[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Does that mean only you get to have national health insurance but we in the US should give up on it? Because I'd hate for millions of people to be without healthcare just because you need something to jump on.

Roger,

I earn about 20K a year. IF the US were to establish free healthcare for everyone, how much would that take out of my paycheck? I already have what I consider to be ridiculous amounts of money being taken out for this and that.

What I'm worried about is: let's say I can get free healthcare, because this policy was initiated. But, if I get too much more taken out of my paycheck, sure, I'll have free healthcare, but I'll be living in my car.

Also, I'm as healthy as an ox, and don't require a lot of medical help, except for emergencies, like my ulcers. Will I be paying the same amount in taxes as someone who has all kinds of health issues and needs constant medical aid? Would that be fair to me?

How's this all gonna work?

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by John Riley

Anyone who thinks the idea that governments should take an interest in the well being of the citizens it governs is dead is in for a surprise sooner than later. That how society operates should be dictated by institutions other than the only institution selected by the governed is a destructive idea. That's why those who benefit from it, who want a society in which they are free to profit with no concern for the public good, have to resort to more and more desperate ways to maintain this status quo. If Trump is proof of one thing it is of how desperate the political party in the U.S. most charged with diverting people's attention from the general welfare so a few can have more of the benefits the nation accrues has become. That Trump is the level of sick buffoonery they have had to sink to in order to continue is the best evidence possible that this phase of their duplicity is about to come to an end. Trump and the other racist right leaders emerging around the world are proof it isn't socialism that is about to die.

My only response to that, is that Trump is not a racist. He may well be a complete idiot, but he's not a racist. John, use your intelligence and see what is happening in US universities. You cannot for a minute think that bashing heads and starting fires is the answer TO: A person who is on the Right and whose opinions do not conform with the ultra-LEFT mentality that is being taught? DO YOU honestly believe that smashing property and bashing heads is the CORRECT answer to the sad, absurd administration that sits in the White House?

Bill

[William A. Baurle]

Hey john savoie,

Care to elaborate on your post #14?

[John Whitworth]

Orwell in Spain was an anarchist. His two great books put the boot into Socialism. It is true that he called himself a socialist but trust the tale not the teller.

I said nothing at all about the NHS, Roger. Taken in te round it is a good system, but not Socialist in any particular way. Tories are not planning to do away with it, whatever lefties may say.

[Roger Slater]

In the political discourse in the US, the NHS would most certainly be called "socialist" by most people, especially the right, and if single-payer healthcare for all isn't considered "socialist," then you find very, very few socialists in the US.

[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

Orwell in Spain was an anarchist. His two great books put the boot into Socialism.

I would have said that he put the boot not into socialism, but totalitarianism, especially the variety disguising itself as 'communism'. Americans seem to confuse socialism with so-called communism, but you surely know better.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

Orwell fought with the POUM, a communist though anti-Stalinist group, in Spain. The POUM did have many anarchist members because back then people actually knew what those terms meant, had some rudimentary feel for the theories, and understood the common ground beneath the various permutations of socialism as well as the common ground beneath the totalitarian States of the day. Plus what Brian said. Plus Orwell would punch this thread in the eye.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

Then again, maybe that is the answer. Strip all actions of their ideological designations and make words like socialism so empty of content that they are abandoned. Then force people to vote based on what is actually being proposed without connections to their "teams". Universal healthcare, regulations based on deep ecology, and a guaranteed living wage would be secured on the first ballot if things were simply explained without the mystification necessary to exchange them for what we have been accepting for decades.

[John Riley]

My only response to that, is that Trump is not a racist.

There are tapes of Trump on the Howard Stern show saying that he thinks blacks are more prone to violence. His behavior in the Central Park rape case was motivated by clear racism. He didn't even deny it. And the topper of course was his clearly racially motivated leadership on the bogus birther conspiracy. That would have been impossible to pull off on a white president. To not be able to see how much race has motivated Trump astounds me. It's impossible to take anything else said seriously.

In addition, this thread started with Charles Murray who has staked his reputation on his claim that he's proven blacks have lower IQs than whites. Regardless of how many times his faulty reasoning is pointed out he clings to it. It's shabby thinking to say that although this is a horrible human being you can't mention that but what about these people. It's like the old joke: "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the theater tonight?"

Trump is a stone cold racist. His Nazi and Klan followers know that as do his supporters in the Congress. The only difference is the Nazi and Klan supporters are honest enough to admit it in public.

[Jim Moonan]

At the very least he's (Trump) a racist enabler -- or worse: a cold, calculating, amoral, greedy opportunist who sees racists as a voting block and capitalizes on them. Just as abhorrent is that he is an insidious misogynist. A narcissistic chauvinist. A bully.

Politically speaking he's treasonous. He is the manifestation of what has been evolving in the extreme right wing of the republican party for years. As Sir Isaac said, "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” -- Enter the stupefying, idiotic extreme left wing of the democratic party.

Btw, Sir Isaac Newton said lots of great things apropos to this conversation. Here are a few:

“Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.” (Trump are you listening?)

and
“You have to make the rules, not follow them” (sounds like Trump)

and
“I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people.” (Ah, there’s the rub)

I'm with Bill. Who will go to the middle with us?