Published: Sunday, March 3 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Mountain Man..No. Red Shirt..While I agree that this is government
regulating a private industry, I disagree that it is facsisim. We're
talking degrees here. Facism implies a total control and the ACA is hardly
that. I do agree that health care is a burden on private industry, and
definitely distorts markets and the economy. Our solutions would just be 180
degrees from one another. I don't think any civilized or modern society
can afford either economicly or morally to have a for profit health care system.
That doesn't mean that providers don't get to make a reasonable and
market oriented living..it just simiply means that access and services should
not have the goal of profit.
To "pragmatistferlife" it is not just the ACA, but a combination of the
ACA with all of the other mandates on Health Insurance.The liberals
have not achieved total fascism, but they are quickly approaching it. Just look
at all of the new mandates on insurance companies. Is fascism the control of
businesses by government, and did the ACA add controls?To
"glendenbg" I am not wrong. If you look at the roots of fascist
movement, they all go back to socialism (left wing politics) and socialist
philosophies. At best you can say that Fascism is a center left philosophy.The ACA furthers the control of insurance companies by the government to
achieve its liberal goals. Ask yourself this. Do insurance companies have the
ability to decide what to do with pre-existing medical conditions, or has the
government decided that for them?If the government has decided what
they are to do with pre-existing conditions, who in government decided that?
Did the conservatives or liberals push for that?You see, this is
liberal fascism. Fascism is a liberal philosophy because the right wing of
politics is less government and less control the further right you go.
@RedShirt - Your argument is wrong. Fascists are enemies of socialism. It is
not and has never been a left wing or even center left movement; such claims
were invented by Jonah Goldberg to sell books. There are actual
academic definitions and understandings of fascism. Umberto Eco, who lived
through Italian fascism, offered an insightful definition of fascism that
included:the cult of tradition (and rejection of modernity), cult of
action for action's sake, the belief that disagreement is treason, the fear
of difference, the appeal to a frustrated middle class, obsession with plots
and enemy threats (and the appeal to xenophobia), the belief that life is and
requires permanent warfare, contempt for the weak, selective populism and
distrust of democratic institutions and practices. Other scholars point to
fascisms cult of extreme nationalism (at odds with socialism's
internationalism) but consistent with rightwing politics.As I said
before, there are enough real world reasons to criticize the ACA without
inventing false ones like the claim it is a fascist policy. There are enough
real world reasons to criticize liberalism without distorting history by
pretending it has ever supported fascism.Your definition of right
wing politics is self serving and ahistorical.
It may yield more healthy poor people, but it will suck trillions out of the
economy. Several European countries are proof of what will happen. The article
one old man"I would be very, very interesting to see what people like
MM say if some day he or a family member is struck by some horribly expensive
illness and his insurance company says, "Tough luck!""Obamacare still relies on Insurance Companies; but now they have the govenment
backing to tell you "tough luck".
To "glendenbg" fascists are enemies of socialists, but not socialism.Go and look up the roots of fascism. It takes much of its philosophy
from socialism, won't quite take over businesses, and adds in a totalarian
leadership approach.As much as the left wing likes to paint fascists
are right wing, that is a relative comparison. They are to the right of
socialists, but to the left of capitalists and modern conservatives.Read "So total is the Left's cultural ascendancy that no one likes to
mention the socialist roots of fascism" in the UK Telegraph.From
the Economic Library we read that "fascism is socialism with a capitalist
veneer".Enough proof, or do you want to dispute the experts.
Red Shirt I'll defer to others about facism, but the point about the
regulation of health care is health care should have nothing to do with
employment. There is absolutely no natural tie and just because it has
doesn't make it right or logical. Also, health care should in no instance
be granted for profit. Not just because it's the wrong thing to do
socially but it's the wrong thing to do economicly. By have health care
for profits you have a de facto monoply that try as you will to
"regulate" you can't and over time costs become exorbetant. My
baby bill example is prime and those are real bill figures 1975 $400..2010
$10,000. Alot of those costs are there to cover better care..good for us..but
$10,000? And speaking of costs, the costs to small business is high and growing
but they don't even scratch the surface of the costs to provide health
care, that is only possible through large group larg company coverage.And
so we've come full circle..we've just left out millions and done
nothing about the monoply.
To "pragmatistferlife" health insurance is not tied to employment, if
you refuse your company's insurance you won't be fired. It is a
benefit, similar to a retirement account, disability, life insurance, dental
insurance, vision plans, computer discounts, gym memberships, and other benefits
that employers have.If "health care should in no instance be
granted for profit" then the ACA act should be repealed. Remember that the
ACA was also supposed to reduce the deficit, which it can't unless the
government makes a profit (money collected in excess of actual costs).In terms of care, we have not left out millions. Everybody can still get the
care they can afford.If you want to cut costs, you have to cut
regulations. Right now there are over 2200 mandates on insurance companies.
Most of those were added over the past 30 years. Studies indicate that up to
half the cost of insurance is compliance with mandates.If you want
to eliminate the monopolies, get the government out of the way. The government
determines who can sell insurance and what they must cover.
Red Shirt.. to cut the costs you have to cut the regulations...a single cancer
chemo costs the drug company $200 to make. The hospital buys it for $3000
dollars, and sells it to you for $13000..and that's regulations? Those are
also real numbers no hyperbole. "If "health care should in no instance
be granted for profit" then the ACA act should be repealed."..Agreed. We should have a single payer system where taxes are the source of
funding. "In terms of care, we have not left out millions.
Everybody can still get the care they can afford." Bingo, exactamundo,
precisely. They get the care they can afford even if it's nothing..they
don't get the care they deserve as a human being and citizen.
@Thinkin\' ManThe US spends almost twice the amount per person
compared to what most of European countries spend on health care. Do you
understand that? How is the American health care system less expensive than a
single payer system? Please show me the maths.
To "UT Brit" the US also has the most innovations and has the best
access to medical professionals and equipment.The US also has the
best cancer survival rates, and does not put its elderly into programs designed
to let them die quickly.The question you should ask is why is it
that the European countries are so cheap that they won't get the equipment
and drugs to properly treat their people.
@RedShirt - I have read both Paxton and Griffin, leading scholars on fascism.
They point out that fascism borrowed the tactics of socialism (things like mass
marches) but not the ideology; fascism is an extreme reaction to and rejection
of socialism. Your insistence on claiming a link between fascism and socialism
where none exists undermines rather than strengthens your argument.You're attempting to compare contemporary American liberalism to fascism
in order to smear modest, regulatory reforms aimed at increasing access to
affordable health care. That is both dishonest and inconsistent with what
scholars and historians tell us. You may disagree with liberals and liberalism.
You may dislike the ACA and disagree with the goal of universal health care.
Those are valid positions. Falsely claiming liberalism and the ACA are fascist
(or socialist) is dishonest and ahistorical. I've said it
before, there are enough real world reasons to criticize the ACA that you
don't need to invent fake ones to do so.
To "glendenbg" the ACA is not a modest reform. It is additional control
on an already over-regulated industry.Actually claiming that modern
liberalsims is socialist is not dishonest, it is the truth. Just look at the
collectivist mentality of the modern liberals, the ACA is a prime example.Fascism does not reject socialism. It hides socialism under a
capitalist disguise.You cannot even separate teh ACA from socialism,
you even point out that it has the goal of universal health care. That is an
example of the collectivist philosophy that is socialism.Please be
honest with yourself and the others here. Modern liberals are engaging in
fascism and modern liberalism is adopting socialism more and more each year.
@Redshirt1701I think you will find that most European have more
doctors and nurses per person than the States does. They also have lower infant
mortality and longer lifespans and are much, much happier with their health care
systems in comparison to Americans. "The US also has the best
cancer survival rates"A couple of types of cancers only and you
include false positives in that list as well, "and does not put its elderly
into programs designed to let them die quickly.", please explain this one.
How does this even make sense when western Europeans live 4 years longer on
average compared to Americans? You are 40th in the life expectancy list."The question you should ask is why is it that the European
countries are so cheap that they won't get the equipment and drugs to
properly treat their people."Europeans are not clamouring for a
health care system reform. I do not see multiple stories daily from European
countries from unhappy people asking for reforms. I know Americans who buy
medication meant for horses to use on themselves.
"...are the no prisons? Are there no WorkHouses?"To which Scrooge
responds: "If they'd die then perhaps they had better do so and
decrease the surplus population!"Brought to you by today's
Oxymoron - "Compassionate Conservativism."
To "UT Brit" just because there are more doctors does not mean there is
better care.The use of infant mortality statistics and life spans is
a fallacy.First, nations count infant mortality differently see
"Behind the Baby Count" in the US News.As far as longevity,
again, when accidental deaths are factored out the US leads the world in
longevity. See "Does the U.S. Lead in Life Expectancy?" at the WSJ.See "Paying for Health, The German Way -- A special report.; Medical
Care in Germany: With Choices, and for All" in the NY Times. In Germany all
the high tech stuff is put into the teaching hospitals, and are not available to
everybody. They also keep costs down by virtually eliminating malpractice
insurance. They also don't care for their elderly like the US does.See also "Cancer Survival Rates Vary by Country" at WebMD. The
US ranks first for cancer survival rates. Also see "Study Of 31 Countries
Finds Wide Variations In Cancer Survival Rates" at Medical News today where
they found the US leads in cancer survival. Also see "Cancer Survival Rates
Far Worse in Great Britain than U.S." at the Population Research Institute.
@Redshirt"As much as the left wing likes to paint fascists are
right wing, that is a relative comparison. They are to the right of socialists,
but to the left of capitalists and modern conservatives."Huh, I
thought I was a "moderate" or "centrist" for being in between.
Guess I should break out the brown shirts and learn how to goose step.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments