Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Healthcare is Communism!

It really is the same ignorant people picking a boogeyman from their childhood to justify their own political hate ideology and classism.


SuiginChou said...

Just remember: they wanted to secede, but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! ;p :)

Anonymous said...

Actually, not communism, socialism. And not real socialism, but soft socialism.

There are only two ways to do things in government (with a broad spectrum in between): institutionalize the care of people, or leave them to their own devices. The more a government institutionalizes taking care of people, the more that government is "socialist." If that is what you believe, don't hide behind the "scare" word "communism," embrace the word socialism. You have a right to the word.

Clearly nationalized (that is, governmentally institutionalized) healthcare is "soft" socialism. Please pardon me if I don't agree with it. I believe, with very few exceptions, the government should leave people to their own devices. Like many, I'm afraid of socialism—even soft socialism—for lots of reasons I won't go into here.

By the way, using racist pictures from the 50s (?) doesn't help your case much. Are you saying anyone against nationalized healthcare is a racist? Sorry, I don't get the connection. I'm of a firm conviction that a handout is as bad for a black person as it is for a white, red, yellow, or green person. It is universally damaging.

Jay said...

I'm saying that those who raise the spectre of communism to scare people about nationalized healthcare are the ideological descendants of the ignorant people in that photo. You sound more temperate and nuanced than the wackos shouting nonsensical epithets at townhall meetings and you seem to understand the difference between socialism and communism, so I don't think my original post is directed at you.

I only hope that this photograph gives pause to the people who would raise their signs and compare healthcare reform to communism or Obama to Hitler.

Anonymous said...

Oh! I see you're connection now. Thanks for clarifying it.

I think rather than ignorance, they are reacting out of fear. And, actually, its quite a rational fear if you think about it—there being an actual relationship between socialism and communism, though I'm not excusing name-calling and irrational behavior, on either side.

I understand their fear. To me there seems to be a clear belief/motive/issue behind the current health-care bill, and the previous "cap and trade" bill, and lots of other government actions, irrespective of party, which has a lot more to do with the government having power and control over people's lives than it does with pollution or medicine or whatever.

The belief/motive/issue is: a deep-seated belief in government—that government is the only or best way to fix problems. To be sure, government is a solution for some things, but many solutions are best effected when the government stays out of the way. There are lots and lots of examples one could look at.

Unfortunately, once a genie like nationalized health care is out of the lamp, it's virtually impossible to put it back in. It becomes one more erosion of my freedom. I'm not convinced that there's not a better way to help people and/or lower medical costs, (lower pollution, etc.). And hence, my and other's fears.

(On a related note, being conservative, I'm getting tired of being called "stupid" (or "ignorant," or, more politely, "uniformed") for no reason than because I believe differently. (Although I do think it kinda funny that people who call me stupid in the same breath accuse conservatives of name calling ;-) !)

Jay, thanks for your thoughtful response. Had you not been willing to rationally explain, I wouldn't have bothered explaining either.



Jay said...

Thanks for your polite comments!

I'm not quite sure how nationalized health care could be considered an erosion of your freedom. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's being pursued to give people, particularly low income people, more freedom in at least 3 ways. 1) by providing affordable insurance 2) by providing an alternative insurance option and 3) by reducing the number of people who must declare bankruptcy due to health expenses.

Jay said...

Same people...

...same nonsense