Originally posted by whodey The Statist believes in the supremecy of the State, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the freedoms it grants the average Joe over that of the state. For the Statist, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state which are never ending. In this, Statism promotes what French historian Alexis ...[text shortened]... It is because the term liberal is the opposite of authoritarian, or the opposite of statism.
So basically a statist is an idealist who believes that there is some sort of "utopian state" where all problems will be solved. But I'm sure that even you believe that a "state" is necessary for at least certain things, such as enforcing laws against murder and theft.
So what specific criteria would you use to distinguish the "utopian statist" from a person who merely wants to have a well-run government?
Originally posted by Melanerpes So basically a statist is an idealist who believes that there is some sort of "utopian state" where all problems will be solved. But I'm sure that even you believe that a "state" is necessary for at least certain things, such as enforcing laws against murder and theft.
So what specific criteria would you use to distinguish the "utopian statist" from a person who merely wants to have a well-run government?
Exactly. I find Conservatives tend to try to steer a debate into the realm of black and white. Case in point: gun laws.
Most reasonable people would agree that a 13 year old convicted felon who's a paranoid schizoid shouldn't be allowed to be a .50 cal machine gun.
OK, so we all agree that there should be (some) gun laws. But then when the debate turns toward a disagreement about whether or not a particular gun law is sensible it's, "OMG they want to take away our guns!"
McCain and Obama disagree about the *degree* of which we should tax the rich at a higher rate than middle/low income. (this is a reversal from him but I digress). Suddenly Obama's tax plan is "Socialist"
Originally posted by Melanerpes So basically a statist is an idealist who believes that there is some sort of "utopian state" where all problems will be solved. But I'm sure that even you believe that a "state" is necessary for at least certain things, such as enforcing laws against murder and theft.
So what specific criteria would you use to distinguish the "utopian statist" from a person who merely wants to have a well-run government?
What I am talking about is when the state over steps its constitutional rights and becomes more authoiratian over the populace. For example, the Founding Fathers provided us the right to own property as well as the right to bear arms, but it is a far cry from them making these things an entitlement and demanding the tax payers buy fire arms for everyone as well as gathering up all the land and distributing it so that everyone has a peice. In short, they provided a means through which the authoirtarian nature of the state was held in check to protect the rights of those who sought their own happiness, and not to add to the authoritarian nature of the state for Big Brother to make us all "happy". Health care could be compared in the same way. We have a right to health care so the state should promote a means through which it is a affordable. It is a far cry, however, that the government take it over so that the populace have no choices in terms of health care which may not be as good as the health care they have now. In addition, it would mean they would not bankrupt the state as well.
Originally posted by whodey It is a far cry, however, that the government take it over so that the populace have no choices in terms of health care which may not be as good as the health care they have now.
That is NOT being proposed now, nor has Obama ever proposed such a thing.
Originally posted by whodey What I am talking about is when the state over steps its constitutional rights and becomes more authoiratian over the populace. For example, the Founding Fathers provided us the right to own property as well as the right to bear arms, but it is a far cry from them making these things an entitlement and demanding the tax payers buy fire arms for everyone as w lth care they have now. In addition, it would mean they would not bankrupt the state as well.
I don't think there are any proposals that would specifically ban private insurers from offering coverage.
The most liberal proposals involve having the government directly offering a plan. Suppose this plan is really lousy. In that case, people would greatly prefer to buy a private plan that offered a better deal.
The thing that the insurance companies fear is that the government plan will be very attractive. It would force them to offer better deals than they currently offer. The insurance companies aren't too thrilled about this.
As an added incentive, I would require that everyone in Congress be forced to enroll in the government plan. You can be sure that any flaws would be fixed rather quickly.
Originally posted by sh76 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090802/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_economy;_ylt=Ak0_dmoOCuMQRu.dFPqxysyMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJkNGN0OGNnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODAyL3VzX2Vjb25vbXkEY3BvcwM3BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDMm9iYW1hb2ZmaWNp
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budge ...[text shortened]... think it's probably necessary in the long run. But, I'd like a little more transparency.
The US has little choice.
You either reduce spending or you increase taxes. And since the gap between your future spending needs and and your expected revenue is stupidly massive, you have no choice.
Either cut back medicare/social security or raise taxes.
Originally posted by Melanerpes I don't think there are any proposals that would specifically ban private insurers from offering coverage.
The most liberal proposals involve having the government directly offering a plan. Suppose this plan is really lousy. In that case, people would greatly prefer to buy a private plan that offered a better deal.
The thing that the insurance comp ...[text shortened]... o enroll in the government plan. You can be sure that any flaws would be fixed rather quickly.
From what I have heard, the plan does not prohibit other private plans per sey, but what it does do is make it next to impossible for them to exist for any length of time after the legislation is passed. Its like Obama's trick wtih the regressive tax of cap and trade. He can still smile and say he did not raise middle class taxes even though he just raised their energy costs anywhere from 29-50%. If the health care is passed, he can smile and say he did not mandate they go out of business even though the provisions in the bill will be the direct result of this happening.
Originally posted by uzless The US has little choice.
You either reduce spending or you increase taxes. And since the gap between your future spending needs and and your expected revenue is stupidly massive, you have no choice.
Either cut back medicare/social security or raise taxes.
If anyone says different, they are lying.
But has Bush or Obama raised taxes thus far to any significant degree? After Bush passed one of the largest entitlement programs in history he just walked away and left Obama with having to try and figure out how to pay for it. I suspect Obama will do the same with universal health care. To get elected, you MUST say I won't raise your taxes as well as promise free everything. That is just how pathetic the average American voter seems to be.
Originally posted by whodey From what I have heard, the plan does not prohibit other private plans per sey, but what it does do is make it next to impossible for them to exist for any length of time after the legislation is passed. Its like Obama's trick wtih the regressive tax of cap and trade. He can still smile and say he did not raise middle class taxes even though he just raised ...[text shortened]... of business even though the provisions in the bill will be the direct result of this happening.
The ideal approach would be for the government plan to cover the catastrophic costs that threaten to bankrupt people. The private insurance companies would focus on covering everything else - and if they came up with a better catastrophic care plan than the government, then all the better.
This is one thing I'd like to hear more debate on -- what things should the government plan be focusing on.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper That is NOT being proposed now, nor has Obama ever proposed such a thing.
This is Obamas stance.He has stated it very clearly.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.
2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up
04 Aug '09 12:44
Back to Top