10 Things You Must Believe to Oppose Universal Health Care

[AlphaFrog]

I flat-out have a problem with anyone telling me that "to believe X, you must believe Y". No, I don't. Kind of like my history teacher telling me that it's impossible to be against abortion, but for the death penalty - no it's not, because that's what I believe in.

Not to mention that most of those points are silly, extreme examples of ridiculous propaganda. Just because we know the drug companies are screwing us on prices, doesn't mean we want to throw a bureaucrat into that mix.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I flat-out have a problem with anyone telling me that "to believe X, you must believe Y". No, I don't. Kind of like my history teacher telling me that it's impossible to be against abortion, but for the death penalty - no it's not, because that's what I believe in.

Not to mention that most of those points are silly, extreme examples of ridiculous propaganda. Just because we know the drug companies are screwing us on prices, doesn't mean we want to throw a bureaucrat into that mix.

Exactly.

And the scary part of this silliness is, someone out there in the world read this like they were reading the 10 commandments.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

A rather simple definition of fascism would be the marriage between corporations and the state. To force individuals to purchase a certain thing from a certain industry is the epitome of this marriage. I don't decry anything as something...unless it is. And it is. It fits the simple definition. Granted it doesn't show as much totalitarianism as Mussolini's fascism, of course. But it's fascist.

No, it's not, and that's not at all a simple definition of fascism.

A simple definition of fascism might be one that comes from a dictionary: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Or one drawn from political science, like this one:

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004

The simple hallmarks of fascism are authoritarian and totalitarian-single party states with a nationalistic obsession. What you call the "marriage" between corporations and state isn't necessarily an end in itself but is a means to achieving complete control (authoritarianism/totalitarianism) for the nationalistic purposes. And interestingly with regard to the use of fascism in this instance, one other standard hallmark of fascism is anti-liberalism.

Even if I grant that "marriage between corporations and state" is the simple hallmark of fascism, by your definition all 50 states are already fascist to the extent they require anyone owning a vehicle to purchase auto insurance from the insurance industry. Ditto the federal government and FICA.

Whether you agree with the health care bill or not, this just doesn't come close to fascism.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Not to mention that most of those points are silly, extreme examples of ridiculous propaganda.

This unfortunately has become standard political "discourse." If someone disagrees with you (the generic you) on something you feel really strongly about, it can't be because reasonable and well-meaning people can come to different conclusions about what is best. No, it has to be because they are socialists, Marxists, fascists, anti-american, elitists . . . .

As George Orwell said about fascism:

"It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Even if I grant that "marriage between corporations and state" is the simple hallmark of fascism, by your definition all 50 states are already fascist to the extent they require anyone owning a vehicle to purchase auto insurance from the insurance industry. Ditto the federal government and FICA.

But they don't require that you buy/own a car. Operating a car is a privilege and not a right. We are now for the first time requiring the public to buy a product from a vendor. FICA is, in reality, just another tax for a government service.

The problem as I see it is that there is a limit to what we as a nation can afford to do. Just where does this stop. We seem to be more than willing to have the government supply to us all the commodities/conveniences that our lives merit. At what point is it incumbent on us (the individual) to meet our own needs. There has to be a limit to entitlements. Why not housing, food and clothing? How about cars and transportation?

If we do not get our spending under control we will have to print money, as was done during the Weimar Republic. to meet our obligations. If so, inflation will hit us with a vengence and the poor will be disproportionaltely hurt.

At what point will working cease to be worthwhile and we all decide to go on the government dole? There are costs for everything and only so much of other peoples money that can be confiscated. I see no end to what many of us Americans will accept as an entitlement because the perception is that it doesn't cost us anything.