Political Crossfire Forums

[00timh]

beachbum bob wrote: Moracca wrote: BigOMG wrote: As noble as those goals sound, I for one do not believe that is the main reason they push for them. If they can help a group of people or voters, they think that group will keep them in power. That's it. They might feel better about themselves if they actually help one person, but in the long term it will only help them and their special interests.

Issues such as these should be handled at the local level, the State level at the highest.

On top of the things that you mention I also believe that if the government is in control of health care and other things that it gives them that much more power over the people who look to the government for so many things.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect. But at times I'd like to shake things up a little to see what other sorts of ideas people have about solutions to problems out there.

my mom is 78yrs old and a hard rightwing repub who has never voted any other way and she praises how well medicare works.... lol, that's okay. My mother is a bleeding heart liberal who complains to me all the time about a house next door to hers that has nothing but welfare junkies drinking beer and smoking cigerettes. :lol:

[Chymical]

Drinking Beer AND Smoking Cigarettes???
The Bastards.

[Canada_Rocks]

callous wrote: Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

I believe a national healthcare system shouldn't go the entire way.

A person who averages 25 hours a week working over a 6 month period should have full healthcare benefits no questions asked.

A person who is disabled and can not work should have full healthcare benefits no questions asked.

A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

yep.

[Swampfox.f]

Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.


You don't know what neo-conservatism is as if you did you wouldn't indentify with it's ideology since you are not in a position to benefit from it.

[CursedLemon]

I think the most important issue for us, as citizens, to consider on these leftwing-rightwing situations is, "what is really going on here".

What IS the socialist debate? What IS the argument over universal healthcare? Is it an ideological debate, or is it a debate of practicality and conflict of limited funding?

[Chymical]

The left-rigth divide is artificial, arbitrary and stupid, forming merely a smokescreen to the real questions of power, also such dualism really appeals to the lowest common denominator...

Btw, Republican Neo-cons suck. ;)

[homerjay_s]

Chymical wrote: The left-rigth divide is artificial, arbitrary and stupid, forming merely a smokescreen to the real questions of power, also such dualism really appeals to the lowest common denominator...

Btw, Republican Neo-cons suck. ;)

:clap:

You hit it on the head, as evidenced by another recent thread in which the neo-cons in this forum labelled moderates as weak in conviction and pandering to all sides simply because they resist the polarization.


As to the notion of national healthcare, I believe healthcare is a necessity for all and therefore should be removed from the free market equation. The market doesn't determine supply and demand for medical care, nature does.

[cap'n queasy]

Setting up hospitals that anyone can visit for free medical care would be a nice thing but that isn't what will happen.

What they will do do is set up legislation that makes it mandatory to buy medical insurance, likely from the state, and it will require a massive bureaucracy to manage and enforce.

This way is the way to a communist police state.

The foot is in the door.

[BastionOfSanity]

Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

Thats not socialism.

[Swampfox.f]

cap'n queasy wrote: Setting up hospitals that anyone can visit for free medical care would be a nice thing but that isn't what will happen.

What they will do do is set up legislation that makes it mandatory to buy medical insurance, likely from the state, and it will require a massive bureaucracy to manage and enforce.

This way is the way to a communist police state.

The foot is in the door.

The problem is see now is that two-thirds of all medical spending is already through the government. Furthermore it seems the health care system punishes many of the people who are working and productive.


Government beurocracies are to be avoided, but maybe this time we should adopt the UK system.

[Dookiestix]

cap'n queasy wrote: Setting up hospitals that anyone can visit for free medical care would be a nice thing but that isn't what will happen.

What they will do do is set up legislation that makes it mandatory to buy medical insurance, likely from the state, and it will require a massive bureaucracy to manage and enforce.

This way is the way to a communist police state.

The foot is in the door.
I find it interesting that despite the sentiment expressed by some on the right that trying to provide healthcare to every American is a noble cause, the demonizations aimed squarely at the left are still rather prevalent from some on this thread.

Communist police state? Is that the current situation in Canada? Or the U.K.? Or other countries which enjoy Democracy sprinkled with a little Soclialism?

Why does everything have to be in absolutes when it comes to these types of arguments from the right? Why can't societies try and find common ground by mixing different forms of governance in working towards providing for the common man and woman?

I will admit that I appreciate Moracca's attempt at bridging the divide here. The same cannot be said for certain other members of the forum.

[kohadril]

I think one of the most confusing problems with discussing "neoconservatism" is that, in my estimation, it really has no domestic policy. My exposure to neoconservatism suggests that it is a philosophy for foreign policy, and doesn't have much to do with domestic policy. I've read a lot of academic material from the neoconservative school, and not a single article has discussed domestic policy. It is, fundamentally, a doctrine of international evangelism for democracy and capitalism.

That suggests certain domestic policy ideals, not all of them conservative. For instance, it suggests having a large standing army (not traditionally conservative). It also suggests (but doesn't mandate) reducing restrictions on business and commerce. This has been played out, bizarrely, as some of the most anti-capitalist corporate favoritism this country has ever seen. Even FDR went after war profiteers; President Bush has allowed no-bid cost-plus contracts to go to numerous companies with ties to the administration. This is pretty inconsistent with traditional conservatism.

As a moderate Oregon Democrat (who in days past might have been a maverick Republican in the mold of Mark Hatfield or Tom McCall), I'm more of a traditional conservative than most neocons appear to be, but I don't think that's because neoconservatism is itself opposed to traditional conservatism. I think the domestic policy platform of the modern neocon is a compromise of convenience to facilitate their foreign policy objectives, and reward their friends for helping them achieve power.

[Republicant]

"Communist police state? Is that the current situation in Canada? Or the U.K.? Or other countries which enjoy Democracy sprinkled with a little Soclialism?"

Nope just huge deductions from their paychecks for the service and when they really get sick they come to America :wink: Hmm how come our Hospitals on our border with Canada have a 60% Canadian occupancy .......yep looks like its working really well :rotf:
:rotf:

[poweRob]

Republicant wrote: "Communist police state? Is that the current situation in Canada? Or the U.K.? Or other countries which enjoy Democracy sprinkled with a little Soclialism?"

Nope just huge deductions from their paychecks for the service and when they really get sick they come to America :wink: Hmm how come our Hospitals on our border with Canada have a 60% Canadian occupancy .......yep looks like its working really well :rotf:
:rotf:

link of proof please?

People come here for the best emergency medical care in the world. That is basically all we provide which is too bad. Preventative medicine practices would drastically reduce the emergency medical costs by actually addressing medical issues before they've gone over the edge. Simple as that.

It explains why we may have the best emergency medical care in the world while not residing near the top in life expectancy anymore. Those nations with national health care tend to reside ahead of us in that category.

linkypoo...

[Nico]

Dookiestix wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Setting up hospitals that anyone can visit for free medical care would be a nice thing but that isn't what will happen.

What they will do do is set up legislation that makes it mandatory to buy medical insurance, likely from the state, and it will require a massive bureaucracy to manage and enforce.

This way is the way to a communist police state.

The foot is in the door.
I find it interesting that despite the sentiment expressed by some on the right that trying to provide healthcare to every American is a noble cause, the demonizations aimed squarely at the left are still rather prevalent from some on this thread.

Communist police state? Is that the current situation in Canada? Or the U.K.? Or other countries which enjoy Democracy sprinkled with a little Soclialism?

Why does everything have to be in absolutes when it comes to these types of arguments from the right? Why can't societies try and find common ground by mixing different forms of governance in working towards providing for the common man and woman?

I will admit that I appreciate Moracca's attempt at bridging the divide here. The same cannot be said for certain other members of the forum.




I agree. The argument is valid.
as far as left/ right is concerned I think it is illusory for the most part. In matters of humanity there are only really the two points; All for the need of the many, or all for the need of the individual.
Any decent society takes both factors into consideration as much as possible but it is a never ending balancing act. Merely considering one or the other in an argument does not mean that society will suddenly cascade one way, as the captain appears to be implying.


Society itself is the strength of the individual enhanced by other individuals. Pull too much mutual support away and you don't have a society. Lock it up tight and you have an ant colony. fear of 'communism' is the fear of becoming an ant. Fear of 'capitalism' is the fear of society crumbling and any mutual benefit being lost.

The ideal is in the middle, and it works, but will always be a work in progress by its very nature.

[The Impeacher]

Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.


I am more of a "Plato-con" than a neocon, but I agree with you.

[Moracca]

Swampfox.f wrote: Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.


You don't know what neo-conservatism is as if you did you wouldn't indentify with it's ideology since you are not in a position to benefit from it.

Many 'o leftist in here have labeled me a "neo-con" so I'm just running with it.

[Nico]

Moracca wrote:

Many 'o leftist in here have labeled me a "neo-con" so I'm just running with it.


As far as I'm concerned, Neocon is/ was a small group of Whitehouse idologues. I don't feel it applies to the public at large at all, unless they really identify with that small group and their ideas. Most of them are gone now, and their ideas have been played out to their conclusions.

[Moracca]

Nico wrote: Moracca wrote:

Many 'o leftist in here have labeled me a "neo-con" so I'm just running with it.


As far as I'm concerned, Neocon is/ was a small group of Whitehouse idologues. I don't feel it applies to the public at large at all, unless they really identify with that small group and their ideas. Most of them are gone now, and their ideas have been played out to their conclusions.

Yeah, but one of those leftists accused me of being a government plant in here as well.

[Nico]

Moracca wrote: Nico wrote: Moracca wrote:

Many 'o leftist in here have labeled me a "neo-con" so I'm just running with it.


As far as I'm concerned, Neocon is/ was a small group of Whitehouse idologues. I don't feel it applies to the public at large at all, unless they really identify with that small group and their ideas. Most of them are gone now, and their ideas have been played out to their conclusions.

Yeah, but one of those leftists accused me of being a government plant in here as well.

:lol: