Merica does it right!

[Warren Dew]

Most democratic systems (including Oz) have a spectrum of political thought far broader than the US, and certainly including political groupings that make Obama look like a member of the tea party...

That would only show that they are to the left of the U.S., not that the spectrum is broader.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Most democratic systems (including Oz) have a spectrum of political thought far broader than the US, and certainly including political groupings that make Obama look like a member of the tea party...

That would only show that they are to the left of the U.S., not that the spectrum is broader.

My Poly Sci classes at Purdue used to start off by showing where a particular country's politics were in relation to the US. There is a broad spectrum of political views out there. We often forget this in the lumping of either end of the spectrum into "LEFT" and "RIGHT", which is just lazy.

[JimC]

Most democratic systems (including Oz) have a spectrum of political thought far broader than the US, and certainly including political groupings that make Obama look like a member of the tea party...

That would only show that they are to the left of the U.S., not that the spectrum is broader.

Australia and the UK have their fair share of standard conservatives, plus right wing loonies...

It's simply laughable to place Obama on the true, socialist/Marxist left...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Most democratic systems (including Oz) have a spectrum of political thought far broader than the US, and certainly including political groupings that make Obama look like a member of the tea party...

That would only show that they are to the left of the U.S., not that the spectrum is broader.

Australia and the UK have their fair share of standard conservatives, plus right wing loonies...

It's simply laughable to place Obama on the true, socialist/Marxist left...

It's McCarthyism, plain and simple. Ignorant of what socialism means, reduced to getting their opinions handed to them on Fux News, the Right can't or won't try to understand the issues.

[Robert_S]

Most democratic systems (including Oz) have a spectrum of political thought far broader than the US, and certainly including political groupings that make Obama look like a member of the tea party...

That would only show that they are to the left of the U.S., not that the spectrum is broader.

Australia and the UK have their fair share of standard conservatives, plus right wing loonies...

It's simply laughable to place Obama on the true, socialist/Marxist left...

It's McCarthyism, plain and simple. Ignorant of what socialism means, reduced to getting their opinions handed to them on Fux News, the Right can't or won't try to understand the issues.

When the rich abuse their power, a communist revolution sometimes starts to sound like a good idea.

If the rich would police their own ranks and foster a culture of using their power responsibly, there would be a lot less people pissed off and virtually no communists. This will never happen because too many of them are chronic and incurable assholes, Therefore we must kill off the rich if we are to be rid of the communist threat.

[surreptitious57]

Magic underwear and nuclear buttons should never be allowed in the same room

What about magic buttons and nuclear underwear - should they be allowed in the same room

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm okay with single payer socialized healthcare. At times like I am now, between jobs, it would be nice if they could tap my social security account to make the payments on the healthcare account.

Single-payer is ultimately the way to go, I think -- basic medical care should be a right, not a privilege.

It can't be a "right" other than that you have the right to purchase any lawful product, and a right to equal treatment under the law.

Moreover, saying "it should be a right, not a privilege" doesn't say anything about whether it should be provided for free at government expense. We all have freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association and freedom of religion, but we don't get government funding for any of those things.

And medical decisions need to be made by medical professionals, not by accountants. Either straight up single-payer, or the German system where private insurers exist side-by-side with the public system and are carefully regulated to prevent them from screwing over their customers.

In any national health system, the decisions can never just be up to medical professionals, because the decision as to what procedures are going to be covered has to be made in light of the amount of money available to pay for it.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES wrote:

In any other democracy on the planet, Obama would join with as far left as he could go.

Your absurd insularity is showing...

Most democratic systems (including Oz) have a spectrum of political thought far broader than the US, and certainly including political groupings that make Obama look like a member of the tea party...

There is a world outside Amerika...

Smug much?

You may buy into some ethnocentric stereotype that that since I'm "American" I don't have knowledge about the world outside the US; however, I'd be happy to pit my education against yours any day of the week.

Fuck off and shove your snarky comments up your ass along with the gay-ass "k" substituted in for the "c." Fucking idiotic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Jim is right. By any measure pretty well outside Merica Obama would be seen as a Conservative and the Republics far right!

This is ridiculous. His political philosophy is not at all conservative, whether in the US or the UK. You could only reach this conclusion by ignoring Obama's politics.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oooooh, much butt-hurtness. How long before you get over the election?

[Beatsong]

I'm okay with single payer socialized healthcare. At times like I am now, between jobs, it would be nice if they could tap my social security account to make the payments on the healthcare account.

Single-payer is ultimately the way to go, I think -- basic medical care should be a right, not a privilege.

It can't be a "right" other than that you have the right to purchase any lawful product, and a right to equal treatment under the law.

Of course it can. A right is simply whatever society collectively decides is a right.

Saying it should be "a right not a privilege" just means that everybody is entitled to it just by virtue of being part of society, obeying the law and paying whatever taxes are due - that it's morally and/or practically wrong for society to operate in such a way that people can't get such basic care just because they don't have enough money.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm okay with single payer socialized healthcare. At times like I am now, between jobs, it would be nice if they could tap my social security account to make the payments on the healthcare account.

Single-payer is ultimately the way to go, I think -- basic medical care should be a right, not a privilege.

It can't be a "right" other than that you have the right to purchase any lawful product, and a right to equal treatment under the law.

Of course it can. A right is simply whatever society collectively decides is a right.

Rights, in the Enlightenment sense, is derived through reason, not majority vote. Society may collectively say that farting rainbows is a right, but that doesn't make it so.

Saying "basic health care is a right" makes no rational sense, unless we are using a different definition of "right" than applies to the things we normally think of as rights. If by "right" we're going to mean " something everyone should have at government expense," then of course, society can vote on whatever they want to have funded by the government. But, that would be eviscerating the classic definition of the word "right."

Saying it should be "a right not a privilege" just means that everybody is entitled to it just by virtue of being part of society, obeying the law and paying whatever taxes are due - that it's morally and/or practically wrong for society to operate in such a way that people can't get such basic care just because they don't have enough money.

Everyone has a right to get whatever healthcare they want, but they don't have "right" to have other people or the government pay for it. The government may extend that benefit, but the benefit is only available to the degree granted (i.e. what is "basic" health care? whatever the government says it is...) and only for as long as the governent deigns to grant it. There is no individual liberty to have health care provided for a person, is there? If there were, then the government could not properly or lawfully fail to afford it to an individual. Yet we all know, if there wasn't money to pay for it, then it would not be afforded.

Moreover, the idea that an individual would have the "right" to demand services like that requires the other side of the coin - the obligation that someone else perform the services. There can be no such obligation without enslaving a portion of the population, or to make the right of the individual to receive healthcare contingent on the willingness of someone else to provide the service.

What I'm trying to get across is that the idea of it being a right and the suggestion that there is a right/privilege dichotomy is nonsensical.

I think most people refer to it as being a right as a shorthand for "it's something really, really important, and it is something that people should be able to get at no cost to them to the extent possible." I think that's really what people mean.

[amused]

Having single payer health insurance would quickly surface those industries that are transferring their cost of operations onto the public. The fast-food and soft drink industries immediately come to mind. To pay for single payer, those industries should be taxed to offset the damage they do, which would properly place the burden of those costs where they belong - on the industries doing the harm. As the taxes cause an increase in the cost of bad food, the demand for that food would go down, resulting in better overall health and lower healthcare costs.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

The rule of law and freedom of expression are socialist ideologies (you give to the group now to share a benefit in the future - which may not even arise)........but because no one writes a cheque for them the Rightwingers don't think they cost money.

[Coito ergo sum]

Having single payer health insurance would quickly surface those industries that are transferring their cost of operations onto the public. The fast-food and soft drink industries immediately come to mind. To pay for single payer, those industries should be taxed to offset the damage they do, which would properly place the burden of those costs where they belong - on the industries doing the harm. As the taxes cause an increase in the cost of bad food, the demand for that food would go down, resulting in better overall health and lower healthcare costs.

All industries transfer their cost of operations onto the public. Where else do they get their money to operate, if not from selling their product or service?

The "damage" that you're talking about doesn't just come from fast food industries. Is there a shred of evidence as to the increase in health care costs attributable to fast food and soft drinks? Or, does this just amount to taxing the industries who have been demonized sufficiently?

I mean - who should avoid this taxation you're talking about? Let's start with cigarettes, legal recreational drugs, coffee and alcohol, right? Hot dogs; ground beef; sausage and bacon industriies -- pretty much the whole meat industry. The bread industry, right? Any processed foods, condiments, cheese, milk and other dairy products.

I think in this system of yours, we should also tax the following:

1. Drivers of automobiles, based on length of commute and/or number of miles driven -- this factor clearly impacts health care costs because such people are much more likely to be injured.
2. People who engage in extreme sports, like skydiving, BASE jumping, skateboarding, ski jumping, snowboarding and such, along with the manufacturers of equipment -- clearly a lot of risk there and lots of health care costs.
3. People who don't get enough exercise should be subject to a sedentary lifestyle tax.
4. Overweight people should be taxed per pound over healthy weight.

Or, we could just let people live their lives as they see fit, and deal with their own healthcare, instead of making the government a nanny that nags the individual citizen to doing what the government things the individual should be doing with his or her life....