PDA

View Full Version : What are the merits and principles of Liberalism?



Wei Wu Wei
09-17-2010, 11:53 AM
What is the foundation of liberalism? What is liberalism? What makes someone a liberal?

hampshirebrit
09-17-2010, 11:55 AM
How about you tell us.

I can't see either merit or principle in liberalism, for the most part.

Wei Wu Wei
09-17-2010, 12:03 PM
I was going to make another thread about Socialism, so I could compare and contrast what people view about liberalism vs socialism (and libertarianism since I already had a thread, but we can also discuss socialism in here just for the sake of not spamming the forums.

JB
09-17-2010, 12:54 PM
How about you tell us.

I can't see either merit or principle in liberalism, for the most part.Liberals don't pay their taxes. I like that part.

Molon Labe
09-17-2010, 01:00 PM
What is the foundation of liberalism? What is liberalism? What makes someone a liberal?

Classical? or what you follow?

Odysseus
09-17-2010, 01:04 PM
What are the differences between a modern (as opposed to classical) liberal, a progressive, a socialist or a communist? What are the ideological and philosophical differences between the four? For that matter, what is the average velocity of an unladen swallow?

Bailey
09-17-2010, 01:06 PM
What makes someone a Liberal? They have to have a mental disorder.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-17-2010, 01:39 PM
What makes someone a Liberal? They have to have a mental disorder.

One could say the same thing about anyone who defines their whole life and their associations by politics on both ends.
But play the mental disorder end. Hell, go further and put a litmus test on the American public, create a one party state, and anyone doesn't meet the criteria, they can be branded as having this 'mental disorder' you speak of and put in a Gula--I mean, mental institution.

Odysseus
09-17-2010, 01:58 PM
One could say the same thing about anyone who defines their whole life and their associations by politics on both ends.
But play the mental disorder end. Hell, go further and put a litmus test on the American public, create a one party state, and anyone doesn't meet the criteria, they can be branded as having this 'mental disorder' you speak of and put in a Gula--I mean, mental institution.

My first two questions were serious. How would a liberal differentiate himself from a progressive? How would a progressive differentiate himself from a socialist and how woud a socialist differentiate himself from a communist? I'm no more qualified to read their minds than they are to read ours. I'd rather that Wei, Arroyo Doble and Hazlnut supply those answers. How about it, boys?

Troll
09-17-2010, 07:06 PM
Classical? or what you follow?


What are the differences between a modern (as opposed to classical) liberal, a progressive, a socialist or a communist? What are the ideological and philosophical differences between the four?

You two have the answer.

Wei, let me clue you in on the ugly truth: Modern-day left-wingers are not true liberals. I try not to call them liberals too much, and when I do, I'm using the modern definition, which is a actually a nanny-government statist, and a thief by proxy.

Classic liberalism can really be boiled down to granting people the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't deprive anyone else of their life, property or freedom doing it. In that sense, I might be the biggest liberal you've ever met. I consider myself a liberal in the way that Washington, Jefferson and Adams were.

However, modern day liberals want no part of letting people be truly free. If people are free, they don't need the government. If people are free, some people are just going to do better than others. Modern liberals hate few things more than self-determination and exceptionalism. The modern liberal only wants people to be free enough to consume drugs and abort babies. You can forget about truly working for your own interests.

Those are the principles of true liberalism. I trust that I don't have to explain the merits of letting people be free to you?

Sonnabend
09-17-2010, 08:54 PM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mA_H6C8iLPA/0.jpg

Gingersnap
09-17-2010, 11:30 PM
Classic liberalism can really be boiled down to granting people the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't deprive anyone else of their life, property or freedom doing it. In that sense, I might be the biggest liberal you've ever met. I consider myself a liberal in the way that Washington, Jefferson and Adams were.

No discussion of "what is liberalism?" can begin without addressing this point. Classical liberalism had two hallmarks: liberty and rationalism. Classical liberalism is more akin to Libertarianism today than it is to progressive Democrat policies. The leading minds of classical liberalism would have been astonished by many (but not all) of the social programs and public school educational efforts that are supported today.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of classical liberalism was it's demand for outcome-based decision-making. Sure, go ahead and try something new but after a decent length of time, evaluate what worked and what didn't work. Ditch the elements that didn't support the desired outcome.

Contemporary liberal thought lacks the rigor and rational aspect of it's ancestral origin.

Molon Labe
09-18-2010, 03:15 PM
What a modern liberal has the distinguishes them from a classic liberal, is a stronger sense of the collective over the rights of the individual. I think that's the main principle of liberalism that distinguishes it from other, so called, right wing ideologies. When you concentrate on this issue, then what Socialism, Marxism, or modern day liberalism have in common is to what degree they emphasize the collective. The right wing has it's share of collective goons too. That's the problem....they are really leftists, as evidence with how quickly they have jumped on the Obama bandwagon and praised Obama on certain policies......but we call them conservatives and much of the Republican party has been duped by them for two decades now.

NJCardFan
09-18-2010, 10:26 PM
What a modern liberal has the distinguishes them from a classic liberal, is a stronger sense of the collective over the rights of the individual. I think that's the main principle of liberalism that distinguishes it from other, so called, right wing ideologies. When you concentrate on this issue, then what Socialism, Marxism, or modern day liberalism have in common is to what degree they emphasize the collective. The right wing has it's share of collective goons too. That's the problem....they are really leftists, as evidence with how quickly they have jumped on the Obama bandwagon and praised Obama on certain policies......but we call them conservatives and much of the Republican party has been duped by them for two decades now.

I agree with this 100%. I look at modern liberals more like classic communists or socialists. Their construct is more collective based than individual based. Hell, Hillary Clinton famously said that we should stop worrying about individuals and start worrying about what's best for society. I guess the best label to put on modern liberals is Collectivists. And it's easy to see that this is what they are. Everything is based on what group you belong to: the poor, the elderly, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, as a group. Another indicator is to look at how they view their opposition. When conservatives like us see a left wing kook like they nut who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin or the loon who tried to blow up the Discovery Channel building, we look at them as just a nutcase. A singular nutcase. When the left sees someone at a Tea Party rally holding an offensive sign or something overtly racist or just plain dumb, they look at that person as indicative of the entire movement, not the actions of one loon. Group think. And they find it hard to believe that that singular person is just someone with skewed thinking. Modern liberals also have this naive notion that it's possible to live in a world that's all puppy dogs and rainbows. Talk about delusional.

Modern liberals are also naive. Extremely naive. They honestly believe that everything should be equal across the board. Not understanding or believing that there will be haves and have nots only that the haves will be a lot smaller and have a lot more and the have nots will be a lot bigger and have far less. Orwell's 1984 is a great example of how things would be if liberalism became powerful.

Sonnabend
09-19-2010, 08:02 AM
What are the merits and principles of Liberalism?

None.

marinejcksn
09-19-2010, 08:35 AM
Wei, why don't you answer the question and tell us what YOU think they are?

I'll describe what I personally believe are the principles of Liberalism, based solely on the personal experiences I've had with my liberal friends and professors.

#1. Liberals believe people are fundamentally stupid. (Some cases, I tend to agree)

#2. Liberals believe they're smarter than the majority of people.

#3. Liberals believe that "leaders" need to mandate, legislate and administrate "common sense" (as they understand it) because people are too stupid to know what's best for them.

#4. Liberals believe that wealth isn't earned, it's "misapropriated" through ill-gotten, evil, descriminatory or racist means and needs to be more evenly shared with everyone.

#5. Liberals believe the Founding Fathers were a group of racist, slave owning old White men who wanted to dominate society.

#6. Liberals believe all points of view should be tolerated and respected, as long as they don't include Pro-life arguements, Pro-2nd Amendment arguements, or anything spread by the "wackjobs" on talk radio or on Fox News.

Odysseus
09-19-2010, 02:49 PM
Wei, why don't you answer the question and tell us what YOU think they are?
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/ben-stein(1).jpg
Wei? Wei? Wei?

m00
09-19-2010, 10:24 PM
Wei? Wei? Wei?

Liberals on this board don't like answering questions, that's for damn sure. Mine don't get answered. And I'm not exactly an "attack-dog" style Republican.

Odysseus
09-20-2010, 09:36 AM
Liberals on this board don't like answering questions, that's for damn sure. Mine don't get answered. And I'm not exactly an "attack-dog" style Republican.

You've noticed that too? One would think that such enlightened, knowledgeable people would be chomping at the bit to share their superior moral vision when we ask for it. Go figure... :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
09-20-2010, 09:39 AM
What are the differences between a modern (as opposed to classical) liberal, a progressive, a socialist or a communist? What are the ideological and philosophical differences between the four? For that matter, what is the average velocity of an unladen swallow?

What do you mean? African or European?

Odysseus
09-20-2010, 09:59 AM
What do you mean? African or European?

I don't know... YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH....

Odysseus
09-20-2010, 12:50 PM
Randall Hoven had a column in today's American Thinker that answers the subject of this thread. Wei won't like it, but it's too good not to share. :D


September 20, 2010

The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites

By Randall Hoven

George Orwell said, "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." What follows is my beginning of a list of ideas that some very intelligent people seem to believe.


The air should be taxed. More precisely, what every animal on earth exhales and what every plant on earth inhales can and should be taxed.
President Bush was bad for the economy because he spent too much. President Obama is helping the economy by spending a lot.
A jury is better informed if evidence is withheld from it.
The Boy Scouts are wrong for having policies that inhibit pedophilia. The Catholic Church was wrong for not having policies that inhibit pedophilia.
An economy in which government accounts for about 40% of economic activity, which owns a similar percentage of all land, and which enforces a stack of regulations the size of 64 Bibles (or 30 New Deals) is considered a radical laissez-faire free market.
Grabbing a person by his shirt and pulling him toward you is an "enhanced interrogation technique" not in the Army Field Manual. It is therefore "tantamount to torture" and out of bounds for any government agency or contractor to use when asking a terrorist what his plans are. Simply dropping a bomb on him, though, with neither trial nor tribunal, and killing him and anyone near him, including his wife, children, family and friends, is OK.
Stopping Saddam Hussein by force was wrong because he did not have WMD. Using force against the Taliban is OK despite no one even claiming the Taliban has, or ever had, or ever intend to obtain, WMD. It was also OK to use force against the government of Yugoslavia, which had no WMD and had never harmed or threatened anyone outside Yugoslavia.
Using force against Saddam Hussein just because he was a mass murderer was wrong because we cannot be the policeman for the world. This despite two wars that he started, killing about one million people, mostly Muslims; despite hundreds of mass graves containing hundreds of thousand of bodies; despite using chemical weapons on his own people; and despite a record of torture. However, using force, including the bombing of population centers, against the Serbs for killing perhaps 2,000 people -- many in the KLA, a certified terrorist organization -- was OK.
It was wrong to use force against Saddam Hussein because the inspections/sanctions regime was working. However, the inspections/sanctions regime was wrong because it was killing half a million Iraqi children.
It was foolish to let Saddam Hussein go in 1991. It was foolish to go after him in 2003.
It is wrong to use force against any country just because you think it might obtain or develop nuclear weapons; that is preemptive. It is wrong to use force against a country that already has nuclear weapons, since that could start a nuclear war. It is wrong to defend against incoming nuclear bombs because that is seen as provocative against countries that have nuclear bombs. Sanctions are also wrong because they kill children and provoke people (see above). In summary, it is wrong to defend yourself against nuclear weapons or any WMD, at any stage of their development or use, by any means other than politely asking your enemies to "stop that."
It is wrong to ask any person for his papers, even after that person has committed a crime and fits the profile of an illegal immigrant, and even though all non-citizens must carry identification papers per federal law. It is OK to ask every citizen in the U.S. to prove he or she has health insurance.
The federal government can force a state to recognize gay marriages because of the 14th Amendment. The federal government cannot force a state to not recognize gay marriages because of the 10th Amendment.
Toilet tank capacity is interstate commerce. "Public use" of private property includes handing it over to another private owner. Large seasonal puddles connected to no other bodies of water are "navigable waters" as far as the government and its regulators are concerned.
The phrase "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" means (a) it is OK to deprive property owners of their property and (b) it is not OK for a state to outlaw depriving life to any baby whose head has not left the birth canal.
The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means it's OK to outlaw owning or carrying handguns.
The clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means a public school must prohibit voluntary, student-led prayer at all school events, including football games. But it is OK for government to subsidize "art" such as a crucifix in a pitcher of urine.
The clause that says Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech" does not include workplace speech that might be considered racially or sexually offensive, commercial speech not approved by a federal regulatory agency, or political speech too close to an election.
A guy who made a $34,000 mistake on his own taxes is the best choice to be in charge of the IRS and the entire federal treasury. The guy with thirteen House ethics charges against him, including misusing federal resources and not paying taxes on his villa in the Dominican Republic, should be in charge of writing the country's tax laws. The guy who told us in 2005 that a housing bubble was nonsense and Fannie Mae was in fine shape should be writing in 2010 the regulations to overhaul all finance conducted in this country.
One way to a colorblind society is to ask for "race" on every official form. Another way is to add points for certain races on civil service exams and to use different cutoffs for different races on things like ACT, SAT, and LSAT scores when deciding whom to accept in educational institutions.
The way to increase jobs is to raise taxes on those who provide them and give money to those who don't have them.
The way to reduce health care costs is to mandate that every person have health insurance and that that insurance cover every possible physical health- and mental health-related cost, including massage therapists, social workers, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, acupuncture, hair prostheses, and about two thousand other insurance mandates levied by government.
It was right to take John McCain to court, through oral arguments and written opinion, to prove that he is "natural born," despite both his parents being U.S. citizens their whole lives and despite being the son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals. It was wrong, even insane, to think Barack Obama should have to prove his birth status to anyone prior to taking the oath of office as president.

Enough for now. I started this with a quote from Orwell, and that is how I will end it.


Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Randall Hoven is the creator of Graph of the Day. He can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his website, randallhoven.com.

AmPat
09-20-2010, 10:55 PM
Hmmm, What is a liberal?
Hates Conservatives-check
Has BDS-check
Loves high taxes-check
Loves giving money to worthless causes-check
Hates the military (his own)-check
Hates Christians, loves muslims-check
Hates babies, loves murderers-check
Loves deficits-check
Hates personal responsibility-check
Hates Sarah Palin-check
Loves Poop as long as it covers a Bible, instantly apoplectic at the suggestion of burning a koran-check
Hates capitalism, loves Communism-check
Believes John Stewart is real news-check
Watches MSNBC without getting nausea-check
Believes Obama is honest-check

whew! I gotta take a break.:cool:

AmPat
09-21-2010, 12:01 AM
What do you mean? African or European?

Laden or unladen?:confused:

Odysseus
09-21-2010, 11:26 AM
Laden or unladen?:confused:

Bin Laden. It's a suicide swallow. :D

Arroyo_Doble
03-11-2011, 08:49 PM
Bin Laden. It's a suicide swallow. :D

OK, that was funny.

Yoink!

txradioguy
03-12-2011, 05:19 AM
What is the foundation of liberalism? What is liberalism? What makes someone a liberal?

http://libcom.org/files/images/library/marx_0.jpg

NJCardFan
03-12-2011, 10:29 AM
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/attachments/did-you-know/31565d1270489092-little-known-facts-regarding-world-war-2-holy-thread-resurrection.jpg


Seriously though. Modern liberals love to talk about freedoms and yet, this is their idea of freedom:


Government mandating and overseeing healthcare.

Government seizing earned income from people who actually worked for it and turning it over to people who did nothing to actually earned it under the guise of "Earned Income Credit".

Silencing opposing political points of view.

If not outright silencing it, then making sure that in any news medium that has an over abundance of their opposite view point, that equal time must be given to their view points. This, of course, does not pertain to news mediums that have an over abundance of their viewpoints.

It's OK to vilify the opposing ideology for "being in the pockets of big business", however, they are doing nothing wrong by being in the pockets of the labor unions.

The needs and wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many. However, if the many that are being infringed upon follow their ideology, then it should be majority rule...unless, of course that those being infringed upon are in the opposite ideology, then it's back to minority rule.

It's perfectly OK for an organization like ACORN to register fictional characters and dead people to vote not to mention busing homeless from polling place to polling place to cast their votes as well as having thugs intimidate voters with use of force, however, requiring a show of identification in order to cast said vote is an abomination.

Giving a job or some other position based strictly on one's color, gender, sexual orientation, religious background, etc. is A-OK, however, denying same is an abomination.

It is not racist to have exclusionary entities as long as they are under the protected classes(i.e. Miss Black America, United Negro College Fund, etc).

The display of Christmas decorations in public schools is out of the question, however, the practice of "Islam Awareness (http://blog.schillingshow.com/2009/10/04/charlottesville-high-school-celebrates-islam/)" is encouraged.

I could go on but I'd be here all week.

obx
03-12-2011, 11:28 AM
None.

They do make good fertilizer.

PoliCon
03-12-2011, 12:42 PM
What is the foundation of liberalism? What is liberalism? What makes someone a liberal?

Real liberalism or the modern progressivism that has taken upon themselves the name of liberal even though they are anything but?

AmPat
03-19-2011, 12:10 PM
They do make good fertilizer.

Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,They smell like @#$:cool:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-20-2011, 09:54 PM
Hmmm, What is a liberal?
Hates Conservatives-check
Has BDS-check
Loves high taxes-check
Loves giving money to worthless causes-check
Hates the military (his own)-check
Hates Christians, loves muslims-check
Hates babies, loves murderers-check
Loves deficits-check
Hates personal responsibility-check
Hates Sarah Palin-check
Loves Poop as long as it covers a Bible, instantly apoplectic at the suggestion of burning a koran-check
Hates capitalism, loves Communism-check
Believes John Stewart is real news-check
Watches MSNBC without getting nausea-check
Believes Obama is honest-check

whew! I gotta take a break.:cool:

Hates Conservatives-Given that I have family who are conservatives and I like most of you, I can't say I hate conservatives.
Has BDS- Bush wasn't that bad of a President.
Loves high taxes- Nah
Loves giving money to worthless causes- Depends on your definition
Hates the military (his own)- I love the family, and guns.
Hates Christians, loves muslims- I'm cautiously accepting of Muslims so long as they assimilate and Christianity is a fine religion.
Hates babies, loves murderers- Pro-life, yet pro death penalty here. Believes death sentences should be expedited
Loves deficits- Deficits are at times a necessary evil.
Hates personal responsibility- No.
Hates Sarah Palin- Don't hate her, but am not crazy about her either.
Loves Poop as long as it covers a Bible, instantly apoplectic at the suggestion of burning a koran- I think it's kinda childish to defile any religion's book even if the religion is batshit insane.
Hates capitalism, loves Communism- Hates Communism and Unregulated Capitalism
Believes John Stewart is real news- No. He's ok sometimes, but kind of annoying.
Watches MSNBC without getting nausea- Doesn't really watch TV
Believes Obama is honest- He's a politician, so he's a liar by default.

Novaheart
03-20-2011, 11:32 PM
I don't want Single Payer because I believe in the nanny state. I want Single Payer because I believe that it is the superior design for a system which is so spread out and publicly funded that to allow insurance companies to walk away with a slice of the money is nothing short of malfeasance.

People donate blood, and hospitals charge for it.

People pay taxes, and NIH develops drugs and studies diseases.

People pay taxes and tuitions and fees and donations, and colleges do research that ends up for sale.

People volunteer for trials, or participate for minor amounts of money, and other people benefit from their playing guinea pig.

We support public hospitals, military hospitals, veterans hospitals, university hospitals, teaching hospitals, Eskimo hospitals, Indian hospitals, and private hospitals with public contracts.

We support public clinics.

Medicare and medicaid pay the bills at many private medical practices.

We support Planned Parenthood, and without them there would be tens of millions of additional Americans.

But God forfend we should cut the insurance companies out of this "private" system.

NJCardFan
03-21-2011, 01:14 AM
Nova. Can you name me one program that the government runs that isn't a boondoggle of epic proportions?

txradioguy
03-21-2011, 04:14 AM
I don't want Single Payer because I believe in the nanny state. I want Single Payer because I believe that it is the superior design for a system which is so spread out and publicly funded that to allow insurance companies to walk away with a slice of the money is nothing short of malfeasance.

Explain to me exactly why I should have to fund someone elses medical insurance coverage?

How is me paying for someone elses medical bills the "superior design".

And do you know who created this insurance boondoggle that you are so derisive of?

Odysseus
03-21-2011, 11:15 AM
I don't want Single Payer because I believe in the nanny state. I want Single Payer because I believe that it is the superior design for a system which is so spread out and publicly funded that to allow insurance companies to walk away with a slice of the money is nothing short of malfeasance.

You don't understand what insurance is, do you? Insurance is pooled savings, with a specific criteria for accessing the funds. Wikipedia presents the principles of insurance as follows:

Insurance involves pooling funds from many insured entities (known as exposures) to pay for the losses that some may incur. The insured entities are therefore protected from risk for a fee, with the fee being dependent upon the frequency and severity of the event occurring. In order to be insurable, the risk insured against must meet certain characteristics in order to be an insurable risk. Insurance is a commercial enterprise and a major part of the financial services industry, but individual entities can also self-insure through saving money for possible future losses.
Without pooled funds, individuals can only self-insure, which means that the amount available for payouts is reduced. Also, the amounts available to spend on each individual are reduced. Insurance pools make modern health care possible. Without it, you end up with Cuban or Soviet-style systems in which quality of care is determined by political expediency.

The rest of your points are variously either irrelevent or utterly meaningless.


People donate blood, and hospitals charge for it.
Blood handling and storage costs money, too. Separation of blood into various products, such as plasma vs. whole blood, have associated costs. Storage of blood requires extremely close quality control standards and screening of blood for infectious diseases also costs in terms of time, equipment and labor. Who should pay for that?


People pay taxes, and NIH develops drugs and studies diseases.
Name one drug developed by NIH. What NIH does is direct funds to private researchers at hospitals, universities and pharmaceutical corporations. It doesn't develop drugs, it just funnels tax dollars to researchers, something that can be done far more efficiently by private efforts.


People pay taxes and tuitions and fees and donations, and colleges do research that ends up for sale.
So? Taxes, tuition, fees and donations may cover some of the costs of college research (although they also tend to pay for things like classroom instruction, campus maintenance and all of the other things that we associate with public colleges), but without the promise of future profit, most research will be abandoned. This is why US pharmaceutical companies account for more new drugs than the rest of the world combined.


People volunteer for trials, or participate for minor amounts of money, and other people benefit from their playing guinea pig.
As do the volunteers. Many of them suffer from the conditions that their drug trials will eventually address.


We support public hospitals, military hospitals, veterans hospitals, university hospitals, teaching hospitals, Eskimo hospitals, Indian hospitals, and private hospitals with public contracts.
And the quality of care at public hospitals and veterans hospitals is markedly inferior to comparable private hospitals (I can't speak about Eskimo hospitals, and if government hospitals on Indian reservations are anything like the rest of the services there, you may not want to remind us of that). Military health care varies from very good to very bad, depending on where you are and what you are being treated for. The government's subsidies to university hospitals, teaching hospitals and private hospitals with public contracts don't make the case for single payer. If anything, they demonstrate that government cannot conduct these tasks on its own. It's an argument against single payer, not for it.


We support public clinics.
So?


Medicare and medicaid pay the bills at many private medical practices.
And more and more of those practices are not taking Medicare and Medicaid because they do not meet the expenses of treating patients, while the programs are insolvent and continue to hemorrage money.


We support Planned Parenthood, and without them there would be tens of millions of additional Americans.
So, mass murder is a good thing?


But God forfend we should cut the insurance companies out of this "private" system.
You miss the point. At every intervention of government into the private system, the system breaks down. Government largesse actually limits the sphere of research and regulations slow the introduction of successfully developed drugs. Government payments to providers have resulted in massively expensive programs that provide inferior care and which drive up costs in other areas (To simplify it, if a doctor sees ten patiens, at a cost to his office of $100 per patient, and Medicare only pays $50, he must charge each private patient $150 in order to remain solvent).

Single payer guarantees that everyone will receive the same bureaucratically paralyze, crappy level of care that we've come to see from the VA and public hospitals in major urban areas.

NJCardFan
03-21-2011, 11:55 AM
People volunteer for trials, or participate for minor amounts of money, and other people benefit from their playing guinea pig.

My FIL took part in an experimental treatment for blood cancer. He was the first in the trial. It worked and it saved his life. I'd say he benefited greatly being a guinea pig. And it didn't cost him or his insurance company a dime.

Odysseus
03-21-2011, 12:18 PM
My FIL took part in an experimental treatment for blood cancer. He was the first in the trial. It worked and it saved his life. I'd say he benefited greatly being a guinea pig. And it didn't cost him or his insurance company a dime.

Yes, but under single payer, he'd have gotten, well, nothing, and his place in line would have been determined by his political clout.

PoliCon
03-21-2011, 06:16 PM
I don't want Single Payer because I believe in the nanny state. I want Single Payer because I believe that it is the superior design for a system which is so spread out and publicly funded that to allow insurance companies to walk away with a slice of the money is nothing short of malfeasance.

People donate blood, and hospitals charge for it.

People pay taxes, and NIH develops drugs and studies diseases.

People pay taxes and tuitions and fees and donations, and colleges do research that ends up for sale.

People volunteer for trials, or participate for minor amounts of money, and other people benefit from their playing guinea pig.

We support public hospitals, military hospitals, veterans hospitals, university hospitals, teaching hospitals, Eskimo hospitals, Indian hospitals, and private hospitals with public contracts.

We support public clinics.

Medicare and medicaid pay the bills at many private medical practices.

We support Planned Parenthood, and without them there would be tens of millions of additional Americans.

But God forfend we should cut the insurance companies out of this "private" system.

All of these problems exist because of government interference in the market in the first place - how the hell is more government interference going to make it suddenly better??