[Rhodes22-list] Marxism in USA - Big Al delete, Political

[Robert Skinner]

Brad, et al,

I pointed out that there are some types of health 
care - specifically preventive measures - which 
have an economic payback when generally available 
and supported.  If that's Marxism, I'll eat my 
snowblower.

The rest is negotiable, in true Capitalist fashion.

/Robert

Brad Haslett wrote:
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Everyone with even half a heart would like to see all people have access to
> health care.  The problem is, equal health care for all means shitty health
> for all (I'll think of a more eloquent term tomorrow after some sleep).  The
> whole idea of company provided health care was invented during WW2 when
> wages were frozen and providing fringe benefits like health care was the
> only way to legally provide worker incentives instead of pay raises.
> Defined benefit retirements are a thing of the past.  Employer provided
> health care plans are still available but the beneficiary contribution is
> rising.  Soon, they will be a thing of the past as well if government
> sponsored health care is a reality.  Ask anyone from Canada, China, or
> Europe - universal government health care sounds nice but doesn't work well
> in reality.  Solution?  Simple!  You are responsible for your minor health
> care needs.  Stub your toe - suffer or pay out of pocket for your pain
> pills.  Runny nose?  Suffer or pay some ridiculous price for a drug that
> "cures'" you in the same amount of time it takes for nature to run its
> course.  I say  $2500 per year is about the right threshold, and we can give
> tax rebates, dollar for dollar, for your first $2500.  Make it universal,
> even for people like me with gold-plated health plans.  Rik had it about
> right.  The current call for equal health care for all is about what Ed
> called it out to be, another Marxist inroad.  Tennessee tried socialized
> medicine, it didn't work - the "law of the commons" is still relevant.
> There are a number of workable solutions to this problem.  Hillarycare is
> not one of them.  WTF  Obamacare is, he hasn't said.  Hope, or Change, or
> Hope to Change, I don't know and neither does anyone else. But, maybe I'm
> just all wrong.  Please pick the state or the country that has better health
> care than ours.  No, no, no, I mean better health care for the average Joe
> who busts his ass, stays off drugs, holds down a job, and pays his taxes,
> not just anyone who can still fog a mirror and sucks oxygen.
> 
> Brad
> 
> On Feb 9, 2008 8:36 PM, Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ed, I have interspersed my comments and
> > responses with yours, in the form of a
> > debate.  I suspect that you may be tempted
> > to agree with some of what I say.
> >
> > Tootle wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert Skinner said:  "2. Health care - Rationalize the chaotic
> > patchwork of
> > > health care in the US.  While there must be limits of what can be
> > provided
> > > as the basic floor under all US citizens, it is essential that there be
> > some
> > > minimum of health care for all."
> > >
> > > It is basic to Marxism to use the power of government to compel people.
> > > Where is it said in the American Constitution the central government is
> > to
> > > impose minimum floors of health care or educational attainment, et al?
> >
> > It is basic to any government to collect
> > taxes for the common weal.  Your labeling
> > some government action Marxist does not make
> > it so, nor does it make it bad.
> >
> > The constitution is not the only measure of
> > right action.  Given that the emergency rooms
> > are now both the health care provider of last
> > resort and the most expensive way to deliver
> > it, it seems to make both economic and moral
> > sense to provide universal preventative care
> > at some level.
> >
> > Requiring and providing immunization against
> > childhood diseases and treating some adult
> > illnesses such as tuberculosis seems like a
> > reasonable thing to do.  Providing viagra to
> > septuagenarians doesn't.  Contagious disease
> > is a community problem.  Erectile dysfunction
> > is not.  The truth (or reasonable course)
> > lies somewhere in between.
> >
> > > The neo-Marxist wants to compel minimum health care to all.  How is this
> > > result to be obtained?  Use the power of central government to impose
> > their
> > > ethereal minimum floor.  That floor is achieved by confiscating from
> > those
> > > who have attained some wealth and give it those needing that 'minimum
> > > floor'.
> >
> > Not knowing what your functional definition of
> > a Marxist is, it is difficult to know what you
> > mean by the term "Neo-Marxist".  And any tax
> > is confiscatory.  Parsing the result, the
> > above is a nul statement as it stands.
> >
> > > Everyone needs to understand, no matter how noble the cause, it is still
> > > Marxism, totalitarianism, and those who advocate it by what ever term
> > they
> > > use to describe themselves, be it Progressive, Liberal, Enlightened, are
> > > still advocating Communism, Totalitarism!
> >
> > I don't like taxes either, but I pay them.
> >
> > > The question was posed by Bob Skinner, "Who would you have starve as you
> > > express your antipathy toward tax-supported social programs?"  The
> > question
> > > belies the truth.  No one starves who chooses not to.  You have many
> > > organizations, both religious and otherwise that feed others.  Many
> > churches
> > > assist with what we call soup kitchens.  Other organizations supply
> > > sustenance such as "Meals on Wheels" .  That argument is simply an
> > > falsehood.
> >
> > I agree that there are organizations, both
> > secular and religious, who help the poor
> > with food and other needs.  They provide
> > very valuable and morally/politically
> > correct support.
> >
> > But I disagree that they alone can reach
> > and sustain all in need.  There are those
> > who are mentally and/or physically
> > disabled, or just "out of the loop" who
> > can or will only be helped by those who
> > must do so by law and with tax-supported
> > resources, despite their intense revulsion
> > or social/political approbation.
> >
> > > And the statement was made, 'Anyway, as George the second said, "The
> > > constitution is just a piece of paper."  Right?'  Wrong, it is a
> > > intellectual concept as a basis for freedom.  It is a way of for people
> > to
> > > achieve their potential.  It is an economic system that has been shown
> > to
> > > provide greater benefit to mankind than Marxism.  Its results speak for
> > > themselves.
> >
> > I am glad to see that you agree that George
> > Bush was completely out of contact with
> > reality when he said that.  I'm sorry that
> > you misunderstood my attempt at irony.
> >
> > > It was further stated, "As a citizen of this country, I have the right
> > --
> > > and obligation -- to work toward keeping it relevant and successful in
> > the
> > > here and now.  So do you."   Yes, and I have an obligation to point out
> > to
> > > others, those like you who espouse a economic system that will destroy
> > the
> > > economic system that created what we now have.
> >
> > I disagree with that characterization.  There
> > are few, if any, absolutes in this world.
> > Pure capitalism is one of the cruelest
> > tyrannies that one can imagine.  Only when
> > feudal barons (might is right) are limited in
> > their excesses by the rule of law (the Magna
> > Carta comes to mind), do the grand majority
> > come to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  And
> > that ain't Marxist - it's just fair.
> >
> > > I rather think that it is important to understand what Harry Jaffa
> > pointed
> > > out, "Free speech is a priceless and indispensable attribute of a free
> > > society because it is a necessary means for deliberating upon public
> > policy.
> > > But this deliberation does not extend to everything.  Free speech is not
> > > false when it denies the use of the liberty to those intent on
> > destroying
> > > the free society."
> >
> > Sounds good, but there are a few difficulties.
> >
> > One man's "free society" is another man's
> > segregation or another woman's discrimination.
> > A lot depends on your definitions and point
> > of view.  And these change with time.  Given
> > that, who will determine who is destroying
> > whatever is defined as a free society by the
> > definers of that time and place?
> >
> > I firmly believe, at the core of my being,
> > that freedom to debate any issue is the
> > necessary basis of a truly functional and
> > responsive society.
> >
> > > It must be told, and told over and over, that those advocating Marxism
> > are
> > > advocating the destruction of America.
> >
> > I reply, "I do not accept your definition of
> > my actions in your terms, as your terms are
> > not sufficiently defined to be useful in
> > rational discussion."
> >
> > With regret that I must be so harsh in my
> > analysis,
> > /Robert
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

-- 
Robert Skinner  "Squirrel Haven" 
Gorham, Maine         04038-1331
s/v "Little Dipper" & "Edith P."