Artaban
-
Content Count
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Artaban
-
-
complord said:
I said started and support by secular ideals.
And what is the source of the "secular ideals" of which we speak? The French Revolution? I seem to remember a whole lot of people being guillotined during the Reign of Terror (20,000 to 40,000 people, 70% of whom were peasants), including a good number of scientists. There was also that little bit about rounding up priests (by the thousands), tying them to boats, and sinking them all into the river.
Secularism, like religion, is a "pretty big bucket", that includes its own fair share of tragedy, bigotry, and greed. One could even argue that it was secularism which enabled--for the first time--mankind the ability to annihilate the planet. ~Yeah A-Bomb, and the nuclear arsenals (one of which, the USSR's, was purely secular).
-
Stag Lord said:
But Jesus' teachings in scripture are quite clear on this point - we all have a duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and tend to the sick. It is my firm conviction that an enlightened adn compassionate society has an obligation to ensure that it is meeting the needs of its citizens.
Stag, I totally agree. But here's the thing, I think when we just pawn the task off on government, not only is it a more wasteful use of resources, but it destroys that sense of personal involvement and charity that we are called to have as Christians. People say, "it's government's job to care for poor Billy, that's what they take my tax dollars for" and they don't get involved.
I mean honestly, when are you more charitable and generous, when you've got your giving set on "autopilot" and deducted monthly, or when you have to deliberately think about it and give of time and talent?
I insist that it is every individual's duty to help those around them, and that it's bad when we allow government to become the scapegoat. When the brother of one of the faculty members at my grad school racked up a huge medical bill (he didn't have insurance), a bunch of us organized a fundraiser trivia night to help cover costs. The local church donated it's hall and beverages, several businesses donated giftcards and prizes, and the end result was a hall packed with nearly 450 people at $15 entry/person.
There ARE all sorts of things government can do to improve healthcare without taking it over or nudging private companies out of the biz, including that they:
1. Allow competition across state lines. Many forget that it was government legislation that imposed a state-by-state system that led to less competition and greater administrative costs. The state-by-state requirements are sometimes barriers to entry into the market by innovative startups.
2. Require the private companies to allow people to carry insurance from job-to-job at the rate they purchased originally (or near it)--at least for a transitional time period (6 months?).
3. Raise the lifetime limit on coverage to reflect inflation and extended lifespans.
-
CaseyVa said:
1. I love how states' rights are brought out whenever the Democrats are in control...
2. Somehow removing instutitionalist bigotry against homosexuals, which is so clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment as to be comedic, is telling "people they have to publicly accept something contrary to their views. . ." That there is not a deeper appreciation of equal protection and equal rights scares me...
3. Nevermind that all of those other parts of the Bible, you know that New Testament stuff, is basically a Marxist pamphlet.
(Numbers in the above quote inserted by me for the purposes of easing response).
1. Not true. Many people (from myself to conservative commentators) were critical of Bush and the Republicans for their expansion of federal power during their run. While it may be true to say it seems to be more of a concern when Democrats are in power, it would be factually erroneous to claim that it has not been raised repeatedly and publicly under Republicans.
2. I've stated before my belief that the government should never have gotten into the marriage business in the first place--no matter what type of marriage we're talking about. Let individual religious denominations choose who to marry, and if some churches choose to marry homosexuals, I'm not going to get involved. ~Yes, this position is SOOO bigoted
. How dare I say I'm not going to get involved/oppose it if Episcopalians choose to marry homosexuals. I have a deep problem, however, when a government starts fining a denomination for even voicing their beliefs on the issue (as has been done in Canada), and when some go so far as to agitate that a priest/minister CAN BE FORCED to marry two particular people, no matter their faith's teaching or conscience's dictates. ~How dare I oppose the principle of violating someone's conscience rights, and making them a slave. It's just so bigotted of me (sigh).
3. On the "Marxist pamphlet" claim, I'm assuming you're referring to the Pauline demand that "those who do not work should not eat."
FYI, thanks for the encouragement--it's always good to know when one has irritated irrational people
. -
Stag Lord said:
Sometimes I just want to give up. The politics of obstructionism just don't seem to go away...
I'd suggest that the politics of obstructionism used by both parties exists because of the nationalization ("all or nothing" attitude) of power.
I mean really, when a person wants to live in a way you might find crazy or morally objectionable, most people don't care (or even notice) as long as that person lives elsewhere. There is a "live and let live" attitude, for the most part, and if you stay out of my business, I'll stay out of yours. It's when a person's values are threatened within their community, or the contrary belief is forced on them that they become "obstructionist" or hostile.
Take a contentious issue like gay marriage. I submit to you that even people like me (who hold to the Catholic Church's view that it is disordered) wouldn't have a problem with a few states/communities choosing to allow gay marriage--so long as you don't take away my freedom of association or speech on the matter. I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. It's not my business. But when you try and tell people they have to publicly accept something contrary to their views, or provide financial benefits out of their wage, that's when you get 72% of Missourians voting to change the state constitution to recognize only heterosexual marriage.
If you believe government run healthcare would be superior to the current system, move to a state that has it (Mass.), or pass a plan in your state. But then don't cry spilled milk when you find out its cost, as in Massachusetts, "is up to $1.3 billion for 2009, well above the $387 million originally budgeted when it was passed earlier this decade." (Couldn't this horrible budget overrun be another reason people don't trust a state plan? Hmmm....)
-
complord said:
If you don't agree that people have the right to at least basic medical care so that they don't have to worry about accidents out of their control I'm not sure you are morally suited to be in a society. Society is much more than following rules, working and spending.
All countries with single payer health care in the Western world have lower health care costs and better health care overall. Nobody in this thread has denied this yet you keep railing against the solution to our problems. The reason single payer won't pass is because, like has been said in this thread, people don't understand it. I'm not sure how simpler I can make it....
Playing God again, are we, Complord? Where did I ever say people shouldn't receive help for "accidents out of their control"? Didn't you hear me mention a "moral duty" to do what I/we REASONABLY can to help others' health?
And "lower healthcare costs" are easy to come by when your country is less populous, or has a much lower life expectancy. Recall we ARE the third most populous nation on earth, after all.
I'd just point out a little bit of wisdom LiquidIce once mentioned in a thread, and suggest that we not conflate "better health" (of someone in another country) with "better healthcare". Firstly, the term "health" probably means something very different to everyone on this board. One might define it as "quality of life" (and indeed there are people who've foregone good health habits even knowing they shorten their lifespan by doing so--ex. smokers and diabetics who won't change their diets), while another might measure health purely in terms of lifespan. Life expectancy in Cuba is lower than the national U.S. average. Still, some consider Cubans to generally be healthier.
Is that "health" a result of the Cuban medical system, or does a large part of it have to do with the fact that they walk/bike from place to place rather than drive and have a tropical climate that doesn't force them inside to a sedentary lifestyle, as in colder northern climes? Is it heavily influenced by diet? Red meats and lard are almost absent from the Cuban diet, according to one website. Nutrition is a component of health given little relative consideration by Americans. And I'd also echo an observation made by a friend of mine in healthcare...Why is it that most fastfood chains are American in origin, even overseas? Can you think of a popular German or Swedish fastfood chain?
-
Stag Lord said:
You can't have a "pursuit of happiness" if you don't have health...
I just don't get why people are so afraid of a governemnt plan, but they are happy putting their lives in the hands of merciless insurance companies.
Stag, what a very narrow view of human happiness you've exhibited. I must say it stands in direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church, as it elevates health to the status of an ultimate value. The lives of the saints, and great figures of many/most other religions have clearly demonstrated that happiness can be found in the midst of suffering and physical pain. Buddhism is built on the belief that life is pain, yet that pain can be transcended, and is not the be all and end all.
So here we see some of the dysfunction of our culture laid bare...we are a culture that can't handle pain, and it even shows in our medical spending. There is a drug diversion officer that spoke at our school last fall, and he pointed out that 99% of medical painkillers are consumed by the Western world.
I feel sorry for anyone that thinks their happiness is dependent on physical health or "painlessness". They're never going to be happy. I have a medical condition that means I have to deal with pain on average of 3-4 days a week. You get used to it, and it doesn't eclipse the joy I find in most days. I could medicate the discomfort away, but I don't want to run the other health risks (among them chemical dependence) daily pain meds would bring. I take the medication that prevents my joints from deforming, and consider with gratitude that they only cost me $100 every three months. I don't feel entitled to them by any means.
I know some very happy people who are paralyzed or lost limbs.
As for why so many don't trust gov't run healthcare, it could have to do with the current flaws in such systems. Tell me, is your confidence or acceptance of government healthcare based on actual experience with it? Because my wariness does stem from exposure to it.
-
Stag Lord, I'd suggest to you healthcare is not a "right". As another has said:
No health care is a "right," in the sense of intrinsic/basic human rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a moral duty for us to attempt to provide reasonable health as widely and fairly as possible. It is not a "right," nor can it ever be. Health care requires one person to provide a service (which they spent great time, effort, and money to make available) to another person, and often to expose themselves and their families to the risk of lawsuits that can render them and their dependents financially poor. No "right" can require another person to perform a service for you. You have no "right" to another person's skill and labor. If you did, then it would be a right to own a slave.
Claiming a "right" to health care makes slaves of health care professionals (indeed, the party in power has proposed many policies placing demands upon health care professionals). Even worse, socialized health care also enslaves citizens to labor in order to pay for the health care of others and puts the decisions and control over an entire population in the hands of a few people with the power to use force, fines, or imprisonment against you. What better way to exert control than to make every last citizen dependent upon you for their very health and life?
-
complord said:
ktom said:I'm still not sure how a government run option is supposed to drive costs down.The operating costs for Medicare and Medicaid are very low, around 3%. Private insurance companies operating costs are in the high single digits or low teens.Just as a factual aside, the estimated level of fraud in the Medicare system is nearly 20% ($70 BILLION out of the $400 billion annual budget), which may very well have to do with how little oversight ("operating costs") there are to curb such fraud.I'd suggest that people might be inclined to buy into a government plan, and believe the (factually unfounded) claims government can operate within budgetary constraints if the government could first demonstrate that it's capable of lowering costs in its existing systems and providing quality care. As it stands, none of my six family members eligible for VA care (including the M.D. whose medical education was paid for by the Navy) choose government care over their privately held insurance, mainly because they'd rather pay and get immediate consultation than potentially wait weeks for an appointment. -
complord said:
That article is so bipolar. It complains about government, specifically the execute branch, gaining too much power. At the same time it complains that the people want the executive power to gain more power to fix all these problems. I'm not sure what the point is of the article. The article doesn't explain a better way to fix these problems without government involvement or supposed expansion of executive powers which are mostly kept in check by the legislative passing laws. I'm not sure the author knows how a republic works or what a government is for.
There seems to be something in human nature (which some call "original sin") that tends to abrogate responsibility, pass blame, and create idols and false messiahs in the continually vain hope that some ubermensch can solve our problems for us.
My problem with concentrating power in one person's hands is that there are no perfect people, and power does tend to corrupt. As one theologian put it, until absolute power is joined to absolute love, it will only result in harm. One significant reason we're seeing "two Americas" and such vitriolic contention in national politics is that we've departed from the Founders emphasis on balance of power and states rights.
When every political battle is fought at the national level, and is an "all or nothing" situation, it risks causing conflict and intractable stances. The founders intended for pluralism and protected that by allowing each state to serve as a sort of laboratory for social and economic policies. It distributes risk and limits loss, and when you find a model that is successful, then you can apply it nationally. But that's not what we do today.
Either all states have to allow abortion or none do.
Either all permit gay marriage or none do.
Either there is state-run healthcare or private.
What if we allowed individual states to be the ones to test different systems? To take the national approach alone is hideously stupid--similar to saying, "Put all your money in AIG, and no others" or "Let's have one scientific team get all the money to try one approach to curing cancer". If we let the states act as they were intended, we'd have engines of innovation to create new tools for progress (fifty labs exploring fifty different cures for cancer, rather than one federal lab), and we'd limit catastrophic loss (oh, you're okay because you had fifty stocks, and only AIG got hit).
-
Stag Lord, have you abandoned your long held adherence to a balanced government budget, and fiscal responsibility? If I had to judge based on your responses in this thread, I'd be worried for you...
-
LiquidIce said:
Well the stat is about socialism so government employment is a bit irrelevant to what it's measuring. Unless you view government employment as socialism - in which case we should probably just agree to disagree since its just a minor definitional point.
I agree with your overall message & would only add that calls of "socialism" come across as hysterial as well as inaccurate & can obscure a legimitate point about the growing size & reach of government.
LiquidIce, you concede the legitimacy of concern over the growth of government. I assert that you reach a point where such growth does equate to socialism. Can you explain why you don't?
LOB cites 1 in 6 jobs being government jobs the last time he looked. Given current unemployment, and the number of private industries that've folded, even if the government job sector remained at its old level, that proportion would be higher (now slightly more than 1 in 5 jobs according to figures I dredged up in an earlier post). And still government expands. One source says Obama has added 78,000 gov't jobs since he entered office. There've been articles and advertisements concerning how the FBI wants to hire 3,000 new agents or analysts. I almost applied for one of those jobs. Starting FBI pay straight out of the Academy is $41,000+.
One plan for the Census calls for the hiring of 750,000 analysts to go door-to-door, take demographic data, and log your house and assets with their GPS coordinates. Obama's recent initiative to close "tax loopholes" called for the hiring of 800 additional IRS accountants. When I looked up their pay on the gov't job website, it ranged from 70K into the 100ks. But there's one massive demographic we still haven't considered...U.S. prison industries.
There are literally thousands of websites documenting U.S. Prison industries, and several well-known news sources have done minor stories on them. I first encountered them while working for the family business, when I discovered we were (for one customer) competing directly against a prison industry. Now consider the many ways this undermines free market capitalism and private industry.
1. Prisoners producing some of the estimated 150 different goods coming out of prison shops don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Estimates are that they make 20-30% of the private wage equivalent--or about a max of $1.15/hour.
2. Those prisoners aren't allowed to organize in unions or engage in collective bargaining.
3. The industry doesn't have to pay into unemployment funds, into workmen's compensation, (perhaps--I'm not sure on this one) maybe even not into insurance.
4. Medical care is already covered by the standard prison system, so unlike us, they don't pay 50% of the cost of employee healthcare.
5. They have a nearly limitless supply of labor; prisoners are eager to get out of a cell and break the monotony of prison life, so they don't have to compete with other industries (and therefore provide attractive and fair incentives) to win employees.
6. They don't have to be profitable, though they often are for their "CEOs"--at the expense of the prisoners.
Consider also the potential for corruption. Could wardens and those directing the prison industry since the 1950s have a vested interest in keeping an available labor force? Could it be a factor (albeit minor) behind maintaining America's incarceration rate (highest in the developed world)? If a private company did any of these things that government prison industries have been doing for decades, every liberal on this board would be screaming bloody murder. But it's government, and these are only prisoners, so it gets a pass (or is barely mentioned in the media).
LOB also mentioned the recent "Clean Energy"/"Cap and Trade" bill (ACES). Did you know one of the provisions in that bill calls for new inspections of any home going up for sale? Yep, if you don't have energy efficient lighting, windows, insulation, and approved energy star water heaters and furnaces, you won't be allowed to sell your home until you make the required "upgrades". Don't you think that's going to hurt the housing market, or create obstacles for those low income homeowners who most need to sell a home? How many additional government inspectors do you think will need to be hired to inspect each of the 5.4 million (2008) to 7.4 million (2005) homes sold annually?
One more thing. If you have an iPod Touch or iPhone, I'd strongly urge you to download 2 free applications: "US National Debt" and "Capital Calls".
"US National Debt" keeps track of the national debt, and breaks it down into your personal share (currently at $37,000+). It is also updated with news stories concerning government bills and initiatives that are increasing that debt.
The second app, "Capital Calls", is even more fascinating. In addition to giving you the contact information for all our elected officials, you can also examine their campaign contributors (along with amounts contributed), as well as the officials net worth. It's one reason I've advanced the idea that politicians/government workers are the new aristocracy, leeching capital from our system. Clair McCaskill (Dem-MO) is worth between $22-45 million dollars. Her top campaign contributor (Emily's List) has given her over $523,000.
The more power concentrated in government, the more private money is wasted trying to manipulate government to serve private industry. That's one reason Duke Energy (a utility I was considering buying stock in) spent $1.6 million dollars on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. That's obscene, wasteful, and often represents big corporations attempts to squeeze out small businesses by manipulating regulations and standards.
-
It's funny, my summer job is doing security at a Six Flags amusement park, and there are some pretty distinct behaviors I've noticed, that are largely dependent on (but not exclusive to) the ethnicities/"races". I'd read an argument that there is no genetic difference significant enough to justify classifying homo sapiens racially as we do.
It's mostly how cultures choose to express themselves or distinguish themselves from others. Can we call such chosen things stereotypes? I don't know. I'd say 90% of the people I have to ask to conceal their underwear (sagging) are black males. Most blacks don't sag, but of the people who do...
On the other end of the spectrum, my list of "you might be white trash if you..." begins with those who have more tattoos than teeth (and this characteristic extends equally to the white females--to my shame and disgust). The juveniles who most often have to wait until midnight or 1 am to get picked up (park closes at 10 pm) are black, while I have more 3-10 year olds left unattended all day long (in a park with 15,000 strangers) who are white.
Teen and tween males of all races tend to wear their hats askew (gang signs here). There's plenty of craziness and stupidity to go around.
Michael Bay's biggest problem has always been editing out unnecessary crap (the whole hacker subplot in the 1st movie). I take it he continues the trend?
-
I haven't seen it yet, and was curious to hear what people think, especially after the claims of racism. I also read one review that said their were f-bombs all over and a few sex scenes, while another claimed the only "sex scene" was a decepticon dog humping Megan Fox. Can any one set the record straight?
-
Dormouse: More spin and inaccurate characterizations of my position. I'm not a believer in laissez-faire capitalism, as you'd like to believe. I ultimately believe in limited government, personal responsibility, that private charity is more effective than public beauracratic welfare, that government is not the primary party responsible for a person's health, prosperity, happiness (the individual is themself), and that free markets and competition bring about the greatest economic prosperity and liberty. Free markets are not the same as unregulated markets.
Government antitrust acts are good things--they promote one of the core beliefs of capitalism (that competition is good and creates innovation while driving down prices). But it's not government's job to run businesses created by splitting monopolies. Transparency is also a good thing, though the internet makes it so easy for workers to implement themselves one wonders how much government need do to promote it further.
I also believe in the Catholic social principles of subsidiarity and collegiality.
The principle of subsidiarity basically holds that a larger social group should not do what a smaller group can do for itself. The proper route of any intervention is to move up the chain of social associations, not to leap and try and solve every problem with the hammer of federal intervention (essentially what we've done).
One of my problems with those objecting to the socialist label is that they're practicing a deceptive form of politics. Their modus operandi can be summed up with the words, "if you can't convince them (of the truth of your position), confuse them". That's precisely what's going in with the denials that we're heading down the socialist path. Look at Herr dormouse. LiquidIce proposed that socialism was state control of capital. Dormouse objected, saying socialism was nationalization of industries regardless of their actual value. I countered with the testimony of experts (not my own) showing we have nationalized industry/banking, with little regard for value.
Then Dormouse changed his definition of socialism completely, saying it wasn't based on state control, and that it wasn't even properly political. I objected, citing it's political nature in the European countries propped up as earlier examples. Now Dormouse eschews statistics and quantifiable measures completely. He says he can throw around statistics (something like the third time he's made this claim), but fails to do so. I'd give him the advice I give my high school students when they're writing a paper; don't tell me what you're going to do, just do it.
If you don't believe my arguments that we're socialists or nearly so, at least listen to what the socialists are saying themselves:
"The distinctive feature of much of this public discussion of socialism—with some exceptions—is that most admirers and detractors generally share a common (and hollowed out) idea of what socialism is: namely, state intervention in the economy.9 There is good reason for this conclusion: for more than a century socialist parties throughout Europe became parties of government and thus the highest profile expressions of socialist politics. In the U.S., Norman Thomas, the presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in the 1930s and 1940s, argued, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”10
This excerpt is from Eric Ruder's article "What is Socialism?". He is one of the editors of the journal "International Socialist Review" (Ruder is also a longtime contributor to the publication "Socialist Worker".
You may recognize Norman Thomas' name--he's also the guy Sonia Sotomayor chose to quote in her Princeton yearbook spread.
-
dormouse said:
The board, like America is already vastly skewed against your POV so there isn't even the purpose of presenting information to others on this board that may be swayed by your framing and cherry-picked statistics.
If you want to take this as a victory, I'm fine with it. I've got some work to do with getting someone in NY elected. You can speak theory and philosphy all you want but I actually live this stuff. Maybe after the election I'll come back with some stories of how even relative "conservative" voters of an upstate county are more liberal than you and the GOP sees America.
~Ladies and gentlemen, I give you dormouse, a person so singularly qualified he need not cite concrete facts to support his views; he far prefers appeals to his own anecdotal "experience" (unverifiable, and thus irrefutable). So deific is his intelligence and telepathy he can make broad pronouncements about the mindsets and true beliefs of millions on his own authority. I almost feel like Wayne and Garth: "We're not worthy, we're not worthy!"
So what you've finally admitted to us ("I actually live this stuff" and "I've got some work to do getting someone in NY elected") is that from the outset of this discussion you in fact have a lot of self-interest involved. Nice of you to finally come clean on your status as a paid political propagandist. You object to a story showing irresponsibly increasing government wages because you are in fact in bed with government. You object to the argument for a limited government and fiscal responsibility because your whole job is expanding/justifying government.
Well Mr. Mouse, you aren't the only one who's "actually lived this stuff", and as much as I prefer providing facts others can independently research and verify, you're forcing me to counter your reliance on "personal experience" with my own. I was a psychology/political science double major at Vanderbilty University. I've worked in Washington, D.C., and on election campaigns too. I've seen firsthand the inefficiency and inadequacy of government-run healthcare because I worked (in high school) and volunteered (during/after college) at a state-run nursing home {Truman Restorative Center, St. Louis, MO] My weekly volunteerism stopped after they closed the place due to scandal and bankruptcy, and I was ultimately glad to see Truman closed. They butchered, abused, and likely helped kill some friends of mine there.
Here's the difference between us: There came a point in time I stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and started examining the ideologies and positions being pushed.
I have come to my positions after a long and thorough examination of evidence, and as GK Chesterton once put it, a perpetually open mind is a mind that holds nothing; "An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth. Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut." (Illustrated London News. October 10, 1908)...The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
You erroneously paint my informed, reasoned, and factually supported opinion as close-mindedness, and dismiss me because I'm "in the minority". I'm willing to change my mind, but I'm a skeptic by nature, and the preponderance of evidence must support a position before I will adopt it as belief. ~Pardon me for applying scientific principles and verifiability to life.
You've utterly failed to marshal a preponderance of evidence, while the evidence I've provided cuts across all manner of boundaries and criteria (coming from government sources, conservatives, liberals, self-avowed socialists, and those who've lived under socialism).
As for your persistent, telepathic claims about the mindsets of the majority of Americans...If you had any true grasp of philosophical theory (or Constitutional Law, for that matter), you'd realize the foolishness of basing truth on an appeal to majority opinion. At one time the majority of Americans believed in slavery, and by your way of thinking, apparently should still (if the "goodness" of something is based merely on majority opinion). You hold up the "bandwagon effect"--a recognized psychological error (and one that led in no small way to our current financial mess)--as support for socialist tendencies. Didn't your mother warn you against jumping off a cliff just because everyone else is doing it?
I enjoy this board because liberals do tend to congregate here, and some of them are intelligent and sensible (Stag, Rings). I should think that any liberals who valued the presidency of JFK and remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco would understand the error and danger of "groupthink", and value having a dissenting voice. It's why many organizations, including the Israeli government, won't make a decision if there is unanimous agreement on a course of action. They actually make it a responsibility for someone to present a contrarian or dissenting view first.
-
I'll repeat myself...
"I'd like to point out that dormouse's definitions still have given us no measurable criteria by which to judge the "soclalist" nature of a nation. And I still disagree as regards the political apparatus--can you show me a socialist European nation that doesn't have a "socialist party" deeply involved in government? Socialist political parties are all over Europe, and have been around since the mid/late 1800s. How can you then argue socialism isn't a political system (or doesn't require one)? "
Can't answer the question, so you leave the discussion, dormouse? How very enlightened of you
.Maybe if I state it another way, some comrade out there might be able to answer...I challenge someone to give the name of a country considered socialist that got that way without socialists as the political power/party. Define why they're socialist (what is it they do that make them such).
Leninism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, Liberalism...What is an ideology to do when it needs to distance itself from the actions of believers that've resulted in grave evil? Change it's name and attempt to convince the people it's different from "those guys". Is the difference just cosmetic, like having an issue of a comic with one of four different covers? Certainly some differences are significant (whether you achieve the goal by violent revolution or democratic election), but many are not. All the "isms" listed above share so very much in common, like branches from the same tree. Why should one expect their fruit to be different?
To go back a bit, to an earlier part of the discussion concerning the uncontrolled government spending.
dormouse said:
Let's stop and consider the fairness of a report that does not do private versus public sector comparisons of the same jobs. I mean how much does the president earn in comparsion to a Corporate CEO? How much does a Vice President at a fortune 500 company make compared to a Congress person? You'll also notice that they are including benefits such as healthcare and pension plans in that. There was a time when every major company in the US had excellent benefits and a significant number of smaller businesses provided benefits for their full time employees, versus companies like Walmart which will not let non-management work enough hours to qualify as full time in order to not have to provide benefits at all.
I think a credible argument could be made that the public sector has fallen behind as corporate greed has risen, not that public sector jobs have ballooned.
Public vs. Private Comparisons:
1) Education. There are 6.2 million teachers in the country (Census Bureau). The Catholic School system (of which I'm a part) is the second largest in the nation after the public system. Nonetheless, we have around 4 million students, so we're substantially smaller. It’s well known in the Catholic system that we can double our salaries overnight by taking a public school job (some friends have), in spite of Catholic schools often producing better academic results. So in this area of comparison, which accounts for millions of jobs, the Cato Institute’s claim is spot on. BTW, Census says public sector educational jobs will increase 12% between now and 2016 (what was that about how it’s “not that public sector jobs have ballooned”?).
2) Mail Delivery. The U.S. Postal Service employs 800,000 people--more than any other delivery service (UPS, by comparison, employs half that). In 2006 UPS was listed as "among the best places to launch a career", and had salaries between $50,000 and $54,999. See how that stacks up with the U.S. Postal Service wages, and note that even when we’re comparing the best the private sector has to offer with the public sector, private lags behind. Again, in spite of a qualitative difference in service that should suggest an inverse wage situation.
3) Construction/Infrastructure. My brother used to work as a project manager for Beazer Construction, one of the largest construction firms in CO (if not the largest). When he made the jump from private to public sector, not only did he increase his salary 30%, he increased his benefits (Aurora City Water Department treated employees and families to an expense paid week in Vegas--your tax dollars at work). Now that his MBA is completed, he’s looking at government jobs that pay 80K per year. When he lands one, he’ll be pulling in more in a year than my father (who has owned a small business for 20 years).
4) Law enforcement/security. I work a second job as a licensed security officer at pay of $9.40/hour. I know experienced security supervisors at private businesses that make less than 40K a year. Starting salary for FBI is $41,000+. Local police departments are advertising $48K starting salaries. I’m certainly not advocating lower pay for police--I’m more curious as to why the U.S. Postal service is universally making more than them.
These differences cannot be chalked up to a rise in “corporate greed”, because 52% of the GDP of our nation is produced by small businesses, not large corporations. The ranks of the “super-CEO crowd” represent a tiny minority of business owners in our nation, and are disproportionately reported by those members of media bent on fomenting “class struggle” or other agendas. -
Stag Lord said:
Um, no.
Labor unions and the collective bargaining process are weaker than they have been in almost a century. They are far from the check on the excesses of capital then they were in the past.
Certainly an argument can be made that labor unions are weaker. However (and it's my fault for not mentioning them in my last argument), I think the unions have in some ways been superseded by the "class action lawsuit" and other legal measures that can be undertaken by grass roots organizations (similar to unions) and non-profits. To reference something we've discussed before on this board, legal challenges issued by small environmental groups have halted multi-billion dollar industry efforts (tell me again how many nuclear power plants we've built in the last thirty years?).
I'd like to point out that dormouse's definitions still have given us no measurable criteria by which to judge the "soclalist" nature of a nation. And I still disagree as regards the political apparatus--can you show me a socialist European nation that doesn't have a "socialist party" deeply involved in government? Socialist political parties are all over Europe, and have been around since the mid/late 1800s. How can you then argue socialism isn't a political system (or doesn't require one)?
To another issue previously raised, when one examines many of the allegedly "socialist" programs post US Civil War, you see that in reality they entailed the government getting help from private industry, because it was wholly unable to achieve the "centrally planned" objective on its own. Case in point: US railroad system.
I'm going to quote H.W. Brands, (professor of history at Texas A & M, M.A. in liberal studies, M.S. in mathematics, Ph.D in history), from his outline for the "Portable Professor" course, Masters of Enterprise: How the Titans of Business Shaped the U.S. Economy.
"3. Previously, most railroads had been financed by public shares and some state government funds.
4. The solution was for the federal government to get involved, but there was no precedent.
E. The Civil War happened, however, and led to the building of the transcontinental railroad.
III. The Entrance of J.P. Morgan
A. The railroads were overbuilt at this point, and were verging on bankruptcy. ..
B. Wall Street turned to J.P. Morgan for assistance. He was already a major stakeholder in many of the railroads, and he was a respected financier."
Morgan, a private businessman, saved the railroads the government helped build, but bankrupted. Then, in the Panic of 1895 (which ironically served as a major motivation for the creation of the Federal Reserve), it was Morgan again who president Grover Cleveland called on to save the government's cohones. It was the private businessman, not some appointed government czar with little or no business experience (as is happening now) who was given control of the U.S. Treasury. Morgan established deals with European financiers that Brand says, "staunched the bleeding".
I can similarly point to major differences between what may appear to be socialism during WWII and what is being done today. During WWII, while government spending drove the economy, you had a few important things happening.
1) People we're being paid by the government, but the troops overseas and the rationing at home caused all that income to accumulate in savings accounts, so when the boys came back home and actually started spending it, by that time things had reverted back to private industry and free markets. People aren't saving or rationing to any significant degree (still less than 10% from the last study I saw), so we won't see the same economic recovery that took place post-WWII.
2) Government may have been spending rampantly, but that money was going to private corporations producing goods for the government, not to state run industries. That's one reason Howard Hughes got so wealthy, and was accused of being a "war profiteer".
-
dormouse said:
I disagree that socialism is a hotbed for dictatorships. You name modern examples of socialism that descended into dictatorships and I'll match you one for one with those that haven't.
So you're saying socialism results in dictatorships only half of the time. ~What a relief!
dormouse said:
One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control.
I assert that such definitions are ridiculous and illogical. You cannot have a "deliberate and collective" management or control of the economy without a political apparatus. Socialism cannot avoid but be a political system, and socialists the world over have made no attempts at obfuscating such, whether we're talking about the Brits and the Labour party or the various Communist parties in Czechoslovakia, Russia, and China (BTW, I've compiled some quotes from each of those three that show their founders believed they were engaging in construction of a socialist society).
Market capitalism is free of the hubris inherent in thinking a small of group of people, no matter how brilliant, have the ability to manage something as complex as our economy, let alone the economic choices, preferences, and liberties of millions of citizens. The beauty of the markets is that by allowing millions of choices and freely expressed demand to guide the markets, an amazing synergy takes place that transcends the fruits of any effort at centralized, deliberate control (read the classic, "I, Pencil" to get a glimpse of what I mean).
dormouse said:
In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.
Finally, another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to concentrate that number into a smaller amount.
Again, nonsense. Market capitalism's very essence is that there is no one person or group in control or engaged in centralized planning. That's the whole point when the government has broken up monopolies and collusion. Capitalism and the central control of socialism are fundamentally at odds, and diametrically opposed to each other. That is not to say the government shouldn't provide some checks (the Courts), failsafes (FDIC), and regulation of the parties (FDA, Consumer Safety Products Commission) in the market, but it should not subsume industries, as it is currently doing. Labor unions, collective bargaining, muckraking journalism, and the preaching of churches helped early government to reign in the excesses of early laissez-faire capitalism, and if anything, those non-governmental institutions are more powerful than ever (rendering the current government involvement excessive).
"Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it." --Cecil Palmer
-
SiddGames said:
Talk about straw man. USSR, PRC, Cuba, Romania, Yugoslavia - whatever - those were/are all dictatorships and oligarchies, not socialist states despite the name. Let's not confuse true socialism with totalitarianism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.
Siddgames, socialism by its very nature is the most fertile modern ground for dictatorships and oligarchies. You cite five nations where socialism as a process has been attempted and fallen inexorably into dictatorship and abuse, then dismiss them as "straw men"?! Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
I'm frankly amused every time the tired socialist refrain comes out that we can't judge socialism based on the expierences in actual socialist/communist countries, because it doesn't represent "true" socialism, or that "true socialism has never been tried (because we don't have the right people)". "True" socialism is a nice idea, but that's all it will ever be--an idea in someone's head--precisely because that ideology is at odds with basic human nature. The "right people" simply don't exist in this fallen world.
Capitalism at least has the honesty to admit people have things like "self-interest" and "greed", and to try and harness those things to accomplish some good for society as a whole. It's not without it's flaws, and any free market advocate (like myself) will admit that, but then again, we don't expect capitalism to be some sort of god that subsumes all aspects of society, the way a socialist does for their ideology. We expect a series of institutions (fed. gov't, state gov't, courts, media, markets, religions, private businesses, civic organizations) to limit each other's power and compensate for the abuses and shortcomings of the others.
And Bloodycelt, I'm with you on a lot of what you said.
-
dormouse said:
That is the first time you have heard of that web sit and the statistician who runs it? Interesting considering he and it was featured on dozens of broadcast and cable news outlets for the last two elections and showed to be the most accurate (over Gallup, Rasmussen, and Zogby) during that time period. *shrug* Whatever. You can dismiss it if you want but it has already shown a much better understanding of how to gather statistical data and apply it than the Cato Institute.
Oh, and not surprisingly I disagree with most of what you said concerning "means of production" and Socialism. I think if we were to go further down the path of Socialism we'd end up in someting a little more resembling the European democratic socialist countries rather than the authoritarian regimes you put forward. But as I said, and was ignored, we have have had socialist programs since the Civil War. It is not something the American people are even considering moving away from.
Apparently you are very firmly entrenched in your beliefs of the wrong-ness of socialism. Can you give any examples of socialist programs that you consider to be a good and useful thing to our nation?
After investigation, I'm willing to rescind my earlier quick judgment on FiveThirtyEight. I would, however, point out that according to Wikipedia and it's own FAQ, FiveThirtyEight didn't even exist until March 2008, so you're quite wrong in stating it was "featured...for the last two elections". It's only been around for one election cycle. In August I was finishing the closing of a high school, in the middle of a move to a new city, starting a new job, and didn't have television until late November, which may explain why I didn't hear about a blog focusing on the electoral college.
I admire that the two who run the site are willing to admit their support of Barack Obama, and that it may bias their coverage. The people who really scare me are the ones who would like to think they aren't biased in some way.
I wasn't ignoring your (somewhat) accurate claim about socialist programs since the Civil War, I just haven't gotten to addressing it yet. Patience. Perhaps you ascribe too much confidence in my abilities to swiftly and comprehensively respond with data and citation to a plethora of different topics. I do have two jobs, after all
.Yes, I am firmly convinced of the wrong-ness of socialism. I would make a distinction between social programs and socialism (and did so when I suggested several different ways of measuring or defining the "means of production"). The two are very different. I have no problem with certain social programs, so long as they don't become socialism.
If you disagree with me on "means of production", why don't you provide us with some quantifiable/observable standards of your own? Your nebulous statement about "something a little more resembling European democratic socialist countries" is so vague as to be worthless as the basis for a discussion. More detail please. By the way, you might want to check out that MSNBC slideshow I referenced on the world's biggest debtor nations. Many/most of your admired European Socialist countries are on that list, and headed toward economic collapse, and perhaps even the revolts/riots seen in France, because of their socialist nature.
-
dormouse said:
Um, FiveThirtyEight researched a bit into the numbers of the events in all 50 states and came up with a very different figure. 311,460 . This fits with the general consensus of police estimates, unaffiliated reporters, etc. rather than on event organizers who have an obvious reason to over state the actual numbers.
Dormouse, "FiveThirtyEight" (aside from being a source I've never heard of before--probably for very good reasons) posted a seriously flawed estimate of the TEA party attendance. For one, he only included 346 cities, where other sources cite far more (750 Wikipedia, NorthShoreJournal cited a smaller number at 250 parties, but got a much larger attendance of 478,820 all the same). Of the four different sources cited here, your vaunted FiveThirtyEight cited by far the lowest attendance.
Consider the additional bias in only counting "major cities and state capitols", as Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight's statistician) admits; large cities tend to be more liberal than the rest of America, so of course his number would be skewed downward. Local radio hosts in St. Louis and Washington MO were advertising TEA party gatherings at several local Bar/Grill locations, which of course were not recorded in many/any tallies. I'm sure the same was true across the country. And I'm sure others were like myself in not being able to attend, though we agree with the core protest against excessive gov't intrusion in our lives.
I could go on, but I'll end my criticism of your summary dismissal of the TEA parties as a "fringe" protest by a minority "without traction" with a 2009 Rasmussen poll from April 20th. In spite of the unfavorable media coverage of the events, the attempts to misrepresent attendees and paint them as racists and crazies, 51% of Americans viewed the TEA parties Favorably, with 32% viewing them Very Favorably. Those who were "unsure" accounted for 15%, and those unfavorably disposed to them came in at 33%. More from the report:
"...the nation’s Political Class has a much dimmer view—just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.
One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class."
I'm kinda thinking it'd be **** nigh impossible for one-in-four to know someone who attended just five days after the event if a mere 300,000 turned out. And the fact that the numbers for the "political class" were so out of line with those from the rest of America just strengthens my argument that the government is the New Aristocracy.
-
SiddGames said:
I'm just a simple cave man. Your modern ways frighten and confuse me. But, what do banks and investment institutions have to do with "government control of the means of production?" Banks don't actually produce anything... yeah, sure, capital, but I'd prefer a tighter definition of socialism for the purposes of the discussion, then.
Siddgames, I'm assuming this statement was sarcasm, but minus our ~ I wonder. Do you really need/want an explanation of the role of banks and capital in private enterprise and production?
There's a lot I'd like to respond to from subsequent posts, and I'll have to be piecemeal in doing so...
As for a tighter definition of socialism, there are a number of ways one could go about defining it. One could look at how it expressed itself in the PRC, USSR, and elsewhere, and see if there is congruence with what is happening now in the US. When I have an opportunity to visit my parents' place and ransack some of my old textbooks from my days at Vanderbilt U., I'll give you some sources you can consult yourself to make such comparisons.
I'd point out two of the hallmarks of socialism in the USSR and PRC were government run healthcare and transfer of wealth to the government worker/party member. The report from CNN about government salaries (which I will show as credible in spite of dormouse's objections--in my next post) I feel is evidence of a strong move in that very same direction. Socialism/Marxism sought to end class struggle and disparity in wages, but every time it's been attempted it has merely resulted in a government class replacing the previous class of wealthy individuals. They concentrate wealth and power in their hands, and the people spend the next twenty to sixty years trying to get out from under their oppression.
Government elitism is vastly more dangerous than having a wealthy group of business owners for several reasons. The privately wealthy have often become so by contributing to society in some way (Bill Gates with the personal computer, private philanthropy, etc.). Additionally, personal business rivalries lead to those independent individuals serving as rivals, and therefore checks and balances against each other (think Microsoft vs. Apple). Government elitism tends far more towards monopoly/collusion and exploitation, and results in a fewer liberties and more lasting and entrenched oppression.
There seems to be consensus on this board that there are many aspects of our current government and society that are socialist--the point of contention being whether their measure and scope is such that they make us “socialists”. Just as important as defining socialism is knowing where the “tipping point” is...when is the momentum such, the rapidity of changes so great, that there is no stopping the course of things, no matter how much we may want to reverse course. When is it too late to undo the changes and the subsequent damage? I think we’re getting there, if we aren’t there already.
But I digress...how to define socialism and the “means of production”...
It seems to me there are at least four ways to define “means of production”:
1) Capital (money+credit) is the “means of production”, as it determines what gets bought, whether a would-be entrepreneur can secure the backing to make his product or innovation a reality, etc. Government involvement (think Fed. and interest rates) doesn’t necessarily constitute control, but over-involvement would. Given the controlling interest government now possesses in major banking institutions (see my earlier post on page 1), by this definition the argument can be made we’re socialists or nearly thus.
2) The labor force is the “means of production”, as people (rather than robots) are still the entity causing the actual creation of goods and services. The more people doing government jobs, the fewer in private enterprise, the fewer innovating. In the past ten months we've crossed the threshold of having 25% of the total labor pool employed by the government. Several bills up for voting would appropriate even more people for government work (Obama's “tax-loophole” legislation would call for 800+ new IRS officials, the FBI is hiring 3,000 to deal with the extra work caused by the bailouts, and any Universal Healthcare would add a million+).
When do we become “socialists”? Only when everyone is employed by the government? I think it comes far sooner. When the government is the single largest employer in the nation? That happened a while ago. When the 50/50 split has been reached?
3) Logged work-time is the “means of production”. This definition is admittedly the fuzziest, but is somewhat easily measured by determining your tax bracket. If you are in the 25% and work a 40 hour week, you spend ten hours a week effectively working for the government. Ironically, those in higher tax brackets spend more time working for the government (so when people want to argue government pay shouldn’t be compared to private pay because of what CEOs make, they forget those CEOs spend a third or more of their time effectively working for the government).I'm not for abolishing taxes--a citizen who benefits from the fruits of his or her society should contribute to it in the form of some sort of taxes. But when taxes become overbearing (just wait for my post on "Stealth Taxes"), well, that caused our Founding Fathers to revolt, didn't it?
4) Finally, one can measure whether a country is socialist if the GDP of said country is essentially committed to paying government debt. By this measure, there is absolutely no doubt that we live in a socialist nation, because, as reported by CNBC, in Q3 of 2008 debt stood at 95.09% of our annual GDP. Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/Hell, according to this chart, government spending (without accounting for debt) alone has already exceeded 40% of our GDP. Examine what's happened to countries that've persisted on that route. I don't see any shining economic powers on that list. There is a reason China's rate of GDP growth corresponded to their adoption of capitalist and free market principles.
The above is actually a tame estimation of our debt, as using more comprehensive economic measurements has led many economists to rate our debt much higher.
Here’s an excerpt from “Economics: Principles, Applications, and Tools, 5th edition” (2007, by O’Sullivan, Sheffrin, and Perez)
“ Economists have developed a more comprehensive measure of a nation’s indebtedness. The method includes estimating the present value of the gap between ?the government’s revenues and expenditures and adding it to the current national debt. The “fiscal imbalance” was calculated in 2003 to be approximately $44 trillion, or four times GDP.During World War II, government debt was only 1.2 times GDP.
Problem: No one will lend the U.S. government that amount of money. Economists estimate that about 80 percent of the fiscal imbalance will stem from Medicare.”
-
dormouse said:
I went through about 75 or so of those pages... they all seem to be quoting or stating as fact the same source, one which appears to several years old... not that that excuses such behavior, but with over 400 sources on the internet and it bing what appears to be 4-5 years old I'm not sure why you are surprised it is not in the media. As to why it wasn't before... *shrug* it was the Bush era, their press conferences were notorious for giving little information about anything happening in Gitmo good or bad. It would also explain why my friends hadn't heard anything about it during their deployment, the one that was stationed there the earliest was in 2006.
Hold on one second...they DON'T just quote or state "as fact the same source". In the three or four articles I read, numerous military personnel were directly named and quoted as confirming the contents of the report. I'm inclined to take them at their word, and they would be considered credible primary sources in the field of journalism. Same goes for the named former detainee who also confirmed the attacks, and the senators from C-SPAN who served as secondary sources because they visited and spoke to troops.
My disagreement with the proportion and scope of media coverage pertains to the relative quantities of attacks versus incidents of waterboarding. Three detainees waterboarded should not result (as it has) in tens of thousands of stories, when there were only 400 or so reports concerning hundreds of physical attacks (sometimes 20 in a day) by detainees that were clearly made against far more than 3 U.S. MPs.
I would be interested in finding out why your friends serving at Gitmo haven't had similar experiences. Is it that they actually have, but a military gag order has been placed on them? Is it because there has been a procedural change to the running of the prison that has eliminated most opportunities for such attacks? Are they stationed at a post where detainees are incapable of attacking them so?
I don't have the answers to those questions. All I do know is that I first learned about the attacks on U.S. guards at Gitmo not through any of those articles I've referenced, but through interviews of military personnel on local St. Louis radio from 2006 all the way into 2008 (it is, of course, far harder to provide those for you to verify yourself). Those interviews took place on radio stations 1120 AM and 97.1 PM. A 2008 interview with Col. Gordon Cucullu led me to believe the attacks and cell phone threats were ongoing.
-
~Oh, you're right dormouse, there is no traction out there concerning fears of socialism. We'll just forget about the 1.5+ million that turned out for the TEA parties across the nation on a weekday night (no, I was not one of them). However you feel about Glenn Beck (yes, I think some of his stuff is way off base), he does have the third largest radio audience in America.
I guess we'll just see with the next election cycle, won't we? If Obama and the Dems are doing right, many of those 59.948 million who voted for McCain will switch parties, won't they?
I'd urge you to check out this video from CNN, that gives more weight to my fears that government expansion and spending will kill the economy.
"That (3.9% increase) brought the average paycheck for a federal worker up to a little more than $72,000 (per year) versus about $38,000 for the private sector."
It's interesting that Dobb's reaction to the story was to say, "That's the stuff of revolutions, I believe."
What are your thoughts on that?
US Health Care reform
in 8. AGoT Off Topic
Posted
Complord, the Roman Catholic leadership has not denied the Holocaust ever happened. You might want to watch a Gregory Peck movie called "The Scarlet and the Black"--the true story of how the Church set up a vast underground network to smuggle refugees and other individuals being persecuted by the Nazis to safety. They did this at great risk, while the SS was essentially laying siege to the Vatican City and waiting for a pretense to exercise martial law over it.
1. There's no contradiction in my statement. Where did I ever say anything along the lines of "let the individual states manage healthcare"?
Nowhere. I really can't figure you out; is it that you are persisting in a relentless effort to put words in my mouth and distort my position, or do you really lack the ability to understand a basic sentence?
I did say I believe the citizens of a state have the right to collectively decide to create a healthcare system in their state--not because I believe it would be beneficial, but because I believe in democracy. That's an entirely different thing from providing an endorsement of state managed healthcare in itself (something I have not and would not give).
2. Again, you seem unable to hold the thread of a single argument in your head. COBRA is not synonymous with my proposal in #2, because, as you pointed out, its cost is far above the normal insurance premium from a person's previous job. Reread my statement: "Require the private companies to allow people to carry insurance from job-to-job at the rate they purchased originally (or near it)--at least for a transitional time period (6 months?)"
Stated in other words, for the feebleminded, if I am paying a $60/month insurance premium, then lose my job, rather than having to pay a vastly inflated premium with COBRA ($200? $400?), my proposal is that I should be able to pay $60-$70 (a 10% increase seems very fair) for a period of time until I've obtained a new job.
But let's back the train up for a second. You thought COBRA was "very expensive" and found the experience with it "humiliating". So what you're saying is that you were unhappy with COBRA (the acronym for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, a 1986 federal law), which was an example of the gov't stepping in to try and improve healthcare, and yet you trust the government to get things right this time around. I think we all know the old adage about stupidity...
And FYI, under federal law, what you were paying for COBRA was equal to your premium cost before, it's just that instead of the company you worked for picking up the lion's share of the cost, you were now paying your part of the premium, theirs, and potentially a 2% administrative fee. My family's small business had to move from paying the entire premium to only paying 50% in 2005, when the cost to provide health insurance for our oldest employee rose to $817/month. Your experience with COBRA should make you sympathetic to the incredible burdens private businesses have been shouldering on behalf of their workers.