Zieveraar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. That would be selfish. But that's not why conservatives oppose socialized medicine.
I've yet to hear a single valid reason why socialized medicine is not a good thing.
Then you are either not listening to what conservatives actually say or have decided that their views are automatically invalid. Not sure which, but
here's an article on the subject. Yes, Joph. It's from the "Free Republic" website (derogatorily called "freepers" by those on the left). Again. I just did a google search for "conservative reasons to oppose socialized medicine" and this was the first non-issue specific page I ran into.
While there is a bit of snark in there, you'll note that he espouses the *exact* same arguments I have for years about what rights are, how they operate in a society, and how providing goods and services isn't actually providing a right.
Do you need me to punch the search keys for you? Is it really that hard for you to go out and find out for yourself why people oppose socialized medicine? Or is it just easier to assume that your own reasons for supporting it are "good", so therefore any reason to oppose it must be "bad"? What's the saying about a mind being like a parachute? Perhaps if you open yourself to alternative viewpoints you might just find that other people have very good reasons for arriving at different conclusions than you do.
Quote:
The only definition that would seem to fit the whole idea of "socialism" as some Americans see it, and are supported in thinking this by a fair amount of politicians would be communism, not any other idea whatsoever, no transition at all.
Um... Whatever. All I did was show two things:
1. That the author of the article was doing exactly what he accused others of doing (playing with the meaning of a label to support his own position).
2. That according to a pretty standard source for definitions, what Obama supports in terms of health care reform does match the definition of "socialist".
If you want to use different labels, you're free to do so. Let's call an ideology that desires to put the government in control of the means of production and distribution of goods "Frank". That's the new label "Frank". Well, guess what? Obama wants us to adopt the "Frank" agenda.
See how the label doesn't matter? It's what he's doing that people oppose. They don't want the government pushing private payers out of the health care market. That is what the Dem's proposal will do. Thus, they oppose it. Doesn't matter what we call that. It's what they oppose and it's what the Dems want. Thus, they are correct in their opposition. Everything else is just obfuscation of the issue.
Quote:
You can argue just what part of socialism this whole health program exactly is, it isn't seen as such nor argued against it as such. Politicians tend to score best with simplicity I suppose.
Doesn't matter. The things that the Dems want to do are what most Americans oppose. What we call it doesn't matter. Do you see that?