White House not willing to compromise on the healthcare bill?

Jan 2009
5,841
50
#1
This is a very interesting and also very scary clip from CNN concerning a possible plan of the Obamacare supporters that could ram through the bill, even with a public option:
[youtube]3YGvV3H__ac[/youtube]

If this goes through then once again, Obama will have said one thing (at the town hall meetings) and done another. I STRONGLY suggest that you all email and/or call your Congressman about this bill and tell them to VOTE NO. Believe it or not, they will take your opinion in consideration because they all want to be reelected.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#2
Obama's reforms are just minor extentions of the current American system. I think that the overreaction of Republicans to these plans is ridiculous. Some major league right-wing idiots have gone out and claimed Obama a "communist", a "socialist" and a "Nazi". I reject him as one of my team, David rejects him as a socialist and i highly doubt that Obama is a Nazi. As does anyone with more than two brain cells.

They do not constitute "socialised medicine". That is frankly a load of GOP style crap. It doesn't even properly exist in Britain, France or Canada.

The aim should be to provide free and universal healthcare at the point of use. It doesn't have to be controlled by the Government.

But Obama's plan does NOT address this issue in any way. It simply gives more money to greedy insurance corporations in return for a few more people being treated. It does not treat every one of the 45 million uninsured and 25 million underinsured Americans. THAT is why i oppose it. Frankly, the way that some members of the Republican Party have behaved is shameful. They have purposely conspired to mislead the public. Of course Obama is facing unexpected criticism at his idea - he didn't expect the opposition to actually MAKE THINGS UP!

It's a stupid idea that doesn't really address the issue, not a state-owned "socialist" medical healthcare idea.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#3
You say that Republicans are overreacting, yet you completely oppose the bill yourself because it is so bad. Ironic...

As for calling it socialist- that is nothing out of line because socialism is not a set-in-stone definition. Anyway, if you do want to look at the real definition of the word, you would have to look at the original use of the term- most likely with Marx and Engels. I understand that at times both interchanged socialism with communism, but Marx also wrote that socialism was the stepping stone to communism and by that definition any move towards communism that still incorporates the idea of public ownership could be considered socialism. So, you really can't say that anyone who calls this plan socialism is out of line.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#4
You say that Republicans are overreacting, yet you completely oppose the bill yourself because it is so bad. Ironic...

As for calling it socialist- that is nothing out of line because socialism is not a set-in-stone definition. Anyway, if you do want to look at the real definition of the word, you would have to look at the original use of the term- most likely with Marx and Engels. I understand that at times both interchanged socialism with communism, but Marx also wrote that socialism was the stepping stone to communism and by that definition any move towards communism that still incorporates the idea of public ownership could be considered socialism. So, you really can't say that anyone who calls this plan socialism is out of line.
I don't oppose it because it is "so bad". I oppose it because it doesn't realistically and fully address the actual problem.

Let's apply a little logic in regards to socialism. Communism is a stateless society. Therefore, the socialist transitionary stage MUST involve DEconstruction of the state.

I do say Republicans are overreacting. They don't make this much noise when a Government takes more money in taxes to fund mass genocide. But when the Government tries to HELP people and SAVE people's lives! Ooh, terrible. Then it's EVIL!
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#5
The H.R. 3200 i oppose. It doesn't address the real issue.

The H.R. 676 would be a significant improvement to US healthcare. I don't support it but i don't oppose it.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#6
It is unfair to bring in the viewpoints of Republicans on another issue as an argument against them concerning this issue. It is the bait-and-switch method and it is really an unfair arguing point- especially considering that many Republicans, myself included, oppose the war in Iraq and most wars in general.

As for your views on government, I am still not sure what exactly you stand for. Communism is not a stateless society- it is one in which everything is the state, which theoretically would be run by workers, but realistically is only run by a few. You are calling for a stateless society- so I don't know if you are for anarchy or something else. If you are for communism, where everyone shares the wealth, healthcare, etc., then please explain to me how that is all possible without the state. You may be a charitable enough person to give up your extra resources to share with those that don't have as many, but everyone is not like that.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#7
It is unfair to bring in the viewpoints of Republicans on another issue as an argument against them concerning this issue. It is the bait-and-switch method and it is really an unfair arguing point- especially considering that many Republicans, myself included, oppose the war in Iraq and most wars in general.
I see. I'm sorry. I realise i was generalising. But, i mean, come on: Sarah Palin's "Death Panels"? Too far. As i said, Obama, i doubt, expected the vocal opposition to actually make things up.

As for your views on government, I am still not sure what exactly you stand for. Communism is not a stateless society- it is one in which everything is the state, which theoretically would be run by workers, but realistically is only run by a few. You are calling for a stateless society- so I don't know if you are for anarchy or something else. If you are for communism, where everyone shares the wealth, healthcare, etc., then please explain to me how that is all possible without the state. You may be a charitable enough person to give up your extra resources to share with those that don't have as many, but everyone is not like that.
Oh no, not this again!

I would usually say, "read Marx", but people with predetermined opinions will not be open-minded enough.

Communism is, by definition, a stateless society. The difference between communism and anarchism is the means. Communism involves a "socialist" transitionary stage in which to deconstruct Government, and capitalism. Anarchism is the immediate overthrow of both forms of illegitemate authority. I don't know with which i stand. I'm undecided and will probably make a decision after the revolution, if i live to see it.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#8
I see. I'm sorry. I realise i was generalising. But, i mean, come on: Sarah Palin's "Death Panels"? Too far. As i said, Obama, i doubt, expected the vocal opposition to actually make things up.
Some people on both sides are taking it too far. Don't forget your Dem Congressmen who called the town hall people brownshirts or some of Obama's rhetoric implying most Americans want this.



Oh no, not this again!

I would usually say, "read Marx", but people with predetermined opinions will not be open-minded enough.
It is fine to say that with me. One problem though- I have already read parts of the Manifesto. While I admit I have not read it all, I believe I do understand what Marx is getting at. There is a fine line between writing and practice though and I want to know how you can make that idea reality as you describe it.


Communism is, by definition, a stateless society. The difference between communism and anarchism is the means. Communism involves a "socialist" transitionary stage in which to deconstruct Government, and capitalism.
That is the problem though- how do you suppose that socialist stage will just go away? It has haunted supporters of Communism for years because Marx/Engels never specified how they presumed it would happen. A logical guess to the question would be that, they themselves didn't know.

You seem to still believe in the original idea of communism- the one that involves the socialist stage and since you do, I would like to hear your reasoning on how that stage would disappear into statelessness. Many latter day Communists are now even separating themselves from socialism altogether despite Marx's words due to this conundrum.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#9
Some people on both sides are taking it too far. Don't forget your Dem Congressmen who called the town hall people brownshirts or some of Obama's rhetoric implying most Americans want this.
Well, i'm no Liberal. And i agree that's a bit stupid and unrealistic to call the town hall protesters brownshirts, but calling Obama a Nazi and a Communist at once is contradictory and false on both counts.

As for whether most Americans want this, it depends who you listen to, what you believe, and so on.

Also, polling is something i never agree with anyway, if you use that for a reference. And polls are always worded a certain way. Also, if you refer to Fox News polls, and MSNBC polls, you and i both know they make the numbers up.

It is fine to say that with me. One problem though - I have already read parts of the Manifesto. While I admit I have not read it all, I believe I do understand what Marx is getting at. There is a fine line between writing and practice though and I want to know how you can make that idea reality as you describe it.
There is more to Marx than the Manifesto. :p

That is the problem though- how do you suppose that socialist stage will just go away? It has haunted supporters of Communism for years because Marx/Engels never specified how they presumed it would happen. A logical guess to the question would be that, they themselves didn't know. You seem to still believe in the original idea of communism- the one that involves the socialist stage and since you do, I would like to hear your reasoning on how that stage would disappear into statelessness. Many latter day Communists are now even separating themselves from socialism altogether despite Marx's words due to this conundrum.
That is indeed the problem. And indeed my problem with communism. You misjudge me, i'm completely on the bench here. I see flaws on both sides. And i often refer to myself as one, the other, or indeed both.

If a socialist stage were to occur, i have opined that there are several possible solutions.

1. There is a high level of participatory democracy involved, including extra-Governmental (i.e. outside Gov't) checks, such as multiple citizens' commissions, that will ensure the efficiency and consistency of the transition and dissolution.

2. The Government is held in check and forcefully dissolved by a second, and this time complete, overthrow.

3. The socialist transition is not managed by the Government.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#10
Bottomline for me is people are not happy with the Bill. So hopefully Obama will listen to that vibe. Perhaps now he should let go of this "bone" and focus on the economy. Budget time ... possibly this is going to need all the energy he has to get it through Congress. :)
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#11
Bottomline for me is people are not happy with the Bill. So hopefully Obama will listen to that vibe. Perhaps now he should let go of this "bone" and focus on the economy. Budget time ... possibly this is going to need all the energy he has to get it through Congress. :)
The question is, is it a vocal minority and silent majority?
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#12
The question is, is it a vocal minority and silent majority?
Perhaps it is more a case of people not really understanding what the legislators are working on? Only a minority has more or less figured it out, and that little they have figured out has them very worried.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#13
Perhaps it is more a case of people not really understanding what the legislators are working on? Only a minority has more or less figured it out, and that little they have figured out has them very worried.
Don't be ridiculous. Why would it have them worried? It doesn't actually DO anything.
 

Similar Discussions