And the Bolsheviks came to power in a Russia devastated by military disasters, industrial paralysis and urban food shortages. And China was in even worse shape when Mao took over (and mostly not because of Mao). In Cuba in the 1950s, quality of life might not have been decreasing, but it was as a pretty grim level for most Cubans and it was obvious that wouldn’t change if nothing else did.
Again, I was talking about the net difference in cost, not the total cost.
Btw, I want to clarify that I’m not against UHC as a goal for society. I have stated that before. What I am against is the typical emotion-filled factless mathless discussion of UHC without tradeoffs that I typically see.
Anyways, if people really really really wanted to pay attention, they could see that the federal government has to accumulate more power to be able to dole out UHC. This has ramifications but the “gift” of “free” healthcare is so great that it blinds people to the negatives.
If UHC makes sense, perhaps there’s another way to dispense it – maybe community cooperatives or something. Something a little more federated so there isn’t one central database in Washington DC with everyone’s medical history. There isn’t one corruptible Authority to control who does/doesn’t get medical care. There isn’t one big Administrator in charge $2 trillion dollars of health care funds that would be the target of lobbying groups’ influence. I’m not convinced that we have to be locked into thinking that the Federal Govt is our one and only saviour.
The socialist health care in Europe and Canada are not convincing. They are running deficits. Plus their World War II generation (and all their old-age illnesses) haven’t fully been processed through their system. Their systems are not proven.
Totalitarianism relies on concentration of government power of peoples’ lives. What did the “Enabling Act” do in Nazi Germany? The 1933 Enabling Law was titled “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the State” Did it bring Germany closer to or farther away from a Totalitarianism?
They never title these things as “Law to Ram It Up Your Rear End.” It’s never that obvious is it?
I don’t know. I wasn’t making a value judgement on that.
I was responding to the common statement that UHC costs less than Iraq. Do you have math that shows that it doesn’t?
Again, the net difference in cost I calculated is $880 billion. If you factor in the UHC “efficiency” discount of 5%, it’s still $836 billion. How is $836 billion less than $666 billion?
What numbers are you calculating?
Ding ding! Voyager and I agree on something. Wow.
On that positive note, I’m done for the night. You all have given me much to think about. Tomorrow, I will wake up a liberal and try my hand at arguing with the conservatives.
But, what has anything you have posted in this thread to do with totalitarianism?
Nothing. You win, ok?
I have to agree with this. The Republican Party has been the home of RINOS for far too long. The last two elections, I voted Republican because it was the closest to what I wanted. If the Libertarians ever get someone who is not a moonbat like Ron Paul, I’ll probably go with them.
Nor would a highly intelligent citizen say anything different.
I made a mistake on this. I should’ve taken then 5% off the total USA GDP of $14 trillion and not the health care costs of $880 billion. 5% of the 14 trillion dollar GDP is $700 billion in savings per year.
However, I don’t it’s realistic to expect a 5% GDP savings in the USA for many reasons. You guys probably know those reasons.
I get the sense that some of the people won’t be happy until the GOP either dies off or is a slightly variant version of the Democratic Party. If we had a Centrist Party, the lines between the extremes are blurred:
Where do the socially and or economically conservative Democrats go?
Where do the socially and or economically liberal Republicans go?
If you’re “mixed” - economically conservative and socially liberal, or vice-versa, where do you go?
According to the wisdom of Chronos, we can’t tell whether we are heading towards state control or not. Nobody can tell. So you’re right. Again.
That is what we already have today, and is why their base has turned their backs on them
Actually, I’d prefer that the Republicans or their successors end up somewhat to the left of the present Democrats, and that the Democrats be well left of that. And that the positions of the present Republican mainstream be regarded as those of extremist loonies. It won’t happen of course; it’s much more likely we’ll go even further right and become fascist. But that’s what I’d prefer.
Welcome mat withdrawn. Limbaugh: ““What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican Party,” Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday.”
How old are you? The Republican party of Ike through Ford was basically Centrist.
Even Bush the Elder acted like a Centrist/Moderate overall. It was a very mixed bag and was actually light on the Social Conservatives that for some reason were largely Dems at the time. The Social Conservatives always seem to be in an uneasy alliance with another party until they got their tenterhooks deeply embedded in the Republican party.
I would say the Repubs of that time were very Pro-Business and Hawkish and had far more Fiscal conservatives than the Dems. But the Social Conservatives and/or Theo-cons were brought over mainly by Reagan. I liked the man a lot but 20/20 hindsight says he wrecked the party.
Nope, I dont think its relevant if it costs more or less than that.
Also “common statement”? i dont think its so common.
Can I just see if I got this right?
Some here believe that the GOP has not been the home of true Conservative values, that “Moderates are all they have left”, and that the GOP has “been the home of RINOS for far too long”
Many recognize that the GOP is increasingly becoming a Southern regional party.
Steele comes in to his position articulating the concept that the GOP needs to reach out to regrow the party’s demographics and does so by undercutting Specter which drives him out and by the statement made in this op, essentially saying, come in, there’s a seat at the table, just don’t expect anyone to listen to you or let you eat the food.
Sessions “a Southern, white conservative man who has drawn fire for racially insensitive comments in the past” is elevated to point man for the GOP on whoever Obama selects for Souter’s Supremes seat.
Powell, McCain, and many others are labelled by voices of “the base” as RINOs and should just go.
Hmmm. Once upon a time Reagan (and the recently deceased Kemp created a Big Tent and figured out ways “to ‘add and multiply’ the party” and amazingly that tent held some disparate groups within it for quite a while but now different groups are each trying to sing, to the tune of “This land is my Land”: “This tent is my tent, it is not your tent …”
Moderates do not belong in the GOP, at least not this GOP. Center Right folk are being driven out. People with mixed positions - Far Right on some but center on others - are being driven out.
Libertarians and Populist social conservatives are seeing if they can work together but are also looking for the chance to knife each other when the opportunity presents.
Is that pretty much where things are?
Nonsense. Anyone with a lick of sense knows the rate of avacado farm subsidies is an excellent predictor of incipient totalitarianism.