More social conservatism at its best

[Bfgrn]

One again, they are not equal in intent, only in process.

Supporting a 'process' where 45,000 Americans needlessly die every year and the Nazi extermination of Jews creates the same result...the death of millions.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

 

[WinterBorn]

Supporting a 'process' where 45,000 Americans needlessly die every year and the Nazi extermination of Jews creates the same result...the death of millions.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I have not seen the 45k deaths figure. Can I ask for a source?

 

[Bfgrn]

I quoted your post, own it.

This post is seriously stupid. You stated that the holocaust wasn't incrementalism, not me. I simply showed you that it most certainly was.

The reality is that incrementalism is real, pretending that every mention of it is some fallacy is just illogical nonsense.

As to what I want to do with health care... What I'd like to do is create a system that controls costs and does not give the government access to my medical decisions, and especially doesn't give the government control over all health care. Making government the sole provider of health care is a serious step in the wrong direction.

Now, some idiot may try to say it is the "same thing" in one direction or the other as "nazi" but that is also nonsense. Not all incrementalism is "nazi", but pretending that it doesn't exist so you can try to associate everything somebody says with "nazi" is plain stupid.

Other than a nuclear blast or getting hit by a semi EVERYTHING in life can be viewed as incrementalism, from learning how to walk, learning to read, brushing your teeth, people getting electricity or growing old.

Incrementalism is a monster created in the fear-filled right wing mind. It is fear driven over-reactionary and polarized panic.

 

[Topspin]

the source is dem bs talking points course 101.

 

[WinterBorn]

Other than a nuclear blast or getting hit by a semi EVERYTHING in life can be viewed as incrementalism, from learning how to walk, learning to read, brushing your teeth, people getting electricity or growing old.

Incrementalism is a monster created in the fear-filled right wing mind. It is fear driven over-reactionary and polarized panic.

The point about incrementalism is valid. But the best time to stop something is at the very beginning. Refusing to acknowledge the dangers of the first stages is what allows the more danger later stages to exist at all.

 

[Bfgrn]

the source is dem bs talking points course 101.

Topspin, a great example of incrementalism. Someday all his tiny incremental blurts will secretly congregate and become a paragraph.

 

[Bfgrn]

The point about incrementalism is valid. But the best time to stop something is at the very beginning. Refusing to acknowledge the dangers of the first stages is what allows the more danger later stages to exist at all.

No, the dangers must be real and credible, not convoluted, imagined and then aggrandized. Right wing propagandists have known for years how to use key words to create monsters and imminent danger to control the right wing mind.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, the dangers must be real and credible, not convoluted, imagined and then aggrandized. Right wing propagandists have known for years how to use key words to create monsters and imminent danger to control the right wing mind.

Would you care to give an example of that?

And would you care to bet whether or not left wing propagandists have donethe same?

 

[Damocles]

Other than a nuclear blast or getting hit by a semi EVERYTHING in life can be viewed as incrementalism, from learning how to walk, learning to read, brushing your teeth, people getting electricity or growing old.

Incrementalism is a monster created in the fear-filled right wing mind. It is fear driven over-reactionary and polarized panic.

More nonsense. The next time some D says that somebody is eroding their rights incrementally through some piece of legislation I expect you to have a huge fit about how the only thing that isn't incrementalism is a nuclear blast.

 

[Bfgrn]

Would you care to give an example of that?

And would you care to bet whether or not left wing propagandists have donethe same?

Sure...

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition - Study

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition - Summary

Political views 'hard-wired' into your brain; people with right wing views have a larger area of the brain associated with fear.

Fear Leads to Conservatism, Psychology Today: The Ideological Animal

Birthers, Health Care Hecklers and the Rise of Right-Wing Rage


The liberal mind is not controlled by fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[DamnYankee]

The liberal mind is not controlled by fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

You're a retard.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sure...

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition - Study

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition - Summary

Political views 'hard-wired' into your brain; people with right wing views have a larger area of the brain associated with fear.

Fear Leads to Conservatism, Psychology Today: The Ideological Animal

Birthers, Health Care Hecklers and the Rise of Right-Wing Rage


The liberal mind is not controlled by fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

What? Trust of the people? Liberalism is the exact opposite of trust of the people. The cornerstone of liberalism is that the gov't knows how to run your life better than you do.

Do you remember the uproar about conservatives trying to "steal" everyone's social security?

Do you remember the times the dems have claimed that repubs would turn back the civil rights movement?

Those are the same fear mongering tactics. So before you point fingers at the other side, take a look at your own.

 

[DamnYankee]

Solitary, you can't argue logic with Bfgrn. He can't think rationally.

 

[WinterBorn]

Solitary, you can't argue logic with Bfgrn. He can't think rationally.

Eh, he is a fun target when things are slow.

 

[apple0154]

As to what I want to do with health care... What I'd like to do is create a system that controls costs and does not give the government access to my medical decisions, and especially doesn't give the government control over all health care. Making government the sole provider of health care is a serious step in the wrong direction.

A common misconception regarding government health care is people imagine there are government employees similar to executives at Liberty Mutual or Mutual of Omaha or the Aetna Group or Humana or other insurance companies who evaluate whether a medical procedure is warranted and/or covered. (Most of us are aware of Wendell Potter and the Cigna health insurance company. "With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before patients. Now, he speaks with Bill Moyers about how those companies are standing in the way of health care reform." http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

Government medical does not operate that way. If a doctor decides you need a specific treatment and that treatment is covered then the procedure goes ahead.

Here are a couple of things to clarify that statement. Because government medical has to cover every individual it has to include the most procedures possible. In other words it encompasses more coverage than the vast majority of individual policies due to the fact it has to include every citizen and a large number of possible ailments.

The second point is if a procedure is covered, it's covered for everyone. Procedures are not decided on individual cases. The doctor and the patient decide on what procedure will be done. There are no "death panels" as there aren't any panels. As Mr. Potter makes clear in the video insurance company executives or "panels" decide on individual cases and the more cases they refuse the more money they make. There is no such process with government medical.

Policies and procedures notwithstanding in the end it comes down to reality, what do citizens living in countries with government medical think of their system. We know, as a fact, not one country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system and we know every country started out with such a system. We know, as a fact, there are no credible movements in any country with government medical advocating the dismantling of their system.

Dozens of countries, as diversified as the world itself, show government medical to be superior relating to costs and citizen preference. There is no country, not one, that shows their prior "pay or suffer" system was superior to their government medical. That is the reality.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I quoted your post, own it.

This post is seriously stupid. You stated that the holocaust wasn't incrementalism, not me. I simply showed you that it most certainly was.

The reality is that incrementalism is real, pretending that every mention of it is some fallacy is just illogical nonsense.

As to what I want to do with health care... What I'd like to do is create a system that controls costs and does not give the government access to my medical decisions, and especially doesn't give the government control over all health care. Making government the sole provider of health care is a serious step in the wrong direction.

Now, some idiot may try to say it is the "same thing" in one direction or the other as "nazi" but that is also nonsense. Not all incrementalism is "nazi", but pretending that it doesn't exist so you can try to associate everything somebody says with "nazi" is plain stupid.

 

[Damocles]

A common misconception regarding government health care is people imagine there are government employees similar to executives at Liberty Mutual or Mutual of Omaha or the Aetna Group or Humana or other insurance companies who evaluate whether a medical procedure is warranted and/or covered. (Most of us are aware of Wendell Potter and the Cigna health insurance company. "With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before patients. Now, he speaks with Bill Moyers about how those companies are standing in the way of health care reform." http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

Government medical does not operate that way. If a doctor decides you need a specific treatment and that treatment is covered then the procedure goes ahead.

Here are a couple of things to clarify that statement. Because government medical has to cover every individual it has to include the most procedures possible. In other words it encompasses more coverage than the vast majority of individual policies due to the fact it has to include every citizen and a large number of possible ailments.

The second point is if a procedure is covered, it's covered for everyone. Procedures are not decided on individual cases. The doctor and the patient decide on what procedure will be done. There are no "death panels" as there aren't any panels. As Mr. Potter makes clear in the video insurance company executives or "panels" decide on individual cases and the more cases they refuse the more money they make. There is no such process with government medical.

Policies and procedures notwithstanding in the end it comes down to reality, what do citizens living in countries with government medical think of their system. We know, as a fact, not one country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system and we know every country started out with such a system. We know, as a fact, there are no credible movements in any country with government medical advocating the dismantling of their system.

Dozens of countries, as diversified as the world itself, show government medical to be superior relating to costs and citizen preference. There is no country, not one, that shows their prior "pay or suffer" system was superior to their government medical. That is the reality.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

And if it isn't, there is no option to choose where it is. In some places they even make it illegal for you to go to a private practice. The reality is, that when the cuts come, they'll come there too and we all must know that they are coming.

 

[apple0154]

I have not seen the 45k deaths figure. Can I ask for a source?

(Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

Those statistics from the richest country on the face of the earth.

Appalling. Outrageous......Is there an adequate word to describe such an atrocity?

 

[Bfgrn]

What? Trust of the people? Liberalism is the exact opposite of trust of the people. The cornerstone of liberalism is that the gov't knows how to run your life better than you do.

Do you remember the uproar about conservatives trying to "steal" everyone's social security?

Do you remember the times the dems have claimed that repubs would turn back the civil rights movement?

Those are the same fear mongering tactics. So before you point fingers at the other side, take a look at your own.

Looting Social Security - by Paul Craig Roberts who served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

Before the "black helicopters" of the 1990s, there were right-wingers claiming access to secret documents from the 1920s proving that the entire concept of a "civil rights movement" had been hatched in the Soviet Union; when the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was introduced, one frequently read in the South that it would "enslave" whites.

Liberals definitely don't want government running anyone's life, they view all men as equal and want government to protect the little guy from being bullied and steamrolled by the big guy.

Conservatives on the other hand worship the big guys, they look up at them as better. That is why conservatism has always tried to undermine democracy and replace it with some form of an aristocracy. Today, that would be a plutocracy.

 

[Bfgrn]

(Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

Those statistics from the richest country on the face of the earth.

Appalling. Outrageous......Is there an adequate word to describe such an atrocity?

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[Bfgrn]

And if it isn't, there is no option to choose where it is. In some places they even make it illegal for you to go to a private practice. The reality is, that when the cuts come, they'll come there too and we all must know that they are coming.

For all to see...the monster has been created in the right wing mind.