Originally Posted by Zarathustra

We seem to have somewhat diluted aspects of c. 1773, c. 1860, and c. 1929 all roled up into one. We have people convinced that an oppressive power is holding them down (the Tea Party's Washington DC, the Coffee Party's Money Power), people believing that core beliefs are irreconcilable (North/South then, Blue/Red now), and a concentration of wealth and an economic downturn the likes of which is apparently structural (Great Depression, Great Recession).

For about the last century the United States has had top down solutions that involve increasing amounts of coercion and one-size fits all policy which is oppressive. It is only natural that this would build up resentment.

Perhaps we should try freedom for a change.

Young schizo?

Is that's how Bill-O-The-Clown and Lonesome Roads Beck are characterizing him - and their mesmerized followers are picking it up?

If John Wilkes Booth was a 10 and John Hinckley was a 1, Jared Loughner is at least an 8 1/2.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo.

by Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by Deb C

by Albert Einstein

1. We know a lot more about how socialism actually works out in practice now than when Einstein wrote this, I am guessing in the last 1940s.

2. Einstein was a physicist not an economist.

3. All socialism does is concentrate power in the ruling elites even more. The commissar class quickly rises to prominence.

The quickest way to stagnation and poverty is to implement socialism. If we learned anything in the 20th century, it was this.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

1. We know a lot more about how socialism actually works out in practice now than when Einstein wrote this, I am guessing in the last 1940s.

2. Einstein was a physicist not an economist.

3. All socialism does is concentrate power in the ruling elites even more. The commissar class quickly rises to prominence.

The quickest way to stagnation and poverty is to implement socialism. If we learned anything in the 20th century, it was this.

James50

Yeah, but his analysis of the problem was bang-on. He may have offered the wrong solution, but, as you noted, this isn't his area of expertise. There is value in having the acquisitive out there acquiring. There is no value in allowing them to acquire enough to rule by fiat.

Right now, we're more likely to see capitalist excesses than socialist ones. We need to solve the problem at hand.

Originally Posted by James50

1. We know a lot more about how socialism actually works out in practice now than when Einstein wrote this, I am guessing in the last 1940s.

2. Einstein was a physicist not an economist.

3. All socialism does is concentrate power in the ruling elites even more. The commissar class quickly rises to prominence.

The quickest way to stagnation and poverty is to implement socialism. If we learned anything in the 20th century, it was this.

James50

I'm surprised that you discount Einstein because he was a physicist and possibly wrote his thoughts on socialism in the late forties. You appear to relish ideas from back in the day considering your signature on everyone of your posts is from a poet of the 1930s.

I do hope that when it comes time for you to draw on SS or get Medicare, those bad ole socialist programs, that you refuse to receive them.

Maybe if you become unemployed, have a pre-existing condition and can't buy insurance from the for profit insurance giants, you just might aquire a different perspective.

Possibly a pondering of your signature, where it says to love one another, will tap into Einstein's idea of caring for people before profits.

Originally Posted by Galen

For about the last century the United States has had top down solutions that involve increasing amounts of coercion and one-size fits all policy which is oppressive. It is only natural that this would build up resentment.

Perhaps we should try freedom for a change.

Okay. What are a few examples of the required freedoms we don't have now?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Okay. What are a few examples of the required freedoms we don't have now?

Maybe he cherishes the freedom to fail. We seem to have plenty of that, but he may be immune. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Maybe he cherishes the freedom to fail. We seem to have plenty of that, but he may be immune. Who knows?

It's funny you should mention that. I happen to consider that one of the most important freedoms of all.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It's funny you should mention that. I happen to consider that one of the most important freedoms of all.

How are you currently not free to fail?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Okay. What are a few examples of the required freedoms we don't have now?

I think you'll find that "Galen" doesn't do specifics. Sweeping generalizations at a superficial level are his specialty.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

How are you currently not free to fail?

If you will permit me to answer a question with another question:

Was General Motors free to fail?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

If you will permit me to answer a question with another question:

Was General Motors free to fail?

Non sequitur. Please answer the question.

Originally Posted by Galen

You are forgetting that before there could be the X-Ray there had to be photographic film and then someone had to invent the electron tube in order to make it work. Looks simplistic now from the vantage point of a century but it was leading edge.

OK, but that's true of all technology. Note the simplicity of each of those items in comparison to their current analogs. Individual effort is not possible on projects of that type today. Today, individuals design games and web sites.

Originally Posted by Galen ...

The human capital is factored in through the cost of the labor used in design and manufacture of the devices. In short the human capital costs are what the employer and the employee agree to in the employment contract.

There is no such thing as an agreement on an employment contract, unless the employee is a very high-end performer. Alex Rodriguez can do that. So can Nichole Kidman or Jaime Dimon. They are atypical in the extreme. Everyone else is told what the deal is going to be, and they either take it or they aren't hired.

Originally Posted by Galen ...

Most health care is routine. The rest you can buy insurance for much as you would fire or auto insurance. Just in case you think this is unreasonable it is what I did after I was laid off at the end of 2008.

This works well for the young and healthy. I went naked for years because, as a small businessman, I had no other choice. I got away with it. I was lucky.

Originally Posted by Galen ...

As for the extortion potential, I wish for you to consider the following question: What did people do before the Feds got involved in health care? I assure you the everyone did not drop dead. Wrong Assumption Number One is that all hospitals were for profit. WAN 2 is that doctors did not provide services at reduced prices or for free.

Prior to modern medicine, and it's escalating cost structure, people lived much shorter lives, and yes, they were not well cared-for.

Originally Posted by Galen ...

I disagree with this. So far all the Great Society had managed to do is subsidize dysfunction. In an earlier time it was religious organizations, private charities and of course families. It did work with out creating the dysfunction that has become so prevalent.

My grandmother lived with us for most of my childhood because she couldn't support and care for herself in the pre-Medicare age. This was a mixed blessing at best. In the end, it wore-out my parents, both of whom died young. BTW, how old are you?

Originally Posted by Galen ...

Given the huge financial disaster that the Silent and Boomer generations have been working on for about the last half century an there are limited options. The Millies unfortunately will pay a very heavy price for a disaster that was not of their making.

So did the Lost and the GIs, but the GIs also benefited from the fix the Missionary and Lost generation built for them. Your solution is to do nothing, starve and be righteous. OK. While you're doing that, I'll be taking a dirt nap.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Non sequitur. Please answer the question.

H-m-m-m. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My grandmother lived with us for most of my childhood because she couldn't support and care for herself in the pre-Medicare age. This was a mixed blessing at best. In the end, it wore-out my parents, both of whom died young. BTW, how old are you?


So did the Lost and the GIs, but the GIs also benefited from the fix the Missionary and Lost generation built for them. Your solution is to do nothing, starve and be righteous. OK. While you're doing that, I'll be taking a dirt nap.

But didn't some extremely old first-wave Missionaries and Progressives receive some sort of retroactive benefits under Supplemental Security Income originally? (I know this is slightly off topic, in that it is Medicare and not Social Security being discussed here).

Otherwise, how else to explain the many 1860s and even some 1850s cohorts whose names actually turn up in the Social Security Death Index?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But didn't some extremely old first-wave Missionaries and Progressives receive some sort of retroactive benefits under Supplemental Security Income originally? (I know this is slightly off topic, in that it is Medicare and not Social Security being discussed here).

Otherwise, how else to explain the many 1860s and even some 1850s cohorts whose names actually turn up in the Social Security Death Index?

You mean Social Security, not Supplemental Security Income, don't you? SSI was not put in place until 1974, and I doubt that any Progressives were still alive by then.

It could be that some Progressives and a number of Missionaries were still in the work force in 1937 and thus qualified for Social Security when they did retire. A Progressive born in 1960 would have been 77 by 1937, still pretty old, but still possible. And of course, Missionaries were very much in the work place, occupying the White House, among other places.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Good luck with that.

Apparently. Why is it so hard for some people to answer a perfectly simple question? All I asked was what freedom does one currently not have? Not General Motors, not anything else, but the person in question.

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:08:37 -0800
From: Doctor Don McCanne <don@mccanne.org>
Subject: qotd: Gov. Christie claims that health care will bankrupt New
Jersey

"Health care bills are going to bankrupt the government." New
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is but the latest of conservative politicians to
sound this alarm. You would think that they would recommend truly effective
policies to bring escalating health care costs under control. But no. They
merely wish to shift health care costs from the government, in this case, to
their own public employees.

Virtually all economists agree that employer-sponsored health plans actually
are paid for by the employees in the form of forgone wage increases. Gov.
Christie's proposal to shift the costs to the employees is not merely a
nominal transfer of the payment responsibility; it is a true shift because
he is not going to replace the forgone wages.

In trying to contain health care costs we need to look at our entire health
care spending, not simply how it is distributed between public and private
payers. Reducing government spending on health care by shifting it to others
does not reduce total health care spending, except in one very important
regard. Making health care unaffordable rations health care based on the
inability to pay - the most inhumane form of rationing, and one that is
uniquely American.

The claim that health care costs will bankrupt the government is a false
claim since we have one of the lowest total tax burdens of all
industrialized nations. A very modest increase in tax revenues would solve
this problem. On the other hand, passing health care costs onto already
financially-strapped employees will surely increase the rate of personal
bankruptcies.

I am especially appalled by Gov. Christie's use of the old standby argument
that patients need "more skin in the game." It creates visions of patients
who are out of money and are forced to turn to their own skin to barter for
the health care that they desperately need - only to learn that skin is not
accepted at banks or currency exchanges.

Potter explains, "What has happened to our health insurance system in particular health insurance part of it is it has become more controlled by Wall Street as companies have converted from nonprofit to for profit status. So you have a system that really is now controlled largely by Wall Street and, in fact, a counter that I've used to those who've said this is a government takeover of the healthcare system is, "No, but what we have had is a corporate takeover of the healthcare system," and it really is that."

In Arizona, a Million for a 'Squirrel Bridge', but None for Transplant Patients

When Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, decided to cut funding for the state's transplant program, she was literally dictating the fate of almost one hundred people awaiting new organs.

A snipet:
Five transplant patients, their families, and a Republican Committeeman from Illinois launched the website arizona98.com, for the 98 patients who had been enrolled in the life-saving organ transplant program. The state saves about $1.36 million by cutting the program, so the group came up with 26 alternative funding sources that would supplant these savings. None of the proposals require new spending or cuts other services.

One of the potential funding sources is a $1.25 million dollar "squirrel bridge" that Arizona tried to implement last year. The bridge was going to save endangered red squirrels and was expected to save five critters a year -- until it received widespread media attention and became the source of national ridicule. The unspent money could go to save the lives of 98 humans.

http://health.change.org/blog/view/i...plant_patients

Think for a minute. If you became unemployed, or your spouse, who is providing your family's insurance, gets layed off, how many of you could not buy insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

The study found that one-fifth to one-half of non-elderly people in the United States have conditions that trigger rejection or higher prices in the individual insurance market, the Post said. They range from cancer to chronic illnesses such as heart disease, asthma and high blood pressure

Up to half in US have pre-existing conditions:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems putting them at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or having to pay more for coverage, according to a U.S. government study reported by the Washington Post on Tuesday.

www.rawstory.com


.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/op...=1&ref=opinion

The key to understanding the G.O.P. analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do.
And it’s not about the money. As I tried to explain in my last column, the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.
Given that their minds were made up from the beginning, top Republicans weren’t interested in and didn’t need any real policy analysis — in fact, they’re basically contemptuous of such analysis, something that shines through in their health care report. All they ever needed or wanted were some numbers and charts to wave at the press, fooling some people into believing that we’re having some kind of rational discussion. We aren’t.

Originally Posted by Poodle

Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be).

Just as an FYI, in the wake of Tucson, according to the GOP health care repealers, the health care bill isn't "job-killing" anymore, it's "job destroying".

Originally Posted by The Rani

Deb, while I think that we agree philosophically on many issues, I really do wish you would stop promoting a culture of fear. In doing so, you only help the insurance and medical industries, which have used fear so effectively to drive up costs and profits. Just step back and think about it, for a minute, if you can.

Fear? Let me tell you about fear. I have a terminal auto-immune liver disease, and eventually, without a transplant, I will die. My husband's job is on the line and so is our health care insurance. While we can buy COBRA, it will not take us to when I turn 65. Thousands of people are in the same or similar boat, without health care, they will suffer and many will die. It happens everyday in our country. Scare tactics? No, it's a reality for far too many.

Until you walk in the shoes of someone with a pre-existing condition who has substandard, or the possibility of no insurance, then you can talk to me about fear.