Socialists for gun rights

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Thought this was interesting--

Gun-Control & Workers’ Militias: How Socialists Views the Issues

by Gary Bills / May 2007 issue of Socialist Action Newspaper

After a horrific gun crime like the one at Virginia Tech, it is inevitable that many people start calling for gun control. At such times, it is important that socialists weigh in on this debate.

Socialists would love to see a society free of violence—but we live today in a world steeped in violence. We believe that the fountainhead of violence is the ruling class, which must resort to force and violence to maintain its minority rule. They seek a monopoly on that force and violence.

Socialists see “guns†as an important issue but as a secondary one when seeking tools for social change. Throughout U.S. history it has been massive, action-oriented social movements that have served as the real mechanism for the defense of the oppressed—and such movements are generally designed to be peaceful, as a necessity.

In the future, however—as happened in certain periods of extreme social crisis in the past—the oppressed will most likely need access to guns for defense, since the ruling class can be counted on to use all manner of violence to prevent any revolutionary change that would mean their overthrow. Socialists believe in the inalienable right of exploited and oppressed people to self-defense “by any means necessary,†as Malcolm X put it.

Quite understandably, the ruling class really wants “gun controls.†But the overwhelming majority of those who express the desire for gun controls, as reflected in the media, are liberals—including people who hold progressive positions on many other social issues.

Nevertheless, the changes they want to see put them squarely up against the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment was the product of revolutionary times. Because of the fight against British domination that was undertaken by local militias, as well as the popular Revolutionary Army, the issues around guns and who wielded them were keenly honed.

The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We can note two items in this amendment that are compatible with the thinking of socialists. The first is that of an undiluted right of the people to have access to arms and to use them. The second is the principle of the people in arms as a militia.

This second principle is the one the gun controllers always screw up. Being a little legalistic for a moment, we can see that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is supposedly in consequence of the need for a "well regulated militia," necessary for the "security of a free State."

Liberals pounce on this interpretation to say, "See, citizens do not have a right to keep and bear arms unless they are part of a "well regulated militia!" Socialists reply, "Fine! Let’s take a real look at what constituted a militia, well regulated or not, in the revolutionary times that shaped the Second Amendment!"

As you read the Second Amendment, you may be struck by the clumsy wording of it. It’s clumsy because it is the product of many committees. There was an intense debate over this Amendment —as there was over the Constitution as a whole. This debate reflected a terrific clash of competing class interests involving the wealthy merchants, large landowners and slaveholders, small farmers, urban craftspeople, and others in the early republic.

The class structure of the United States in the late 1700s was much different than it is today. Only about 5 percent of the population consisted of wage labor, whereas today it is upwards of 90 percent. The colonial ideal was to be your own boss and have your own farm.

Among small property owners, farmers in their huge mass, there was a rough equality, which led to a measure of democracy. It followed, therefore, if an armed force needed to be mustered to meet a threat, the armed force would have a democratic character. This was the character of a true citizens’ militia.

However, those with more means and ambitions, the emerging ruling elite, kept pushing for the formation of a coercive force to further their interests. They wanted to collect taxes for the repayment of the public debt incurred during the Revolutionary War, debt which they held, and for "public works"; they wanted to protect their property; they wanted to mediate all manner of commercial conflicts. In short, they wanted governmental power and coercive power that they controlled!

Howard Zinn, in his "Peoples' History of the United States," has a great section that talks about how the urban interests, through tax courts, would form armed bodies to go into the countryside to shake down the small farmers. The small farmers weren't too happy about this and mustered to form militias to confront the tax courts’ armed bands. Shays’s Rebellion took place when one of these ad hoc militias even went into Boston.

Shays’s Rebellion

Daniel P. Shays had been a captain in the Revolutionary Army. He was motivated to form a rebellious militia when he and other local leaders were angered by the tax courts’ seizure of small farms and the throwing of small debtors into prison.

Taxes were supposed to be paid in money, but the economy of central and western Massachusetts at the time was a barter economy. If a farm was seized, the farmer lost his right to vote, leaving him no political way to fight back. Many small farmers like Shays knew the injustices done to them were coming from urban, eastern, rich speculators led by Massachusetts Gov. James Bowdoin.

Shays’s Rebellion shut down the tax courts in a number of towns and the movement spread throughout the state. Militias called up by Bowdoin and his backers refused to fight Shays’s forces or failed even to muster.

Meanwhile, anti-Shays forces throughout the colonies misrepresented the grievances and aims of the rebels, claiming they were radicals, inflationists, levelers who were out to cheat their creditors and redistribute property. Shays’s forces, which were popular, volunteer forces, were finally defeated when Governor Bowdoin and Boston-area bankers paid 4400 thugs to attack them with weapons of war, such as artillery.

Guerrilla warfare against the rich went on for a while as Shays and other leaders of the rebellion sought sanctuary in other states. But the rebels had the last laugh as supporters of the rebellion were later elected to office, such as John Hancock as governor, and they were given amnesty.

Popular rebellions like this deeply terrified the rich elites, and they started to demand federal armed forces that could suppress small farmers or any other group of citizens that challenged their growing power and wealth. George Washington was especially alarmed, and he and others used their influence to push for a new Constitution to supercede the Articles of Confederation.

But there was no way that the Constitution—which had its advantages for uniting and streamlining a growing new nation, at least commercially—would be accepted by the population without a Bill of Rights attached to it that spelled out protections for citizens against their government.

High on the list of rights the public wanted to protect was the right to keep and bear arms, a right they already believed they possessed by common law and by some state constitutions. The best the privileged interests could do was to try to moderate that right with the phrase in the Second Amendment about a "well regulated militia."

The common understanding about the character of a militia at the time was that it was composed of ordinary citizens who voted on their "mission," to use a current term, and was "officered by men chosen from among themselves," as James Madison noted. It had nothing in common with the National Guard and the standing armed forces of today.

"Well regulated" did not mean that the democratic character of a citizens’ militia could be regulated right out of it for the class purposes of the rich!

Armed force against workers

A question for the liberal gun controllers of today is this: why don’t you want guns? Sure you don’t want guns in the hands of individuals who might threaten you, but why do you feel you have nothing to fear from the armed powers of the state?

Randi Rhodes, a prominent talk-show host on the liberal radio network Air America, has stated that she believes guns belong in the hands of the police powers of the state. She says that the National Guard is the militia that the Second Amendment speaks of.

Rhodes evidently does not recognize in those armed powers the ultimate class power of the ruling rich, which has often used force to defeat strikes and other struggles of the labor movement. Many workers have died at the hands of the police, the National Guard, the Army and privately hired goons.

Sometimes this use of violence by the state and employers has backfired badly; the result has been like pouring gasoline on a fire. Workers come to the defense of other workers instinctively, and under certain conditions they see the necessity of taking up arms for their self-protection, unlike Rhodes.

The ruling class has made a quiet determination to allow workers to have small arms and to accept the ugliness of gun crime if the working class will refrain from asking for democratic militias for defense—instead of the National Guard and standing armies, set up to maintain the capitalist state and to fight its wars abroad.

Meanwhile, liberal gun controllers continue to whine about gun violence on a small scale while refusing to demand democratic control of the huge forces of force and violence that carry out U.S. foreign policy and that can be used against us domestically at any time if the ruling class only dares.

[Chief07]

Idiot!

[Guest Muttling]

Show me one established socialist government in modern history that has upheld a right to bear arms. Heck, show me one that has not implemented severe gun control.

[GKar]

It's cyclic - those in control wil oft favor some form/fashion of gun control, just as they will certain forms of economic maneuvering, as long as it serves to concentrate or solidify the postion of "those in power". And, just as cyclically, those seeking power will oppose gun control, as to do so resists those efforts to centralize and maintain the status quo. As previously socialist regimes found themselves elevated to positions of power, the shoe quickly moved to the other foot, and that for which they so idyllically fought became a threat.

That is what makes the Constitutional declaration rather unique: it seeks to establish and ratify RKBA from a position of power, rather than from one of wanting to overturn that power. And also explains why that same right is so oft squarely in the crosshairs of those who thrive on an ever-increasing government role in our lives.

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

Which side tips the balance and gets up against the wall with nowhere to go? Hmmmm.

[towerclimber37]

I can't believe that this drivel wasn't taken down.

TGO is really slipping.

[Guest Hyaloid]

I can't believe that this drivel wasn't taken down.

TGO is really slipping.

There's no need for that.

I have said this before, and I'll say it here for your benefit.

This sub-forum is designed for ALL of our members. It is designed to foster friendly debate of political issues facing our country. It IS NOT here so we can pat each other on the back and tell each other how great we are when we agree on everything.

Do I agree with the article? Nope.

Do I think it adds value to the national discussion? Yes I do.

It certainly brings more in than you saying "TGO is slipping". If you don't have anything productive to say, then please keep your opinion to yourself.

You are free to post in whichever subforums you want, but as long as I am a moderator here in this sub-forum, I am going to insist that you either contribute something valuable to the discussion at hand, or go on your merry way, and post in the areas where you can contribute something worthwhile.

[Good_Steward]

Sounds like the soothing sounds of every other Socialist government. We don't want to take ANYTHING away. We want to GIVE you everything. I'm sorry, but in a socialist government, you are promised everything, including the moon and stars, and when the suckers go all in, it starts. Why would you possibly need a firearm to defend yourself? We have you covered! Need a job? Why don't you work for us? blah blah blah. The best thing for everyone to do is listen to their common sense, and not let the Castros, Hitlers, etc etc etc etc of the world smooth talk you into buying their special brand of BS.

[Punisher84]

It certainly brings more in than you saying "TGO is slipping". If you don't have anything productive to say, then please keep your opinion to yourself.

You are free to post in whichever subforums you want, but as long as I am a moderator here in this sub-forum, I am going to insist that you either contribute something valuable to the discussion at hand, or go on your merry way, and post in the areas where you can contribute something worthwhile.

You know I think it's funny you're going to stand up for Ralph's opinion, who has proven himself time and time again as nothing more than a reaction seeker, but then you're going to basically tell another member, who IMO has been far more productive, to shut up.

Nice man hypocrisy much? You know I get your point, but honestly you've been a little trigger happy lately on locking threads and running other members down. That's just my opinion, I'm sure you won't like it.

[leroy]

You know I think it's funny you're going to stand up for Ralph's opinion, who has proven himself time and time again as nothing more than a reaction seeker, but then you're going to basically tell another member, who IMO has been far more productive, to shut up.

Nice man hypocrisy much? You know I get your point, but honestly you've been a little trigger happy lately on locking threads and running other members down. That's just my opinion, I'm sure you won't like it.

....but as long as I am a moderator here in this sub-forum, I am going to insist that you either contribute something valuable to the discussion at hand, or go on your merry way, and post in the areas where you can contribute something worthwhile. ....

For what it's worth; I never interrupt someone when he is making a fool of himself or throwing a momentary tantrum; which some do (me included) on a regular basis. My advice on "moderator monitoring and intervention (read meddling)" is to meddle when the hostile name calling commences and the "discussion" degenerates to name-calling only; with no debate points being made --- even then, do it sparingly -- you are dealing with men old enough to be your dad and young enough to be your brother; treat them as such; not as a domineering teacher would treat a petulent child. Let the discussion here be a "friendly debate" (which it is called) and let the occasional personal jab pass; It doesnt hurt anything. We are all adults (most of the time, anyway...).

Punisher has a point. I would lighten up if i wuz you. The folks who post here are not enemies; nor are they children (most of the time anyway...). Let the occasional tantrun pass. If it is real good; grade it and have a laugh.

That's how i see things this evening thru my 63 year old bespeckled eyes here in east tennessee. Take it for what it's worth.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Guest Hyaloid]

You know I think it's funny you're going to stand up for Ralph's opinion, who has proven himself time and time again as nothing more than a reaction seeker, but then you're going to basically tell another member, who IMO has been far more productive, to shut up.

Nice man hypocrisy much? You know I get your point, but honestly you've been a little trigger happy lately on locking threads and running other members down. That's just my opinion, I'm sure you won't like it.

Far more angering to me are the proven forum members who cannot, or will not abide by VERY SIMPLE rules, and force me to come to the defense of a poster whom I wholeheartedly disagree with on nearly every one of his posts.

I will refer you all to the following in the Code of Conduct:

Maintain a good fellowship with others.

Members should treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves. Name calling, flame posts, racial slurs, and other insulting remarks meant to cause conflict will not be tolerated. You should always try to maintain good fellowship with the other members of this community and

be respectful to your fellow shooting enthusiasts whether they are new shooters or seasoned veterans.

Debate is welcome and encouraged, but you must always stick to attacking the issues rather than the person or profession.

Personal attacks, and name calling, serve no purpose in the exchange and debate of good information.

Keep in mind that in life there is no guarantee that others will agree with your thoughts or comments.

You absolutely must try to handle disagreements, criticisms or opposing viewpoints with tact and maturity.

Furthermore from TGO David

HERE

Everyone is welcome on TGO regardless of political party affiliation or personal beliefs, so long as they play by the rules. Trolling or otherwise posting inflammatory content meant to insult, cause division or turmoil will not be tolerated. Persons who do this will be removed from the forum.

I take personal offense at the notion that "TGO is really slipping" from a seasoned member who should really know better, when it is he who is acting in direct opposition to the spirit of the forum.

I have tried to be as even handed as I can possibly be, and tried to allow BOTH sides of debates be heard, and not drowned out by the vocal majority.

I may have come down a bit harder on this recently, because I am sick and tired of sounding like a damned broken record. It really isn't difficult to follow the simple rules. Many of the posters on here have done a WONDERFUL job of destroying the arguments presented from certain members, and they have done so with logic, fact and obvious regard to truth and history.

Additionally, I am not "sticking up for his opinion", I am sticking up for him being able to post this in THIS forum which is DESIGNED for this type of debate.

I'll tell you what, I have received quite a few PMs actually THANKING me for intervening and insisting on civility. I am sorry if that offends your desire to thump your chest and proclaim yourself the only correct point of view. There have been several threads that were continued and were extraordinarily productive once the personal attacks were stopped, and both sides had a chance to state their arguments....otherwise they were well on their way to the trash bin.

Tell you what, I am not going to continue down this road in a public venue. If you'd like, take it to PM with me.

[TGO David]

Civility on the part of all involved in debate here on TGO is not just requested, it is demanded. As long as the issues are the only things being attacked, all is well. When members begin attacking members, the moderators have to intervene.

If you feel that a person is simply trolling for a reaction, shut them down by refusing to participate in the thread or reply to their remarks. When you do this you not only remove fuel for the fire, but you also make it very obvious to the forum administration who is here to cause strife and who is here to engage in intelligent exchange of opinion.

The people who are here just to cause strife will be removed. But (!!!) do not presume that just because a person holds an opinion that is 180-degrees out from that of the majority will be removed just because they are rubbing people's fur the wrong way. They have to be guilty of trying to incite unrest by purely trolling for reactions before I will remove them.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, wrong as they may be in some cases.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

It's cyclic - those in control wil oft favor some form/fashion of gun control, just as they will certain forms of economic maneuvering, as long as it serves to concentrate or solidify the postion of "those in power". And, just as cyclically, those seeking power will oppose gun control, as to do so resists those efforts to centralize and maintain the status quo. As previously socialist regimes found themselves elevated to positions of power, the shoe quickly moved to the other foot, and that for which they so idyllically fought became a threat.

That is what makes the Constitutional declaration rather unique: it seeks to establish and ratify RKBA from a position of power, rather than from one of wanting to overturn that power. And also explains why that same right is so oft squarely in the crosshairs of those who thrive on an ever-increasing government role in our lives.

I agree....things political tend to be cyclic--one reason I find the panic on the the right about things Obama might do...real or imagined, to be pretty amusing. If for example he gets healthcare with a public option and it proves to be a failure we have the option in this wonderful country to change course.

The thing I found particularly interesting about the socialist article is their rather vehement criticism of liberals. Few conservatives these days differentiate between liberals and socialists. There is a big difference, as socialists will tell you.

[TGO David]

I agree....things political tend to be cyclic--one reason I find the panic on the the right about things Obama might do...real or imagined, to be pretty amusing. If for example he gets healthcare with a public option and it proves to be a failure we have the option in this wonderful country to change course.

The thing I found particularly interesting about the socialist article is their rather vehement criticism of liberals. Few conservatives these days differentiate between liberals and socialists. There is a big difference, as socialists will tell you.

I'm curious as to whether you, a musician by trade, have any practical experience within the medical industry other than as a patient, or if your apparent favor toward a socialized medicine program stems solely from the perspective of a consumer thinking it would be great to have Mother Government meet all of your health care needs.

Half of my household works in the health care industry and I can assure you that the prospect of socialized medicine doesn't look quite so rosy from our perspective. Not because it would jeopardize our financial solvency, but because we actually do have some practical insight on how the system will change and it's going to SUCK for the patient.

[Worriedman]

Back to point. Here is another great Socialist's thoughts on gun ownership:

"Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless." --Vladimir Ilich Lenin

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

And another:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolf Hitler, 1935

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."(Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY))

Another vaunted opinion:

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."(Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party)

And a couple of home grown ideas that match the above:

We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." (President Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A)

Ideas somewhat different from those of our Founders. The proverbial camel's nose under the tent skirt will lead to the ultimate loss of all individual Rights, not just those associated with the 2nd Amendment. By definition, Socialist hate individual Rights.

[Good_Steward]

If for example he gets healthcare with a public option and it proves to be a failure we have the option in this wonderful country to change course.

Then why are we considered (insert popular leftist slur here) by trying to keep it from happening in the first place? Why give it the chance to fail when the vast majority of Americans don't even want it anyway? I, for one, want as little government intervention as possible in all aspects of my life.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Good_Steward

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

I'm curious as to whether you, a musician by trade, have any practical experience within the medical industry other than as a patient, or if your apparent favor toward a socialized medicine program stems solely from the perspective of a consumer thinking it would be great to have Mother Government meet all of your health care needs.

Half of my household works in the health care industry and I can assure you that the prospect of socialized medicine doesn't look quite so rosy from our perspective. Not because it would jeopardize our financial solvency, but because we actually do have some practical insight on how the system will change and it's going to SUCK for the patient.

Considering the Hippocratic oath, patients' experiences should be important. Without patients there would be no healthcare industry. I doubt that Hippocrates would have delighted at the prospect of medicine being referred to as an "industry." That gets to the heart of the problem--people seeking to get rich on the misery of others. I find that morally questionable, particularly considering the success of non-profit healthcare institutions like Mayo. Don't mean to hammer you....what is your family's involvement in healthcare? I'm sure they do good work and believe in what they do. I just fail to see what the danger is in the proposals likely to be passed--requiring insurers to sell to everyone...even with pre-existing conditions, and prohibiting them from dropping you if you get sick--providing a public option. Please explain how those things would make things worse for consumers.

Best,

Ralph

[Guest Hyaloid]

Worriredman:

Just an aside, but I believe the first Hitler "quote" has been proven 'false'...

Link

The "Hitler" Quote That Wouldn't Die: "1935 Will Go Down In History!"

"This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

---Falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler, "Abschied vom Hessenland!" ["Farewell to Hessia!"], ['Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation)], April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann [introduction by Eberhard Beckmann].

This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date given (*in alternate versions, the words "This year..." are replaced by "1935..." has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been a need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect. The Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938. The citation usually given for this quote is a jumbled mess, and has only three major clues from which to work. The first is the date, which does not correspond (even approximately) to a date on which Hitler made a public speech, and a check of the texts of Hitler's speeches does not reveal a quotation resembling this (which is easily understandable when you realize that "Hitler" is commenting on a non-existent law). The second clue is the newspaper reference, which if translated into German resembles the title of a newspaper called Berliner Tageblatt, and a check of the issue for that date reveals that the page and column references given are to the arts and culture page! No Hitler speech appears in the pages of Berliner Tageblatt on that date, or dates close to it, because there was no such speech to report.

Finally, the citation includes a proper name "Eberhard Beckmann," which is sometimes cited as "by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann," which is an important clue itself, because it reveals that the citation was fabricated by someone who had so little knowledge of the German language that they were unaware that "Einleitung" isn't the fellow's first name! The only "Eberhard Beckmann" which has been uncovered thus far did indeed write introductions, but he was a journalist for a German broadcasting company after WWII, and he wrote several introductions to photography books, one of which was photos of the German state of Hesse (or Hessia), which may be the source of the curious phrase "Abschied vom Hessenland!" which appears in the citation. This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud.

[GunCite note: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a gun rights group, acknowledges the quote as bogus in the second item of their FAQ.]

I now return you to your regular scheduled debate...

[TGO David]

Worriedman, the Hitler quote is actually a pretty well documented fake.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

If for example he gets healthcare with a public option and it proves to be a failure we have the option in this wonderful country to change course.

Then why are we considered (insert popular leftist slur here) by trying to keep it from happening in the first place? Why give it the chance to fail when the vast majority of Americans don't even want it anyway? I, for one, want as little government intervention as possible in all aspects of my life.

Because the current system is a disaster, and is financially unsustainable.

The vast majority of Americans agree with that and that something has to be done. You really trust med insurance bean counters more than the government where your family's health is concerned? That's your right, but don't expect me or the majority of Americans who want healthcare reform to go along. Ain't happening.

[TGO David]

Considering the Hippocratic oath, patients' experiences should be important. Without patients there would be no healthcare industry. I doubt that Hippocrates would have delighted at the prospect of medicine being referred to as an "industry."

I'm going to pirate some music tonight just for you. Only because I'm sure that God feels it's a shame that the human ability to produce music is considered an "industry".

[TGO David]

Because the current system is a disaster, and is financially unsustainable.

The vast majority of Americans agree with that and that something has to be done. You really trust med insurance bean counters more than the government where your family's health is concerned? That's your right, but don't expect me or the majority of Americans who want healthcare reform to go along. Ain't happening.

Did I miss where there is documented, irrefutable, unbiased proof provided by a disinterested third party that unequivocally bears forth that the MAJORITY of Americans want health care reform?

I'll concede that most people think that the health insurance companies need to be better regulated, but I won't concede that health care needs to be improved, nor will I concede that Americans do not have universal access to health care at a very basic level.

[strickj]

Half of my household works in the health care industry and I can assure you that the prospect of socialized medicine doesn't look quite so rosy from our perspective. Not because it would jeopardize our financial solvency, but because we actually do have some practical insight on how the system will change and it's going to SUCK for the patient.

Well,from someone thats been ****ed for a few million dollars from our "great" health care,I can tell you that it cant possibly get any worse for patients.

If for example he gets healthcare with a public option and it proves to be a failure we have the option in this wonderful country to change course.

Because the current system is a disaster, and is financially unsustainable.

The vast majority of Americans agree with that and that something has to be done. You really trust med insurance bean counters more than the government where your family's health is concerned? That's your right, but don't expect me or the majority of Americans who want healthcare reform to go along. Ain't happening.

From someone who's been on both sides of it (ins from private,and through SS) I can say without a doubt that the ins bean counters are far worse.

The amount I pay for ins from SS is about what I would pay if I could get private ins,the only difference is I actually get to use the insurance I have now,because some great multi-million dollar bean counter isn't telling me I cant

[TGO David]

Well,from someone thats been ****ed for a few million dollars from our "great" health care,I can tell you that it cant possibly get any worse for patients.

So your complaint with health insurance rather than health care. Just to be clear, because there are two totally different worlds in the health services industry. You have the providers and then you have the companies who are making serious bank off of what the providers do for their patients.

Doctors aren't paid nearly as much as most people think, especially if you divide their salaries by the number of hours they work. The people who are getting fat and wealthy from the efforts of doctors, nurses, etc. are the companies that employ them and to a much greater degree the insurance companies.

Edited September 29, 2009 by TGO David

[Rightwinger]

Considering the Hippocratic oath, patients' experiences should be important. Without patients there would be no healthcare industry. I doubt that Hippocrates would have delighted at the prospect of medicine being referred to as an "industry." That gets to the heart of the problem--people seeking to get rich on the misery of others. I find that morally questionable, particularly considering the success of non-profit healthcare institutions like Mayo. Don't mean to hammer you....what is your family's involvement in healthcare? I'm sure they do good work and believe in what they do. I just fail to see what the danger is in the proposals likely to be passed--requiring insurers to sell to everyone...even with pre-existing conditions, and prohibiting them from dropping you if you get sick--providing a public option. Please explain how those things would make things worse for consumers.

Best,

Ralph

Ralph even you should know that non profit only means that costs and payouts are monitored in a different manner than purely for profit entities. The chief department heads at Mayo are compensated for their knowledge at a much higher rate than your regional hospital staff that is run for profit! It's just at the end of the year how the numbers and where the payments came from that make the difference.

I'm sure we all need food to survive and water. So should truck drivers all drive for rates that will make all food stuffs available for everyone at low costs subsidized by taxes? I'll take filet three times a week please! The water department should not charge me to hydrate myself should they? I could die without water in only a few days! How dare they withhold or charge for live giving water!

What happens is the market determines the price and people receive compensation to deliver these services and goods. Econ 101 right? Well when you alter those basic principles you kill the good or service. We have seen it in many industries. When government takes over healthcare, your brightest and best will no longer have the incentive to take on these unforgiving jobs. So now you have govt bureaucrats managing the mediocre. A sure solution of success.

Its being tried in many countries around the world. If I want to surf, I move to Hawaii, no oceans in TN. If I want to do ice exploration as a passion, I have to go way north or way south. If someone wants to experiment with Socialistic ideals, opportunity abounds, no need to go through all this trouble to change us hard headed individuals. Rates are cheap to get around the world. Think of it as that summer after graduation knocking around Europe or China. See exciting places and cultures that live as you would want to live.....don't hold back....live Ralph...LIVE!