Jim A.

The "Health Care" bill passes

88 posts in this topic

This abominable bill is not the end of the world. It deals with health insurance policies but it does not, in its present form, include a Public Option (that is to say Government Provided health insurance) nor does it put the government in charge of the dispensing of health care. In short, it is not the dreadful National Health Service, the bane of Britain. But it is a nose under the tent. It is a first step in that direction and it must be stopped definitely and soon. In its present form it is no worse than Medicare, although it has a wider application. Think of it as Medicare extended to younger people.

Direction is more important than location. There may be a point of no return, short of founding a new nation elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently, the health reform bill has not yet passed. Republicans have managed to find some procedures that were violated in rushing the bill through, so it must now be sent back to the house for a brand new vote.
A PROCEDURAL "violation" means historic US health care reform legislation will have to return to the House of Representatives for a new vote, a spokesman for a senior Democratic senator said. "After hours of trying to find a way to block this, they (Republicans) found two relatively minor provisions that are violations of Senate procedure which means we're going to have to send it back to the House," Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said.

According to CNN, this only concerns the reconciliation changes--not the main bill voted on in the House on Sunday and signed into law on Tuesday:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/hea...dex.html?hpt=T2

In a marathon session that lasted into the early morning hours Thursday, Senate Republicans found two violations of congressional rules in a proposed package of changes to the new health care law, forcing the package back to the House of Representatives for another vote. Democrats say they expect the House to approve the measure quickly.

The new legislative roadblock does not affect the underlying reform plan signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The *fact* is that the bill passed narrowly because not a single Republican voted for it. If they were indistinguishable then, A would be A: they would have been all over it and this monstrosity would have passed unanimously. If they were *worse*, this bill would have been passed by a Republican-controlled Congress/White House years ago.

I agree with the main point of your post. I would not have voted for Obama because I consider the difference of degree as a significant factor affecting my life. I have only one life to live and it has to be now.

However, you can't just look at the fact that Republicans did not vote for this bill without context. You also have to consider the reasons for why they did not. A lot of Republicans objected this bill .. NOT for the right reasons.

Also, Republicans are an effective opposition - they usually do a good job slowing down the left but when in the lead position they themselves introduce more statism. It is always easier to criticize and tare things down then to build something up or create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans need to offer practical free market solutions to health care. People need to hear specifics and why they will work. And not in 1000 pages document. They need to present objective plan and without "extra deals".

Problems were there and Republicans had 8 years to do something about it. What you see now is the result of their failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problems were there and Republicans had 8 years to do something about it. What you see now is the result of their failure.

I agree. I would not go far in defending Republicans, but the sorry truth is that the only thing worse than them is the Democrats, and by a large margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Michelle Malkin at http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/25/an-ob...re-endorsement/ ,

Fidel Castro is hailing the passage of Obamacare: Obama is now doing to Americans what Castro does to Cubans.

Not surprising. One life-hating Marxist endorsing another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A philosophically literate M.D. opines at Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/25/...medicare-plato/

Obamacare Rips Doctor-Patient Relationship Apart

By C.L. Gray, M.D.

... With disturbing consistency, the sweep of history reveals that physicians have served one of only two possible roles in society—there is no third alternative. Physicians either follow Hippocrates, remaining free to serve the well-being of the individual patient, or they follow Plato and become servants of the State, compelled to guard the “greater good” of society. This is the battle of our time.

Government compassion sounds so noble, but we cannot escape the fact that whoever pays holds the power to choose. It is here that Washington’s utopian plan falls short. When Washington gains control over the American health care dollar, physicians become employees of the State. When the “collective good” trumps the well-being of the individual patient, the physician’ loyalties become divided. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope people realize that if it weren't for the Republican party, a full, nationalized government health care plan probably would have already happened. They are the last thing standing in the way between us and socialism.

Not necessarily. If the Republicans had not brought the opposition to statism into disrepute, by sanctioning altruism, maybe a more principled opposition to the welfare state would have arisen, and stopped statism for good. But we will never know for sure. The only thing that we can do is act on principle. Including such principles as that the political battle is primarily an intellectual one (which the Republicans still do not realize), and the principle that the appeasement of evil is suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a very important fact that many "Objectivists" don't get: a McCain, for all of his flaws - and this goes for most Republicans - does *not* hate America and Americans. Obama and his minions HATE America and Americans. They hate it passionately. I think there would be one of his trademark stupid grins if he heard that New York had been nuked, as long as he knew there wasn't a camera on him.

Republicans hate, to use your term, mankind for its inherent tendency towards evil. How is that any better.

And for the record, some of those "'Objectivists'" are some of the most learned scholars of Objectivism available. You've yet to present a thorough argument against their POV, Phil -- not here, not on HBL.

Isn´t the truth that today almost *everyone* hates mankind, or at least the best among mankind - the leftists, the religious right, the fascists, the islamists, just about everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A philosophically literate M.D. opines at Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/25/...medicare-plato/

Obamacare Rips Doctor-Patient Relationship Apart

By C.L. Gray, M.D.

... With disturbing consistency, the sweep of history reveals that physicians have served one of only two possible roles in society—there is no third alternative. Physicians either follow Hippocrates, remaining free to serve the well-being of the individual patient, or they follow Plato and become servants of the State, compelled to guard the “greater good” of society. This is the battle of our time.

Government compassion sounds so noble, but we cannot escape the fact that whoever pays holds the power to choose. It is here that Washington’s utopian plan falls short. When Washington gains control over the American health care dollar, physicians become employees of the State. When the “collective good” trumps the well-being of the individual patient, the physician’ loyalties become divided. ...

I agree. See my article "Lysenkoism in socialized medicine" in the Essays section. Quackery and overt violations of the Hippocratic oath are 2 virtually inevitable consequences of socialized medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would that include the man who admits to getting his facts on current events from the front page of the NYT only (because he can't stand to read further than that)? The one who patronizingly asserted that anyone voting against Obama was ignorant of Objectivism? How's your vote for Obama working for you, since I expect that you followed that advice because, gee, how could a "learned scholar" be wrong?

Furthermore, rather than perpetually whining about this or that party being "the worse", it would be a hell of a lot more inspiring to see some positive action taken to make things better instead, e.g. by helping a Tea Party to become nationally cohesive with a proper intellectual platform to provide much needed principled guidance.

I wonder if that statement about "not reading further than the first page of the NYT" wasn´t hyperbole, and perhaps a joke. Dr. Peikoff does seem to be very well-informed to me. For example he worked doggedly to warn Americans about the threat of terrorist attacks on American soil, years before 9/11.

And I do not think that saying that the Republicans are in a sense worse than the Democrats and even the Communists is like saying that the sun rises in the West. Because in a sense they *are* worse. The alleged defenders of the good, have much more power than the outright evil, so they can do much more harm. The nihilistic Left is still worse than the religious Right in one moral sense, the Left hates values as such. But the religious Right has more power to do harm to America, by sins of omission more than by sins of commission.

As for doing something constructive, Dr. Peikoff supports the ARI 100% (to the best of my knowledge), I believe that Dr. Peikoff is one of the ARI´s most major donors and since the battle is primarilly intellectual, Dr. Peikoff is doing more than his fair share. I am looking forward to his next book eagerly.

Also, I do not think that there is much that Dr. Peikoff can do personally to "fix" the Tea Party movement. *Maybe* the ARI can do something to make the Tea Party more philosophically rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And for the record, some of those "'Objectivists'" are some of the most learned scholars of Objectivism available. You've yet to present a thorough argument against their POV, Phil -- not here, not on HBL.

Would that include the man who admits to getting his facts on current events from the front page of the NYT only (because he can't stand to read further than that)? The one who patronizingly asserted that anyone voting against Obama was ignorant of Objectivism?

In all justice, the voting recommendation was made about the midterm election of 2006 and the person cited did NOT recommend voting for Obama or anyone else in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn´t the truth that today almost *everyone* hates mankind, or at least the best among mankind - the leftists, the religious right, the fascists, the islamists, just about everyone?

Certainly not if you are talking about the average American. The average intellectual, on the other hand....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn´t the truth that today almost *everyone* hates mankind, or at least the best among mankind - the leftists, the religious right, the fascists, the islamists, just about everyone?

Certainly not if you are talking about the average American. The average intellectual, on the other hand....

Yes, you are right. I was thinking about the intellectuals, since we were talking about those people who determine the outcome in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you are right. I was thinking about the intellectuals, since we were talking about those people who determine the outcome in politics.

In the U.S.A. it is voters who determine political outcomes.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you are right. I was thinking about the intellectuals, since we were talking about those people who determine the outcome in politics.

In the U.S.A. it is voters who determine political outcomes.

Bob Kolker

Only if they bother to think about abstract subjects. And most men on the street do not bother to do that. They just follow the intellectuals like lemmings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only if they bother to think about abstract subjects. And most men on the street do not bother to do that. They just follow the intellectuals like lemmings.

I suspect more Americans pay attention to the baseball standings than to intellectuals of any stripe.

In the U.S. abstract thinkers are not held in especially high esteem.

I forget who said this, but it is true: In a country in which plumbers are faulted for being too narrowly focused and intellectuals are held in low esteem because they are not "practical"; neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all justice, the voting recommendation was made about the midterm election of 2006 and the person cited did NOT recommend voting for Obama or anyone else in 2008.

I'm making a simple logical extrapolation. The *only* practical way to have defeated Obama in the last election was to vote *against* him, and since for all current practical purposes America has a two-party system, it was either-or: which meant a vote *for* McCain, and McCain was a Republican - so I think it is fair to make the deduction, since it was an unconditional condemnation of anyone voting for a Republican, as I recall it. Also I have the clear impression from reading Facebook that a significant number of self-identified Objectivists did vote for Obama on the idea of "Republican=unconditionally worse" and continue to make the same claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all justice, the voting recommendation was made about the midterm election of 2006 and the person cited did NOT recommend voting for Obama or anyone else in 2008.

I'm making a simple logical extrapolation. The *only* practical way to have defeated Obama in the last election was to vote *against* him, and since for all current practical purposes America has a two-party system, it was either-or: which meant a vote *for* McCain, and McCain was a Republican - so I think it is fair to make the deduction, since it was an unconditional condemnation of anyone voting for a Republican, as I recall it. Also I have the clear impression from reading Facebook that a significant number of self-identified Objectivists did vote for Obama on the idea of "Republican=unconditionally worse" and continue to make the same claim.

I can´t say for certain how I would vote if I were an American. I would probably either vote for the Democrats or not vote at all. Here in Sweden I have been voting for the Social Democrats for the last several elections, just to try to keep the me-tooing Conservatives out of power. I don´t think that the Conservatives here in Sweden have even been slowing down the advance of socialism. I think that their policies are almost identical to the policies of the Social Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope people realize that if it weren't for the Republican party, a full, nationalized government health care plan probably would have already happened. They are the last thing standing in the way between us and socialism.

Not necessarily. If the Republicans had not brought the opposition to statism into disrepute, by sanctioning altruism, maybe a more principled opposition to the welfare state would have arisen, and stopped statism for good. But we will never know for sure. The only thing that we can do is act on principle. Including such principles as that the political battle is primarily an intellectual one (which the Republicans still do not realize), and the principle that the appeasement of evil is suicide.

You mean because the Republicans lack the proper philosophical/intellectual ammunition to on their own stop the onslaught of the Leftists, with it's full force of the media, the corrupt academic world, irrational economists and scientists, and the last 300 years of anti-man philosophers, we should condemn them?

Perhaps next you should condemn Poland for being unable to stop Germany in WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps next you should condemn Poland for being unable to stop Germany in WWII.

I think that all of the European countries, including both Poland and my own country Sweden, could be criticized for not having prepared themselves better. After all, the writing was on the wall for almost 10 years before the Second World War broke out. But the Europeans, including I am sure many Poles, evaded the warning signs. However, I certainly do not think that the Poles could be morally *condemned for failing to stop the Nazis.

But I really think that the American Republicans today could do *much* better than they are doing. They are not helpless children. They are adults who are capable of taking responsibility for their actions. But all too many of them *choose* to disregard ideas. Many of them are anti-intellectual, on principle so to speak (or to be more precise, many of them have thoroughly automatized a habit of disregarding ideas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps next you should condemn Poland for being unable to stop Germany in WWII.

I think that all of the European countries, including both Poland and my own country Sweden, could be criticized for not having prepared themselves better. After all, the writing was on the wall for almost 10 years before the Second World War broke out. But the Europeans, including I am sure many Poles, evaded the warning signs. However, I certainly do not think that the Poles could be morally *condemned for failing to stop the Nazis.

But I really think that the American Republicans today could do *much* better than they are doing. They are not helpless children. They are adults who are capable of taking responsibility for their actions. But all too many of them *choose* to disregard ideas. Many of them are anti-intellectual, on principle so to speak (or to be more precise, many of them have thoroughly automatized a habit of disregarding ideas).

So to sum your position up, the Republicans are to blame because they are not effectively defending us from the Leftists' attempts to advance socialism as well as they should be, therefore the greater evil is the Republicans and we should vote for Democrats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps next you should condemn Poland for being unable to stop Germany in WWII.

I think that all of the European countries, including both Poland and my own country Sweden, could be criticized for not having prepared themselves better. After all, the writing was on the wall for almost 10 years before the Second World War broke out. But the Europeans, including I am sure many Poles, evaded the warning signs. However, I certainly do not think that the Poles could be morally *condemned for failing to stop the Nazis.

But I really think that the American Republicans today could do *much* better than they are doing. They are not helpless children. They are adults who are capable of taking responsibility for their actions. But all too many of them *choose* to disregard ideas. Many of them are anti-intellectual, on principle so to speak (or to be more precise, many of them have thoroughly automatized a habit of disregarding ideas).

So to sum your position up, the Republicans are to blame because they are not effectively defending us from the Leftists' attempts to advance socialism as well as they should be, therefore the greater evil is the Republicans and we should vote for Democrats?

It´s more than that. The Republicans are enabling the leftist Democrats. The Republicans are making the Democrats´ "successes" possible. Sans the Republicans, the Democrats would be much less effectual. RememberAyn Rand´s observation that the appeasers make the "successes" of the evil possible.

Now, there *may* very well come a day when it will become appropriate to vote for the Republicans. When the Republicans begin to *really* oppose the Democrats - for example when they begin demanding that welfare programs be *rolled back*, and not merely "reformed". And of course, when and if the Republicans begin challenging altruism, then it will become *really* right to vote for the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps next you should condemn Poland for being unable to stop Germany in WWII.

I think that all of the European countries, including both Poland and my own country Sweden, could be criticized for not having prepared themselves better. After all, the writing was on the wall for almost 10 years before the Second World War broke out. But the Europeans, including I am sure many Poles, evaded the warning signs. However, I certainly do not think that the Poles could be morally *condemned for failing to stop the Nazis.

But I really think that the American Republicans today could do *much* better than they are doing. They are not helpless children. They are adults who are capable of taking responsibility for their actions. But all too many of them *choose* to disregard ideas. Many of them are anti-intellectual, on principle so to speak (or to be more precise, many of them have thoroughly automatized a habit of disregarding ideas).

So to sum your position up, the Republicans are to blame because they are not effectively defending us from the Leftists' attempts to advance socialism as well as they should be, therefore the greater evil is the Republicans and we should vote for Democrats?

It´s more than that. The Republicans are enabling the leftist Democrats. The Republicans are making the Democrats´ "successes" possible. Sans the Republicans, the Democrats would be much less effectual. RememberAyn Rand´s observation that the appeasers make the "successes" of the evil possible.

Now, there *may* very well come a day when it will become appropriate to vote for the Republicans. When the Republicans begin to *really* oppose the Democrats - for example when they begin demanding that welfare programs be *rolled back*, and not merely "reformed". And of course, when and if the Republicans begin challenging altruism, then it will become *really* right to vote for the Republicans.

So by Poland not being capable of defending Nazi Germany, Poland "enabled" Nazi Germany, and was responsible for WWII?

I'm just blown away by this. Every Republican except 1 voted against the health care bill, and virtually all Democrats voted for it. The Republicans are the ones who stopped Hillary and the Dems from taking over health care in the 90's. How in your tortured logic does this mean we should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? So without these Republicans constantly voting "no" and trying to stop these bills from passing, if we had a complete Democrat dominated government then somehow these bills would stop being proposed? Democrats will stop trying to advance socialist legislation if Republicans went disappeared?

So again, to sum up your ideas: Because the Republicans are not completely effective in blocking the Democrats' attempts to bring socialism into America, this means the Republicans are worse, and we should vote for Democrats? And if the Republicans went away, then they would stop "enabling" the Democrats, and we'd somehow have less attempts to bring socialism into America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, there *may* very well come a day when it will become appropriate to vote for the Republicans. When the Republicans begin to *really* oppose the Democrats - for example when they begin demanding that welfare programs be *rolled back*, and not merely "reformed". And of course, when and if the Republicans begin challenging altruism, then it will become *really* right to vote for the Republicans.

So until the Republican party improves, the rational thing would be to continue to vote for Democrats until we have a Democrat dominated government, and allow the Democrats to pass socialist legislation with nothing to stop them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites