Thread: Obabas 2008 Guantanamo Promise

Originally Posted by Devil505

Morning BB.

Morning, Vladimir.

No real point to either post other than to extol the virtues of greed & not explain why health care requires different funding than protection from many of the other threats we defend ourselves against collectively & pay for with our taxes.

I don't see anything in the Constitution or rule of law that explains health care "requires" different funding and certainly nothing that calls for as you propose "taking" anyone elses business, property, or profits....there uh.....Lenin.

Our system is already an amalgam of Capitalism & Socialism....Always has been & always will be.

And your desire is to make it much more socialism, correct. What we have now is called a Republic, what you're calling for is takeover of an industry by government. Is there any other industry besides health care you'd like to "remove profits" from? Oil perhaps? Private property?

Somehow the Health Care peg got jammed into the wrong shaped slot & we need to fit it correctly into the "Not for Profit" side of things.

We "need" to fit it correctly by taking from private citizens? Rass and you gonna make sure no one is profiting?

Originally Posted by Rasselas

Actually people on the right do make this kind of argument, all the time.

But no one is doing so here, Rass. And thus you're making a strawman argument, no one here is arguing anything even close to what you're claiming.

Your argument says that our system allows for the development of better treatments, and while we do develop better treatments, so do others.

Whether they are better or not isn't my argument. Whether they are private or not is my argument. Just because "others" develop treatment isn't a reason to walk in as a government and "take" from others, Rass. This is America, not Venezuela.

That makes your argument specious.

It's not even my argument.

Yes, our system allows for the private sector to be dominant, but again the results are not significantly better than those we see elsewhere. Conservatives manage to cherry pick some data, but that data rarely has to do with actual healthcare outcomes in the aggregate. You argue from faith, by propounding the things you have faith in.

And that is because government in this country receives it's power from the governed, Rass. Not the other way around. You and 505 are arguing that the private sector shouldn't be dominant, that the government should walk in and remove profits, your arguing the government should just walk in and force investors, business owners, and/or private corporations/companies to place their money elesewhere. you would be in fact walking in and taking assets, you two clueless Liberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascists have absolutely no right to do so. NONE! Nothing in our current law today or that written 200+ years ago calls for that, meanwhile, the Communist Manifesto clearly does. Hello. If it walks like a f'n duck...and it talks like f'n duck.......then it's most probably a f'n duck.

I have no interest in taking anyone's property.

NO, you have interest in a government that does.

I simply think the government should get into a particular business that it can conduct, more inexpensively and with greater resulting public good, than can the private sector.

The government has no f'n interest or f'n business deciding it can "conduct business" more inexpensively. It has been defined and restricted and the roles it was given is common defense amongst others. You are a Marxist aren't you?

The only property they would take are the potential future profits of the companies that now conduct that same business. No one has a 'right' to that, but since the value of shareholders' equity is based on those future potential profits, we should so something to soften the blow of that result. We don't have to, and the value of health care shares has (or should have) the potential downsides of government action built into their price, but I do think we should accomplish this goal with as little disruption to markets as we can reasonably manage.

The only property they would....what, Rass? Did you say "take?" Your word again now, this isn't somemade up word blackbeard invented, this is Rass/505 speak. Take take take.

Socialists take. So do Marxists.

Originally Posted by Devil505

Has a nice ring to it. (but make it Vladimir505 if you please)

Nice ring or not, you mirror his political philosophy, very telling.

Exactly right. HC should be funded via our taxes.

First, taken away from the private sector though, right?

Health care will be non-profit but all religious institutions will be for profit & lose their non-taxable status. (if God doesn't agree..... let him come down here & say so)

Why not merely walk in and "take" religion too Socialist?

I had asked a question, are there any other businesses or industries you two think should be taken? Both of you seem to be arguing....let's see how did Rass put it "I simply think the government should get into a particular business that it can conduct, more inexpensively and with greater resulting public good, than can the private sector."

Health care you obviously think fits the "particular business", are there any other businesses you two propose to remove profits from?

And FYI. If yer arguing remove profits, it yer arguing government come in and 'take' a private industry, that is basic Marxist political theory. Spin it, weasel around, squirm, deny, try to turn the volume knob, do whatever you'd like. That is Marxist thought process. Not socialism mind you, but flat out Marxism. I also asked and got no answers....are either Rass or 505 supporters of the Marxist political thought?