?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Crazy People

theferrett started a fire in his blog recently by posting that he agreed with an article written by a concervative critising liberals.

Now I won't talk about the term liberal more than I already have, except to say this: Don't call anyone in the US left-wing. Please. The Democrats are, much like The Labour Party, still to the right of center in any political graph you care to draw. There is no such thing as a mainstream left-wing party in the US or UK. They are just more left than the right wing party.

Having said that -- I agree with the Ferret, the article is good. It shows how many stupid people there are on all sides.

Notice I said all -- This is not a two sided issue. There is not just two sides to chose from, you can disagree with both mainstream sides in politics and guess what? You can still be right. The point is more that extremism, whoever it is, is retarded.

The moment you say, mentally or otherwise, this is what is right because it is what I believe is right, and everyone else must be wrong: You're an idiot. You lose debating privilages. It doesn't matter if you thump a bible or call Rush Limbaugh worse than Hitler. You're an idiot, you are hurting your "side" and you are ignoring the posibility that you could be wrong, mis-informed, or just plain dumb.

There aren't two sides, stop acting like there are. I'm no more left-wing than I am right, and have views in both arenas, but I've been called a "liberal" before now. It is these people, be their religious right wing, or democratic liberal tree huggers that are dangerous -- not because they are wrong, but because they refuse to accept that they could be.

Comments

darkcryst
21st Apr, 2005 23:30 (UTC)
I wouldn't really call them mainstream, but point taken. It is a rather broad generalisation I admit.

However they aren't THAT left. Most of their policies are "left" but are only radically left compared to the other parties. Compared to the UK Green Party they are right wing ;)

Of cource that might explain why our Green Party's record number of seats is... one.
sisiphus
21st Apr, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
I consider Socialism to be radically left no matter what the composition of the mainstream parties in a nation (except, I guess, Russia). Our Greens are not just environmentalists, but totally full-blown socialists, at least on our college campus.
darkcryst
21st Apr, 2005 23:37 (UTC)
I think that might be mostly college. The Green Party people at my Uni were rabid (I nearly typed rabbit, theres a wierd image) sociallists too. The Green Party here tho isn't. Its more socialist than the others (well.. other than The Socialist Party), but not full blown.

From reading up on the Greens there they seem similar, not total socialists, but with some socialist policies.

Then again the fact we have government health care is seen as rampantly socialist by some people in the states... so it could be a perception issue.
sisiphus
21st Apr, 2005 23:58 (UTC)
The issue of socialized healthcare has many facets to it in the States. Being on a little island in the Big Pond, you don't have the influx of illegal immigrants that we do. They receive services, usually without paying for them, and do not funnel tax dollars back into the system from which they take. The intelligentsia on both sides of the debate have conceded that discussing a viable socialized healthcare plan is impossible until we can rectify the illegal immigrant problem, especially in the Southwestern states. Even if the illegals coming into the country do work and are not sucking up tax-payer resources in the form of welfare, WIC, free daycare, and prison incarceration, they are not subject to the annual income tax.

I am suspect of socialized healthcare for many reasons, but one of them is that Canadians on the border often come into the States in order to get the operations that they can not get because their system inteferes with the law of supply and demand.

Then there is the socialized healthcare that does exist for the poor and the eldery in our country. The poor (in my state) get this green card and even if a mother's kid has a sniffle, they take an ambulance to the emergency room of the hospital. The eldery get every single prescription paid for and then some. It has gotten to the point that there is no healthcare in this country, but sick care. Take my father for instance: he has a great insurance plan through his work, but instead of lowering his cholesterol by watching his diet, he was taking this med that caused him to have a neurological problem which affected his ability to walk. It took them forever to figure out what the deal was. Now he can't be on any cholestoral-reducing prescription and does watch his diet, but there are millions of citizens out there who take these pills as a one-stop solution, and it sucks up all of this tax-payer money. It's insane.

Personally, I don't really understand the whole deal about socialized medicine, but I am very conservative, so I am sure you can intimate my views. I have terrible allergies which result in asthma attacks, bronchitis about twice a year, walking pneunomia about once every other year, and sinusitis six to seven times a year. I am allergic to almost everything under the sun, so if I get sick, I pay $50 to go see the doctor, then pay another $100 for a course of antibiotics, and I am definately on a budget. If I can manage, I do not understand why it is argued that basic healthcare needs to be extended to every single citizen. We are a nation that does not save, but lives paycheck to paycheck, and I think that's where the mentality of entitlement comes from, that and the huge sums of credit card debt.

I know nothing about the socialized healthcare system in the UK, but I do know that the one in Canada is going top-heavy and many regions are without doctors because they just don't get paid enough for the work they do.

I would be curious to hear your opinion on socialized healthcare and would like to know how it works in the UK, if you feel like it. I don't usually get so political in another person's journal, especially someone I just discovered from a random comment in the customers_suck community, but you haven't torn my head off so far...
darkcryst
22nd Apr, 2005 00:11 (UTC)
Er.. we totally do have the same problem with imigrants. Man you wouldn't believe it. Its not the imigrants that are the problem -- its how a system deals with them. Poor imigration handling isn't an argument for or against a national health service, neither is a mis-managed one, its just an argument for better management.

As far as the US-Canada thing goes, I know a lot of Americans go to Canada for cheap meds. So it works both ways. I'm not sure how their system is set up, so I can't comment on the supply and demand issue, except that it seems to work here pretty damn well, for the most part. Its not perfect, but then again no system is.

Most of the issues you present sound like under-funding, and poor managment.

The US conservative view on health care is in interesting, and mostly closed door to me actually. Aside from "not good" I don't know the specifics. As to UK healthcare, I can tell you that there is not exactly a shortage of doctors, but it is more lucrative for doctors to specialise and so, in this way, privatised health care is actually bad for the country as a whole. Top-heavy I assume means too much red tape and management, we still have that, but it is lessening. Just about.

It IS a big drain on the government, but if they were to remove it there would be a revolt and, aside from education and immigration, healthcare is usually one of the top election issues (and we have one on May 5th.. fun *groan*).

Never fear getting political, or opinionated, its funny actually -- I was jsut writing a post about that. As long as people don't get crazy, and are rational I don't mind. Even just agreeing to disagree is fine :)

Overall my opinion is this tho: Its a good thing, if run properly. However it needs a system that supports it.