Originally posted by uzlessNot having health insurance is not the same as not having access to treatment or service. No one is denied treatment in America, unlike the Canadian system where millions suffer through their afflictions while waiting until they eventually cross the border and see a doctor in the United States or they give up. That's the dirty little secret of single-payer systems such as Canada's -- the government there rations health care by forcing you to wait for treatment.
It's better than the 30 Million Americans who can't see a specialist at all because they have NO HEALTH CARE.
And besides, don't be quoting the Fraser Institute. They are a laughing stock in Canada. Rush Limbaugh would like them but that's about it.
That'd be like quoting the Christian Coalition for a viewpoint on whether or not God exists.
As for your comments about Fraser, they’re just sour grapes because you are ideologically opposed to anything that advocates free markets, self reliance and curtailing the growth of the nanny state. You may enjoy being a ward of the state, but most right-minded or ambitious people do not share your Bismarkian cradle-to-grave welfare state illusions.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWithout health insurance, if you are poor and get ill, you're pretty screwed. No one is denied treatment in the US of course- its just if you can't pay, well,thats your problem.
Not having health insurance is not the same as not having access to treatment or service. No one is denied treatment in America, unlike the Canadian system where millions suffer through their afflictions while waiting until they eventually cross the border and see a doctor in the United States or they give up. That's the dirty little secret of si nded or ambitious people do not share your Bismarkian cradle-to-grave welfare state illusions.
You are to the political right of Bismarck? Where do you stand in relation to other historical figures, such as Genghis Khan?
Originally posted by wedgehead2You first -- please tell us why you are to the left of equally historical figures such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
Without health insurance, if you are poor and get ill, you're pretty screwed. No one is denied treatment in the US of course- its just if you can't pay, well,thats your problem.
You are to the political right of Bismarck? Where do you stand in relation to other historical figures, such as Genghis Khan?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI'm not! Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all murderous dictators, who used the cause of communism to further their ambitions.
You first -- please tell us why you are to the left of equally historical figures such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
By the way, did you know Pol Pot was supported by the US government?
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou really aren't using liberal accurately. You are grouping together groups as wide ranging as the Khymer Rouge and the Democratic party.
not really, they were just liberals that made it to the big time. and then put their boots on the heads of the populace.
Originally posted by wedgehead2they are all using or used their professed liberalism to obtain and maintain power. while not actually paying out very much. you can see liberalism in the US as a sort of watered-down communism.
You really aren't using liberal accurately. You are grouping together groups as wide ranging as the Khymer Rouge and the Democratic party.
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo you can't. Communism is about a massive violent uprising against the rich powerful elite- which in any watered down form is not american liberalism!
they are all using or used their professed liberalism to obtain and maintain power. while not actually paying out very much. you can see liberalism in the US as a sort of watered-down communism.
The Bolsheviks, Maoists and Khymer Rouge didn't pretend to be liberal, they were revolutionaries- claiming to seize power for the masses. This isn't professed liberalism!
Back on the subject of Canada's healthcare...
Anyone buy a Liter of gas or a 12-pack of beer in Canada lately? It is way more expensive than in the States. Why? GST & MST, (big taxes!) along with tons of other stuff. That along with the fact that they can get by with a tiny military, cuse big brother isn't going to let anything happen to them.
Their medical care is good, but different. If you get gall stones, the doctor may just tell you "don't eat any fat, or it will be very painful. In a year, if they don't go away, we will operate." This happened to my mother-in-law. That is why lots of the wealth Canadians come to the US, cuse they can get it done right now.
Originally posted by wedgehead2revolution is the means, not the ideology.
No you can't. Communism is about a massive violent uprising against the rich powerful elite- which in any watered down form is not american liberalism!
The Bolsheviks, Maoists and Khymer Rouge didn't pretend to be liberal, they were revolutionaries- claiming to seize power for the masses. This isn't professed liberalism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Early forms of human social organization have been described as 'primitive communism' by Marxists. However, communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization. There is a considerable variety of views among self-identified communists, including Maoism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, anarchist communism, Christian communism, and various currents of left communism, which are generally the more widespread varieties. However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the 'Stalinist'😉 and Maoist interpretations of Marxism-Leninism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th century. The competing branch of Trotskyism has not had such a distinction.
Karl Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, and it remains theoretical; Marx, in fact, commented very little on what communist society would actually look like. However, the term 'Communism', especially when it is capitalized, is often used to refer to the political and economic regimes under communist parties that claimed to embody the dictatorship of the proletariat.
"
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo revolution is the idelogy! Have you read any Marxist/ Leninist / Maoist literature? The revolution IS not just the means, it is a necessary part of the ideology, which in iteslf is totally different from liberalism- economic instead of political democracy.
revolution is the means, not the ideology.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYes, and this cleraly isn't Liberalism, is it! 🙄
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Early forms of human social organization have been described as 'primitive communism' by Marxists. ...[text shortened]... s under communist parties that claimed to embody the dictatorship of the proletariat.
"