Fewer In U.S. See Health Coverage as Govt Responsibility

[OurEurope]

like the "Fasces" right and left with american banner...but is it not a Roman symbol? What USA have got to do with Rome? Thank in advance for the explanations!

[RogerOnTheRight]

No, if you look at the graph, the trend changed about three years ago.

Nevertheless, it should be clear Obama has not helped his cause one bit. The tea party protests this Summer should have clarified that for everyone.

[bungerman1000]

hurray, gallop has shown just how gullible and easily persuaded Americans are by their corporate overlords so that they can become more rich.

That or gallop is paid off by the highest bidder, I haven't quite decided which.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Think this informative revelation will stop the Democrats?

Not hardly.

[tungstenatom]

Are you saying that on the basis of public opinion Bush should have introduced government healthcare?

[RogerOnTheRight]

No, did I imply that somehow?

[tungstenatom]

You're saying that the show of public opinion against govt healthcare ought to stop the Dems (but won't).

So logically, for the rest of the time, when public opinion has favoured government care, that should have spurred action by every government previous to this.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I understand the desire to twist someones words using your own "logic", but it does not work that way.

Government is force, plain an simple. Just because an idea is popular does not mean it ought to be carried out.

For example, suppose it was a popular idea to lynch members of a minority group... well, surely you get the idea.

Yet, when the populous opposed use of such force, politicians who ignore the popular will do so at their own peril.

[tungstenatom]

So you're saying government shouldn't always be mindful of the public opinion in taking an action, but should never do something unpopular?

No-one needs to twist that to realise how absurd it is.

[RogerOnTheRight]

No. Allow me to clarify.

Government is power. Brute force.

Power should be used in a restrained fashion. So, if something is merely popular, it is still not necessarily a good idea to implement.

Slavery is an example that comes to mind.

But, when government is about to implement a new program-- especially one unknown and potentially dangerous as the health care bill-- they very much need to consider public opinion before they do so.

Restraint and responsibility.

Get it?

[tungstenatom]

I don't think we'll be able to change each other's minds on this, but government does a lot more than 'brute force'. Government is organisation, facilitation, infrastructure, law and order and welfare. If those are brute force, I'm happy for brute force.

But on healthcare, you could only call it 'unknown and potentially dangerous' if you ignore that every other developed economy has one. They're all doing better than the US on health because of it.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I know, the left loves brute force and all the "good" it brings.

I recall the stories of how Mussolini brought order to a chaotic Italy, much to the admiration of "progressives" here in the USA.

Hey, he got the trains to run on time!

[tungstenatom]

Ignoring the absurd comparison between law and order and fascism, I'm sorry to tell you that without government, without a police force, without an army, nothing would get done because property rights would be non-enforceable. People would take what they want and that sort of chaos is merely a different sort of tyranny.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Of course rule of law is essential, and a key feature of government. Nevertheless, the fact is, government is force.

And force is easily misapplied. Thus we must use it sparingly, and only for those essential functions you mention, such as defense, police, etc.

But forcing us to buy a nationalized health plan?

That is when governments become fascistic.

[tungstenatom]

No fascist government has ever had a national healthcare option. Once again, every other developed nation in the world has public health care. If you want to call Canada, Australia, Japan and the whole of Europe fascist, go for it.

If you are going to turn around and call them socialist - socialism and fascism are completely opposite ideologies.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Fascism is socialism, please get that straight from the outset. The idea fascism is somehow opposed to socialism is silly on its face.

Mussolini always insisted he was indeed a socialist. He incurred the wrath of Stalin, however, who declared him "right wing".

Typical Communist rewrite of history, still continuing to this day.

Yes, health care in Nazi Germany was nationalized. It was not, however, an "option", so you may be correct in that regard.

[tungstenatom]

You have been watching far too much Glen Beck if you believe that.

Fascism is economically corporatist; socialism is economically state-dominated.

Fascism is highly hierarchical; socialism is based on equality. You assume that because many socialist and fascist governments have been authoritarian they are the same in all aspects, an absurdly fallacious assumption.

Besides which, are you calling all those countries previously mentioned fascist and socialist?

[RogerOnTheRight]

I rarely watch Beck, nor do I listen to his radio show. Your imagination is single-dimensional, as revealed by that remark.

Both fascism and communism are forms of socialism, involving state control of all resources, corporate or otherwise. To imagine either Germany or Italy were run by corporations is to ignore obvious history. Hitler was no corporate lacky, nor was Mussolini.

The USSR, Nazi Germany and Italy were all socialist countries. Read their own literature and note what they did.

[tungstenatom]

I'm sorry to assume you to be a Beck-ite but your rhetoric is as single-dimensional as my imagination. Still, I can accept that we have differing definitions of corporatist and socialism as a reson.

Now, please tell me, would you call every other developed country in the world both fascist and socialist?

[RogerOnTheRight]

No, of course not. Then, it depends on what you call developed. Is Iran developed? If so, it is a developed fascist country. Russia? Pretty much the same thing, or at least very nearly so.

What I said was, when government would force us to buy a national health plan, that is the advent of fascism.

You disagree? You think it reasonable for government to force a purchase of some good or service as a condition of citizenship?

[tungstenatom]

I do not include those countries. But you are effectively saying that all those aforementioned countries have experienced the start of fascism.

I do think it's reasonable for a government to force certain purchases. Like an army, infrastructure, police and emergency services, etc. All these are done through tax; the only difference with the healthcare plan is the method of payment.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Sorry. I was not clear. Individual citizens do not purchase police protection. Sure, the government pays for those things, though not really through taxation.

What I mean is forcing individuals to actually purchase a good or service, personally, as a condition of citizenship. Never done before in this country. Our Constitution places limits on government power.

And yes, I am saying Russia is well on its way to a totalitarian socialism that equates to fascism. Iran is there now.

[tungstenatom]

If you accept the government's right to tax, you also need to accept the government's right to spend that tax (even if you disagree with its application). Just as tax is a condition of citizenship, so are government purchases on your behalf. As I said, the method of payment is just different. If the government just upped taxes and made the public option 'free', I doubt you'd drop your objections.

So Iran and Russia are getting to fascism; I fully agree. But what about Europe, Aus., Japan?

[RogerOnTheRight]

This is not a government purchase on anyone's behalf. It is the government telling you to buy something, out of your own pocket, or go to jail.

And yes, even if it was "free" I would object, but for different reasons. Mainly, because I am old enough to understand, nothing is free.

If you value your personal freedom, then why would you turn control of your body to a government panel? Do you really trust government bureaucrats that much?

[tungstenatom]

Once again, I repeat, it is IDENTICAL to a tax, albeit one you can get exemption from by having other insurance.

You're not turning control of your body to a government body. If you've ever been treated in a public health system, you'd know you never see a beureacrat and very rarely their influence. Beureacrats are involved as much as non-medical staff in a private scheme.

But for the fourth time, would you say Europe, Australia and Japan are seeing the beginning of fascism and socialism?

[RogerOnTheRight]

No, not identical at all. A tax can be avoided. Make less money, don't buy that thing, whatever. But this is a fee to live, period. For being alive.

Never in our history have citizen been forced to make a purchase of something as a condition of citizenship. Absurd on its face.

In the bill, a panel is named with power to control what procedure doctors can and cannot perform. It's in the law.

Yes, those and most other developed countries are headed toward fascism and socialism.

[tungstenatom]

"Yes, those and most other developed countries are headed toward fascism and socialism. "

That proves how warped your viewpoint is. You are truly diminishing the evil that was Stalinism, Maoism, true fascism in Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal, and still exists in North Korea and Cuba.

[RogerOnTheRight]

No, not diminishing at all. Rather, I am emphasizing the danger of our cultural decline and political drift.

Recall, Hitler was voted in to power, Mussolini was enormously popular, both in Italy and among progressives in the United States.

Clearly, ostensibly free societies have a long way to go before the become like Nazi Germany, but the direction is set and the march is on.

[tungstenatom]

Cultural decline? What does that have to do with anything and what does it even mean?

If you are saying that Australia, Japan and Europe, as well as the US are moving towards fascism and socialism I repeat that you have no idea what those words mean and that you in finding similarities between genuine liberal democratic states and dictatorships you lessen the horror of living in the latter. Britain has had public health care since the end of WW2- no evidence of fascism or socialism at all there

[RogerOnTheRight]

None at all? Have you ever been to the UK? There are areas where Sharia is the law already. Not kidding.

Own a house, fine. But, try to cut down a tree in your own back yard, see what happens.

Yes, cultural decline. It happens when we pretend we have no need to assimilate new citizens, and our educational system awards diplomas to illiterates.

Remember the phrase: not with a bang, but a whimper.

Political correctness is a collective whimper.

[tungstenatom]

Once again, by using sharia as a piece of rhetoric you condemn people to indifference about real sharia. Just because there are Muslims in an area, it is not under sharia law.

'Cultural decline', as you define it, has nothing to do whatsoever with politics. Allowing people to be what they want within the confines of the law is a hallmark of non-totalitarian, liberal states.

[RogerOnTheRight]

No, really. UK judges have approved of a deferred to sharia, within UK. Thus, in place within the UK, sharia is the law among Muslims. Incredibly stupid and dangerous.

Cultural decline has everything to do with politics. Observe the decline and destruction of ancient Rome. Fast forward to the takeover in Germany of the Weimar Republic by the Nazi Party.

True, a free state allows you to do pretty much as you please. Which of course would include not having to buy government health insurance.

[tungstenatom]

Sharia is NOT recognised as law, but as with anyone else, people who consent to using it to solve disputes may. It's a formalised out of court settlement process, like appealing to a Catholic priest to find a solution. The difference, it appears, is that Sharia is Islamic.

Rome was undergoing great cultural leaps forward when it was turned into a despotic empire, and Germany was the happening place in Europe during the Weimar Republic until the great depression. No link.

[RogerOnTheRight]

If Sharia rulings are accepted by UK courts-- which they are-- they have the force of law.

You hit the nail on the head. "great cultural leaps forward", and "the happening place". Neither one handled their change exactly well.

Moreover, what turned the crash of '29 into a 10 year depression was goverment intervention itself.

People allowed government to grow and become instrusive. Permission-- gave rise to fascism in all cases.

[Aelius79]

*shakes head*