole Porter, Puccini,Toscaninini and a whole lot of the entertainment class adored him.

The left wing muckracker Ida Tarbell ( who broke up Standard Oil) praised him and his attitude toward labor, Lincoln Steffers - another left wing "journalist" (when visiting the Soviet Union he exclaimed "I have been over into the future and it works") - said of Mussolini: God had "formed Mussolini out of the rib of Italy". McClures Magazine championed fascism after it publisher visited Italy. In 1926 Columbia University became (according to historian John P. Diggens) fascism's "veritable home in America" and a "school house for budding fascist ideologues". The list of leftist admirers is VERY VERY long. They are one and the same. Fascism has only lost it's shine because of what Hitler did and the left had to invent some manner to distance itself from it.

The rift between communists and fascists was only because they were competing for the same audience.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-09-2009, 07:12 AM
The only difference in your graph hazlenut, is the supposed private ownership of the means of production (businesses etc.) yet under fascism the ownership may have been private, but the control was still in the hands of the state.
Other than actual ownership, what was the differences between Stalinist Russia and Fascist Germany??? VERY LITTLE.
The rhetoric was that same, the control of the press was the same, the educational indoctrination was the same. They both were "for the working man" the rhetoric from both was against the bourgeoisie and the privileged classes. The state planning was the same - the list goes on and on. EVERYTHING was the same

The liberal historians HAD to find some way of putting fascism on the right, and your graph is one of the methods used.

Japandroid
06-09-2009, 08:16 AM
How do you know the graph was made by a liberal, or even a historian? Have you seen it before in a textbook where it was cited? Do you personally know the person who made that graph?

--Or--

Did you infer that the graph was made by a liberal because it placed fascism on the right side* of the spectrum and only a conniving liberal would do something so misleading?

*by this I mean bottom half of the graph.

hazlnut
06-09-2009, 09:02 AM
How do you know the graph was made by a liberal, or even a historian? Have you seen it before in a textbook where it was cited? Do you personally know the person who made that graph?

--Or--

Did you infer that the graph was made by a liberal because it placed fascism on the right side* of the spectrum and only a conniving liberal would do something so misleading?

*by this I mean bottom half of the graph.

Japan, his name is Constitutionally Speaking. He must know what he's talking about LOL;)

Yeah, I'll dash a letter off to all my history and poli sci profs right away...:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
06-09-2009, 09:23 AM
Yep. That's what the Nazi Party called themselves. Fox advertises themselves as "Fair and Balanced", buy doesn't make it so.

Like I said, despite how the Nazi's defined their brand of fascism, fascism and socialism are still generally considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/766px-European-political-spectrum.png

If you can't trust wikipedia who can you trust. You should really include links. Or were you to ashamed of your source?

Constitutionally Speaking
06-09-2009, 11:32 AM
Japan, his name is Constitutionally Speaking. He must know what he's talking about LOL;)

Yeah, I'll dash a letter off to all my history and poli sci profs right away...:rolleyes:


Rather than responding with a juvenile retort, you COULD have explained just how Fascism and Socialism/Communism are different!!


But of course you did not.:rolleyes:

---

OR, perhaps, you COULD not.

NJCardFan
06-09-2009, 11:55 AM
The Fascist part of Obama's administration is the nationalization of some of the largest corporations: GM, Chrysler, Citibank, AIG. Then he's going to top it off with Socialist policies like universal healthcare. This is stone cold fact. And nice jab at Fox News. I'm stil waiting for a conservative bias in the way they present the news.

lacarnut
06-09-2009, 12:53 PM
The Fascist part of Obama's administration is the nationalization of some of the largest corporations: GM, Chrysler, Citibank, AIG. Then he's going to top it off with Socialist policies like universal healthcare. This is stone cold fact. And nice jab at Fox News. I'm stil waiting for a conservative bias in the way they present the news.

The next take over after health care will be the energy industry. Those fools in solar, wind, etc will wake up one day to the fact that the government has control over every facet of their business. Many of the banks that were forced to take TARP money want to get out from government control. Obama and the Democrats are socialists thru and thru.

megimoo
06-09-2009, 05:09 PM
"Before Ted Goes He Wants to Screw America One More Time !"

marinejcksn
06-09-2009, 05:37 PM
You do realize that socialism and fascism are somewhat mutually exclusive concepts and they are generally considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum? Anyway...

Authoritarian socialism is Fascism. Why do you think Hitler's party was named the National Socialist German Workers' Party? It's no secret that Socialist systems tend to eventually take on tenets of Fascism. Putting that much power in the hands of Government leads to silencing dissenting opinions, another part of a Fascist state.

Also, Fascism doesn't have a distinct political Left/Right standpoint. It's parts of both.

marinejcksn
06-09-2009, 05:39 PM
The next take over after health care will be the energy industry.

Did someone say, TVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority)? :mad:

hazlnut
06-09-2009, 10:54 PM
Rather than responding with a juvenile retort, you COULD have explained just how Fascism and Socialism/Communism are different!!


But of course you did not.:rolleyes:

---

OR, perhaps, you COULD not.

How about you explain the difference between socialism and communism, then I will explain the difference between fascism and one or the other.

You pick.:cool:

thinker
06-09-2009, 11:01 PM
Did someone say, TVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority)? :mad:

The energy utility portion of the TVA was created because no private concern would provide electricity to the area. It endured because no one could compete against it, or wanted to. I've lived in parts of the area the TVA administers...and I liked them a whole helluva lot better than I like my current power monopoly, which has horrible customer service, is late billing me, (and then charges me late fees for sending me a bill 3 weeks after the supposed final payment date) and generally overcharges compared to what I paid under TVA utilities, including taxes.

hazlnut
06-09-2009, 11:12 PM
Authoritarian socialism is Fascism. Why do you think Hitler's party was named the National Socialist German Workers' Party?

If we do end up reading 1984 for CU book debate, the answer to that question will be revealed.

Yes, that is what the Nazi's called themselves. Bully for them. The rest of the world considers Nazi Germany a totalitarian dictatorship.


It's no secret that Socialist systems tend to eventually take on tenets of Fascism. Putting that much power in the hands of Government leads to silencing dissenting opinions, another part of a Fascist state.

Also, Fascism doesn't have a distinct political Left/Right standpoint. It's parts of both.

Fascism is the polar opposite of capitalism, socialism, democracy, and classic liberalism (or what we now call fiscal conservatism).

We can't just redefine words to suit our personal views. There is a commonly accepted definition for all the various forms of government. Fascism and socialism are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

thinker
06-09-2009, 11:22 PM
If we do end up reading 1984 for CU book debate, the answer to that question will be revealed.

Yes, that is what the Nazi's called themselves. Bully for them. The rest of the world considers Nazi Germany a totalitarian dictatorship.

A distinction without a difference, in all honesty.


Fascism is the polar opposite of capitalism...

Capitalism is an economic system. Fascism is a political one. Capitalism just happens to appear with democracies on a regular basis. They are NOT mutually exclusive, especially as fascism (theoretically) allows for private property.


socialism

It's been effectively stated throughout this thread that the sole difference between fascism and socialism is who owns the factory. You've yet to provide decent argumentation to refute this, and simply restating yourself doesn't qualify.


democracy, and classic liberalism (or what we now call fiscal conservatism).

Thank you for stating the obvious. Cookie?


We can't just redefine words to suit our personal views. There is a commonly accepted definition for all the various forms of government. Fascism and socialism are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

In any formal debate, the first thing laid down and either stipulated to or agreed upon, depending on the views of the involved parties, are the definitions. You're trying to skip this part, and while you may not like that your definition isn't winning, that doesn't give you some sort of magical ability to declare victory without a discussion on the matter. If you want your definition given credence, actually address the points already made - or accept the competing definition.

My 0.02

Constitutionally Speaking
06-10-2009, 07:17 AM
How about you explain the difference between socialism and communism, then I will explain the difference between fascism and one or the other.

You pick.:cool:



Since I asked first - and nicely I might add, and since you were juvenile in your response, how 'bout you answer MY question first???

hazlnut
06-10-2009, 12:22 PM
Since I asked first - and nicely I might add, and since you were juvenile in your response, how 'bout you answer MY question first???

Okay, which one Socialism or Communism?

hazlnut
06-10-2009, 12:26 PM
Authoritarian socialism is Fascism.

No, that would be communism.

Again, you can't just changed the definition of words to suit your political views.

I have feeling this is headed for the semantics/my source-your source highway.

marinejcksn
06-10-2009, 01:18 PM
No, that would be communism.

Again, you can't just changed the definition of words to suit your political views.

I have feeling this is headed for the semantics/my source-your source highway.

It isn't changing the definition of words to fit any agenda. Fascism is one of those tricky systems that doesn't have a universally general definition. The cold hard fact is that while in speaking of terms of pure ideology only, Fascism and Socialism greatly differ. But when put into practice, almost all Socialist experiments eventually take on parts of a Fascist totalitarian State. That's all I'm saying. :cool:

Japandroid
06-10-2009, 01:21 PM
Common aspect of Fascism: Fanatic nationalism.

Yeah.

Japandroid
06-10-2009, 01:22 PM
Since I asked first - and nicely I might add, and since you were juvenile in your response, how 'bout you answer MY question first???

How about you respond to my post?

hazlnut
06-10-2009, 01:40 PM
Okay, I thought about this, and without copy-pasting a Wiki or dictionary paragraph, because that would go no where as you could do the same and interpret it as you like...

Here's, I think , a better way to have this discussion.

Question: Can Barack Obama be voted out of office in 2012?

The question is my answer. That is the difference between socialism and fascism/communism--or the difference between libertarian(not the party, the word) and authoritarian forms of government.

Let me expand on that with a current example. I believe the current policy with GM is a bad one. It is not socialism, it is a government managed bankruptcy. This gives our government as representatives of the people/taxpayers a vested interest in the success of GM over other companies. It is now in all our best interests to buy GM and bank at Citibank. But what if I don't want to? I still have that choice, but the overall policy seems to me be to be counterintuitive to a free market economy. Anyway--I digress...

But our federal government's propping up failing banks and car companies; bad economic policy, yes. Fascism--not by a long-shot.

Oh, health care. Because that's what this thread is about. Single payer = government pays for everything by raising taxes. Well, not exactly. It's complicated and I will continue to follow the debate. Our current hybrid system is failing--60% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical costs. Everyone has their own story of how the current system worked for them or failed them in some cases.

Question: How do we get costs down in a for-profit industry? Ask this of a dozen economists familiar with the health care system, and get a dozen different answers.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-10-2009, 06:58 PM
Okay, which one Socialism or Communism?


Take your pick they are not ALL that different anyway. Both place the state over the individual. Both have control if not ownership of the means of production.

More a matter of degree than anything else.

hazlnut
06-10-2009, 09:05 PM
Take your pick they are not ALL that different anyway. Both place the state over the individual. Both have control if not ownership of the means of production.

More a matter of degree than anything else.

I actually answered your original question before you got back to me. No worries.

BadCat
06-10-2009, 09:34 PM
Question: How do we get costs down in a for-profit industry? Ask this of a dozen economists familiar with the health care system, and get a dozen different answers.

How about "we" limit malpractice claims so medical costs don't have a huge "rider" on them for malpractice insurance?

How about "we" improve the way "we" raise and educate "our" kids, and attempt to make careers in the sciences more attractive? Maybe "we" would get more health care professionals - supply and demand.

How about "we" quit providing emergency room services to illegal aliens who are being treated for too many burritos?

How about "we" keep the fucking government about 10000 light years from the medical industry?

Not a complete solution, but a damn good start.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-11-2009, 07:35 PM
Okay, I thought about this, and without copy-pasting a Wiki or dictionary paragraph, because that would go no where as you could do the same and interpret it as you like...

Here's, I think , a better way to have this discussion.

Question: Can Barack Obama be voted out of office in 2012?

The question is my answer. That is the difference between socialism and fascism/communism--or the difference between libertarian(not the party, the word) and authoritarian forms of government.

Let me expand on that with a current example. I believe the current policy with GM is a bad one. It is not socialism, it is a government managed bankruptcy. This gives our government as representatives of the people/taxpayers a vested interest in the success of GM over other companies. It is now in all our best interests to buy GM and bank at Citibank. But what if I don't want to? I still have that choice, but the overall policy seems to me be to be counterintuitive to a free market economy. Anyway--I digress...

But our federal government's propping up failing banks and car companies; bad economic policy, yes. Fascism--not by a long-shot.

Oh, health care. Because that's what this thread is about. Single payer = government pays for everything by raising taxes. Well, not exactly. It's complicated and I will continue to follow the debate. Our current hybrid system is failing--60% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical costs. Everyone has their own story of how the current system worked for them or failed them in some cases.

Question: How do we get costs down in a for-profit industry? Ask this of a dozen economists familiar with the health care system, and get a dozen different answers.



I was not so much concerned with the current situation as much as I was concerned that people have been taught that nazi-ism/fascism are right wing philosophies. They simply are not. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and the like are all forms of government where the state is superior to the citizens. Groups reign supreme over the individual. Planning is done centrally and property, capital and the means of production, if not owned by the state, are controlled by the state.

Authoritarianism is often associated with them, but is not a part of them per se. Some argue that they always devolve to authoritarianism but I am not ready to make that leap. Europe seems to be avoiding that aspect - at least for now.



While with conservatism, liberty and the individual as sovereign are the rule. Property rights are viewed as the key to prosperity, as are free markets. All decisions are made individually by the citizens acting on their own and using the liberty they were given by God. Government is there to serve the citizens instead of the citizens existing to feed the government.

hazlnut
06-18-2009, 12:05 PM
While with conservatism, liberty and the individual as sovereign are the rule. Property rights are viewed as the key to prosperity, as are free markets. All decisions are made individually by the citizens acting on their own and using the liberty they were given by God. Government is there to serve the citizens instead of the citizens existing to feed the government.

Agreed.

Pubic servants have found the trough.