Universal care

[bodypilot90 0]

guess this lawsuit wasn't needed then.....

.

Quote

One Supreme Court decision may have done more to change health care in Canada than three major reports and a first ministers conference that ended with a $41-billion infusion into the system.

On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

If it was so good why would you need to get more insurance. Makes you think there is a reason!

[billvon 3,120]

>If it was so good why would you need to get more insurance.

Same reason I buy medical evacuation insurance when I travel overseas, even though I have a great medical plan here at work. Not all plans are ideal for all scenarios.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>660 billion per year? The DoD budget is $481.4 billion. The War on Terror is $145.2 billion. Total it doesn't equal $660 billion.

But, Social Security is $608 billion (and in serious trouble, as we all know)
Medicare is $386 billion (and in serious trouble, as we all know)
Medicaid is $209 billion, and in trouble.

That's $1.203 trillion right there in socialism, and for some reason, $1.203 trillion per year just ain't enough, is it?



I meant to write 600 B, but with Iraq spending I'm sure it is 660B/yr. And the social spending we do have is justified, money invested back into people.

So you feel 481B or whatever it is is fine? Several times the next highest spender. Niiiiiiice.


>>>>>>>>>>>>Evidence? Sarkozy. Even the majority of French are sick of the gravy train.

Ok, that's your opinion of one country's uni care.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We don't know that. But historically, take a look at France - unemployment arond 8% is considered great. The last quarter in 2007 was 7.7 percent - a 24 year low. Our unemployment rate in last quarter 2007 - an awful 4.8%.


And GHWB left 7%, so we see it here. I think Fascist Ronnie was up there too. BTW, we just hit 5.5%, not so far from 7% and we have no safety net. Why the fixation with France to represent all European economies? Is that the worst of Western Europe?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yep. Much like transferring a patient from a hospital clears up space. No, it does not. The money is just moved elsewhere.

Right, go to uni care, then tax employers at a higher rate to compensate for their loss of HMO expenditure. I'm sorry, you wanted to keep the money with the rich....my bad.


>>>>>>>>>>>Killing us? Rather, keeping our exports thriving. Everything has costs and benefits. Our currency declines? That makes our goods cheaper abroad, and makes our goods cheaper than foreign goods in the US.

That's like saying I'll lower my staandards and date fat chicks, that way I'll have more to choose from. Currency is traded like a comodity, people have little faith in US currency largely due to our debt and our, rather your president's fiscal policies.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Once people start realizing that a strong dollar has drawback and benefits just like a weak dollar, the big picture will be more evident.

Altho there is some truth to that, 10T debt is no fun. So I guess using your logic we should compete with the Mexican peso so we have work aplenty. No, the Europeans and Canadians have been kicking our ass in regard to currency strength.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you live in the Pacific northwest, where water and trees and pretty plentiful, but good waste storage space is not, paper bags would make a whole lotta sense. If you live the Arizona desert, where water is not plentiful, but there's a whole lot of desert to store waste, then plastic bags may make more sense.


OK, I simply said I could stay and make a change, where does the bag/venue argument enter?

[Lucky... 0]

Military spending:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USMilitarySpending

700B according to this chart.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2008.png


HERE'S ANOTHER:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

But I don't think that includes retirements.

[bodypilot90 0]

CANADA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM -- POOR VALUE FOR YOUR TAX DOLLARS
Canada's taxpayers are not receiving the same sort of value that their counterparts in other nations are when it comes to universally accessible health care insurance, says Nadeem Esmail, of the Fraser Institute.

For example:

Canada has the third most-expensive universal access health insurance system; only Iceland and Switzerland spend more as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) on their universal access health insurance systems than Canada did.
In 2007, waiting lists for access to health care in Canada reached a new all-time high of 18.3 weeks from a general practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist; this wait time is 54 percent longer than the overall wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997.
The number of Canadians without a regular physician is estimated to be around 5 million.
The journal "Health Affairs" recently published a study of six universal access nations, which found:

Canadians were more likely to experience waiting times of more than six months for elective surgery than Australians, German, the Dutch, and New Zealanders, but slightly less likely than patients in the United Kingdom.
Canadians were least likely to wait less than one month for elective surgery.
Canadians were the most likely to wait six days or longer to see a doctor when ill, and were least likely to receive an appointment the same day or the next day.
Access to medical technologies is also relatively poor in Canada:

Canada ranked 13th of 24 nations in terms of MRI machines per million population.
Canada ranked 18th of 24 nations for CT scanners per million population, 7th of 17 for mammographs per million population, and tied for second to last among 20 nations for lithotripters per million population.
Source: Nadeem Esmail, "Canada's Health Care System- Poor Value for Your Tax Dollars," Fraser Institute, June 2008.

For text:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/CanadasHealthCareSystemPoorValueforTaxDollars.pdf

For more on Health Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

CANADA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM -- POOR VALUE FOR YOUR TAX DOLLARS
Canada's taxpayers are not receiving the same sort of value that their counterparts in other nations are when it comes to universally accessible health care insurance, says Nadeem Esmail, of the Fraser Institute.

For example:

Canada has the third most-expensive universal access health insurance system; only Iceland and Switzerland spend more as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) on their universal access health insurance systems than Canada did.
In 2007, waiting lists for access to health care in Canada reached a new all-time high of 18.3 weeks from a general practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist; this wait time is 54 percent longer than the overall wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997.
The number of Canadians without a regular physician is estimated to be around 5 million.
The journal "Health Affairs" recently published a study of six universal access nations, which found:

Canadians were more likely to experience waiting times of more than six months for elective surgery than Australians, German, the Dutch, and New Zealanders, but slightly less likely than patients in the United Kingdom.
Canadians were least likely to wait less than one month for elective surgery.
Canadians were the most likely to wait six days or longer to see a doctor when ill, and were least likely to receive an appointment the same day or the next day.
Access to medical technologies is also relatively poor in Canada:

Canada ranked 13th of 24 nations in terms of MRI machines per million population.
Canada ranked 18th of 24 nations for CT scanners per million population, 7th of 17 for mammographs per million population, and tied for second to last among 20 nations for lithotripters per million population.
Source: Nadeem Esmail, "Canada's Health Care System- Poor Value for Your Tax Dollars," Fraser Institute, June 2008.

For text:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/CanadasHealthCareSystemPoorValueforTaxDollars.pdf

For more on Health Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16

OK, so that is so in some ways. I have recently spoken with Canadian citizens and they don't differ from that a lot, but they do like having it there. Emergency care is great, but referals do take time. As compared to zero, nothing? Come on.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

The WHO claims the world needs uni-care, when will the US figure it out?

I thought the Who wanted to die before they got old.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And the social spending we do have is justified, money invested back into people.

As is the military spending. It keeps people employed. So, by that logic, neither social spending nor military spending are any different. I can actually see that point.

Quote

So you feel 481B or whatever it is is fine? Several times the next highest spender. Niiiiiiice.

No. As a matter of fact I don't think spending money on anythign we cannot afford is sensible. Hence, when there's no money for government healthcare, don't spend money on government healthcare. I think that military spending, like everything except debt repayment, should be cut dramatically. Take 15% off of everything. Use the money saved and put it into debt repayment.

It's why I am not skydiving now. For some reason, I cannot justify leaving my family uninsured just so I can go jumping. Responsibility is strange that way.

Quote

And GHWB left 7%, so we see it here. I think Fascist Ronnie was up there too.

Actually, Ronnie and Congress did do some things right. Perhaps you are too young to remember the "misery index" and "stagflation." Those were left over from the failed policies of LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter. I remember those days. Carter had a peak midery index (Unemployment + Inflation) of 21.98 - in June, 1980 and a low of 12.6 in April, 1978, Reagan had a high of 19.33 in Sept, 1981 and a low of 7.7 in 1986.

Note - It had a low with Clinton's admin in April, 1998 - 5.74 and a high in Jan., 1993 of 10.56.

But GW Bush had it even lower - 5.71 in October, 2006 and a max of 10.5 in June, 2008. So we'll see how this goes.

We have experienced from the mid-1980's through, yes, even the present, unprecedented economic growth. We had hiccups in 1987 (the stock market crash and S&L crisis), 1990-1991 (the Gulf War recession); in 2000-2001 (the dot-com collapse and 9/11 fallout) and now presently.

Quote

Why the fixation with France to represent all European economies?

Because the World Health Organization (the proponent of your link) lists France as doing government healthcare the best, in their subjective opinion. That's why.

Quote

Right, go to uni care, then tax employers at a higher rate to compensate for their loss of HMO expenditure. I'm sorry, you wanted to keep the money with the rich....my bad.

Hmm. Why are you assuming that all employers are "rich?" Is it because you are an employer and rich, therefore all must be? Or is it because you are not an employer, and assume that all employers sleep in mattresses stuffed with hundred dollar bills?

Quote

That's like saying I'll lower my staandards and date fat chicks, that way I'll have more to choose from.

No. That's like saying when something is cheap, the seller is disadvataged and the buyer is advantaged. Conversely, when something is expensive, the seller is advantaged and the buyer is disadvantaged. Thus, a fault with one thing (weak US dollar) means foreign debt increases and the price of foreign goods increases while the price of domestic goods decreases, meaning domestic goods are more competitive.

Quote

10T debt is no fun. So I guess using your logic we should compete with the Mexican peso so we have work aplenty. No, the Europeans and Canadians have been kicking our ass in regard to currency strength.

Indeed! And it's like losing weight. Diet alone won't do it. Exercise alone won't do it. How does one cut debt?

By spending less and paying off more. Your argument seems to be that we need universal health care, despite a ten trillion government debt. I find this to be the functional equivalent of needing a new car despite being on the verge of bankruptcy. Sure, you've got a car already, but you just aren't happy with it.

My argument is that we should be doing none of it. Government doesn't act in an economically responsible manner. Evidence? $10 trillion in debt. You list all of these horrible things the government does. You think it'd be different with healthcare?

Okay - I'll put it this way. Assume we have had "universal health care" since 1994. The Bush Admin has been running it for the last seven years. What do you think would have been done with it?

Do you want to leave your health in the hands of a Republican Administration and have that your only choice? If your answer is "no" then you don't want universal health care.

My answer to that is "NO!"

Quote

OK, I simply said I could stay and make a change, where does the bag/venue argument enter?

It enters because what it best for one ain't best for all. "Universal" means "everyone the same." We all have differences. And frankly, I like to be able to make my choices.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

An entire college education can cost less than sending an adult to prison for six months.

Uh, which college and what gold plated prison are you talking about?

I believe the prison costs are in the ballpark of 40k/year. (Florida was first hit, claims 19k) No one is getting a 4 year degree on 20k, not unless you ignore non tuition costs like food, shelter, etc.

Mine was less than 20k for tuition and I went to a major state university after trasferring 60 credits from CC. Of course sincee your guy has done 8 years of wealth trasfer, tuition has litterally doubled.

"my guy?" sure, whatever.

In my first year of college, tuition was less than 20% of my cost of going to school. Even by the end, with substantial hikes in the UC system, it was still ~30%, and this ignores opportunity cost, which is huge.

The recent hikes in tuition has nothing to do with Bush or Clinton, btw.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The WHO claims the world needs uni-care, when will the US figure it out?

I thought the Who wanted to die before they got old.

Wrong Who....

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The WHO claims the world needs uni-care, when will the US figure it out?

I thought the Who wanted to die before they got old.

Wrong Who....

These guys, perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0XknwXqLDo&feature=related

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>As is the military spending. It keeps people employed. So, by that logic, neither social spending nor military spending are any different. I can actually see that point.


Altho government welfare has similarities with conventional welfare, the differences are:

1) The distribution is governed by corporations, a truely fascist idea

2) The distribution is in large chunks to fewer people, thus benefiting a few people very much, benefiting most people not at all

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No. As a matter of fact I don't think spending money on anythign we cannot afford is sensible. Hence, when there's no money for government healthcare, don't spend money on government healthcare. I think that military spending, like everything except debt repayment, should be cut dramatically. Take 15% off of everything. Use the money saved and put it into debt repayment.


I have never read you decrying military spending. Oh, 15% of 481b, 550b, 700b or whatever the number is in military spending is gonna make a difference? We are fucking times teh #2 spender and we're only 4 1/2% of the world's population, does that not call for drastic cuts?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Actually, Ronnie and Congress did do some things right. Perhaps you are too young to remember the "misery index" and "stagflation."


Yea, Mr Voodoo econmics, did a lot of good things. I served in the military before and during fascist Ronnie, just as you did..... oh wait, you didn't serve, did you? I doubt you and I have a lot of difference in age, nice try at minimizing my knowledge counselor, look up ad hominem, or I'm sure you know what that means.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1990-1991 (the Gulf War recession)


Love that...could it be Fascist Ronnie's economic nightmare comming to fruition? Uh.huh.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hmm. Why are you assuming that all employers are "rich?" Is it because you are an employer and rich, therefore all must be? Or is it because you are not an employer, and assume that all employers sleep in mattresses stuffed with hundred dollar bills?


Because employers generally do well, esp in the US where the laws benefit them. As I was saying, the savings in HMO costs by employers could then be turned into tax increases for them to pay into the uni care pool, which is essentially how it works in most all other indust countries in the world.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No. That's like saying when something is cheap, the seller is disadvataged and the buyer is advantaged. Conversely, when something is expensive, the seller is advantaged and the buyer is disadvantaged. Thus, a fault with one thing (weak US dollar) means foreign debt increases and the price of foreign goods increases while the price of domestic goods decreases, meaning domestic goods are more competitive.


That's true, but you wanna get ahead of the 8 ball. It isn't good to have your currency devalued for too long, just as we've learned that it isn't good to have interest rates too low for too long. If the quality of your products is great, they will carry a good price regardless of exchange rates.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>By spending less and paying off more. Your argument seems to be that we need universal health care, despite a ten trillion government debt. I find this to be the functional equivalent of needing a new car despite being on the verge of bankruptcy. Sure, you've got a car already, but you just aren't happy with it.


We've needed uni care about the time employers were cutting back, fascist Ronnie's era. The debt was low then, so the debt and a sick nation are really not correlated, esp when your party (oh that's right, not your party, just the party you vehemently defend - my bad) advocates more military spending that isn't neccessary.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My argument is that we should be doing none of it. Government doesn't act in an economically responsible manner. Evidence? $10 trillion in debt. You list all of these horrible things the government does. You think it'd be different with healthcare?

UNi care won't be good for the debt, but people's health has to come before that. 30 years of gross military spending with no enemy has to go.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It enters because what it best for one ain't best for all. "Universal" means "everyone the same." We all have differences. And frankly, I like to be able to make my choices.


I think if you have money you should be able to opt out of uni care and even get a credit to upgrade. I, in no way think a person s/b compelled to stick with one method.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

An entire college education can cost less than sending an adult to prison for six months.

Uh, which college and what gold plated prison are you talking about?

I believe the prison costs are in the ballpark of 40k/year. (Florida was first hit, claims 19k) No one is getting a 4 year degree on 20k, not unless you ignore non tuition costs like food, shelter, etc.

Mine was less than 20k for tuition and I went to a major state university after trasferring 60 credits from CC. Of course sincee your guy has done 8 years of wealth trasfer, tuition has litterally doubled.

"my guy?" sure, whatever.

In my first year of college, tuition was less than 20% of my cost of going to school. Even by the end, with substantial hikes in the UC system, it was still ~30%, and this ignores opportunity cost, which is huge.

The recent hikes in tuition has nothing to do with Bush or Clinton, btw.

Right, just coincidence. If I felt like spending the time I would research state and fed appropriations to universities. I'm guessing they fell dramatically after Clinton.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The WHO claims the world needs uni-care, when will the US figure it out?

I thought the Who wanted to die before they got old.

Wrong Who....

These guys, perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0XknwXqLDo&feature=related

I knopw who The Who are, which is why I wrote, "Wrong Who"

[FallingOsh 0]

Why do you use "fascism" as a critical term for repulicans but beg for universal health care?



(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

wouldn't govenrment controled heath care put more power in the hands of the government?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The recent hikes in tuition has nothing to do with Bush or Clinton, btw.

Right, just coincidence. If I felt like spending the time I would research state and fed appropriations to universities. I'm guessing they fell dramatically after Clinton.

It's really going to suck for you if Obama wins and you no longer can blame every bad thing on Bush.

Your guess is a load of crap. Go ahead and check, and you'll find it to be false.

Schools have been growing in expense since the early 80s and a good chunk of it is in new infrastructure/ammenities to attract students.

Add: another sad cause is that many smaller colleges have found that they get more applicants by raising tuition. There is a perception with kids and parents that a place charging less is cheaper for a reason, and not a good one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Why do you use "fascism" as a critical term for repulicans but beg for universal health care?



(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

wouldn't govenrment controled heath care put more power in the hands of the government?

Neo-fascism is largely corporatism; putting corporations in charge of everything - the means of production.

Italian WWII Fascism had more totalitarianism in it, just as with Imperialism then, take over by force, now, take over by monetary influence.

It is neo-fascist to allow corporations to run our lives.

Uni care, as with Socialist nations, is not fascist unless coprorations start to profit too much. Hell, in the US, all of our prisons are corpoarte run, have been for a long time.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The recent hikes in tuition has nothing to do with Bush or Clinton, btw.

Right, just coincidence. If I felt like spending the time I would research state and fed appropriations to universities. I'm guessing they fell dramatically after Clinton.

It's really going to suck for you if Obama wins and you no longer can blame every bad thing on Bush.

Your guess is a load of crap. Go ahead and check, and you'll find it to be false.

Schools have been growing in expense since the early 80s and a good chunk of it is in new infrastructure/ammenities to attract students.

Add: another sad cause is that many smaller colleges have found that they get more applicants by raising tuition. There is a perception with kids and parents that a place charging less is cheaper for a reason, and not a good one.

>>>>>>>>>>>It's really going to suck for you if Obama wins and you no longer can blame every bad thing on Bush.


There is truth to that, but the hysterical thing you wrote was that I could no longer blame Bush when you should have written, "McCain." I'll take my chances tho, even Clinton did things I hated, but mostly liked, so I'll take the few things on the chin and enjoy the rest.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your guess is a load of crap. Go ahead and check, and you'll find it to be false.


And you can go ahead and check your theory and see that it is a load of crap. There are sooooooooooo many coincidences that have have occurred during the worst presidency in US history that it doesn't matter.

My univ tuition rose 20% during 8 years of Clinton, 100% during Bush.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My univ tuition rose 20% during 8 years of Clinton, 100% during Bush.

Mine rose 100% during Bush/Clinton.

For UC, the state financial picture and governor matters a great deal more than the federal picture. For private schools, it's a different set of factors.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Why do you use "fascism" as a critical term for repulicans but beg for universal health care?



(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

wouldn't govenrment controled heath care put more power in the hands of the government?

Neo-fascism is largely corporatism; putting corporations in charge of everything - the means of production.

The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life. I'm pretty sure universal health care would fall under that.

I think you're just shooting off buzzwords to try and make your argument sound reasonable. Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

My univ tuition rose 20% during 8 years of Clinton, 100% during Bush.

Mine rose 100% during Bush/Clinton.

For UC, the state financial picture and governor matters a great deal more than the federal picture. For private schools, it's a different set of factors.

So you won't seperate the increase as I have....OK, not surprised.

What % rose under Clinton, what % under Bush for you, or are you not interested in the truth?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you use "fascism" as a critical term for repulicans but beg for universal health care?



(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

wouldn't govenrment controled heath care put more power in the hands of the government?

Neo-fascism is largely corporatism; putting corporations in charge of everything - the means of production.

The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life. I'm pretty sure universal health care would fall under that.

I think you're just shooting off buzzwords to try and make your argument sound reasonable. Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist.


What took the brilliance so long to emerge? So then Canada is Communist? PURE FUCKING BRILLIANCE!!!! With us or against us, never got a job from a poor guy, better there than here..... any more brilliance you can post to enlighten us all?

What privatized med care does is to empower corporations, businesses. What socialization, universality of care does is to empower the person.... Republicans = fascists.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life.


You mean corporations, not gov.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you use "fascism" as a critical term for repulicans but beg for universal health care?



(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

wouldn't govenrment controled heath care put more power in the hands of the government?

Neo-fascism is largely corporatism; putting corporations in charge of everything - the means of production.

The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life. I'm pretty sure universal health care would fall under that.

I think you're just shooting off buzzwords to try and make your argument sound reasonable. Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism_and_the_United_States


[edit] Fascism and conservatism
One of the many controversies regarding the nature of fascism is its relationship to traditional authority and conservative ideology. Fascists often claimed to defend the social order, traditional values, national culture and civilization itself, against the forces of modernity (particularly liberalism and socialism). At the same time, fascists claimed to offer a radically new approach to politics, and a new form of government that could reshape society.[8] Thus, fascism attempted to be both conservative and radical. Benito Mussolini embraced this superficially-contradictory formulation, saying "I am a reactionary and a revolutionary."[9]

World War I produced a great deal of social change in Europe and led to the dissolution of most traditional monarchies, including the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia. Conservatism, which drew its strongest supporters from the political, economic and intellectual elites in pre-war Europe, found itself in crisis. The established elites in Central and Eastern Europe were weakened or rendered powerless by the introduction of universal suffrage, the collapse of traditional social hierarchies, and the creation of nation-states in place of the old multinational empires. At the same time, many segments of the population - particularly the rural peasantry and the skilled professionals - felt threatened by the prospect of industrialization, increased social mobility or the creation of a welfare state. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, many also felt there was a real possibility that the working class might rise up in a communist insurrection. Normally, those segments of the population would have rallied behind traditional conservatism, but with traditional conservative parties severely weakened in the aftermath of the war, there was a political vacuum on the right.[10]

This political vacuum was filled by the rising fascist movements. They gained power and support from older conservative classes, and in some cases received direct approval from the traditional conservative parties.[11] The conservative British newspaper The Daily Mail published a lead article in 1934 under the title "The Blackshirts have what the Conservatives need".[12] The rise to power of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis was largely funded and supported by aristocratic landlords, wealthy industrialists, army officers, and other groups with strong conservative leanings. The fascists gathered this support by successfully presenting themselves as the last line of defense against liberal democracy, land reform, demilitarization and the collectivization of the means of production. [13] Thus, many traditional conservatives were persuaded that fascism was the only realistic alternative to liberalism and socialism. A French businessman remarked in 1935, "better Hitler than Léon Blum". [14]

Fascism did not rely solely on the support of traditional conservative elites. It was also a mass movement, drawing its rank-and-file members from the general population, particularly the lower middle class, skilled professionals, and the peasantry. Many of these people did not come from conservative backgrounds; some of them had been strongly influenced by classical liberalism.[15] To its voters, fascism presented itself as a form of new and even revolutionary conservatism that could reconcile the interests of the elite with those of the common man. Fascist ideology emphasized the concept of class collaboration, which held that social inequality and hierarchy could be beneficial to rich and poor alike. The fascist model of the corporate state was decidedly different from traditional monarchy, yet claimed to be based on the same fundamental principles.

Adolf Hitler expressed the Nazi view of politics, in 1937, as follows:

“ The main plank in our program is to abolish the liberal concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity, and to substitute for them the Volk community, rooted in the soil and united by the bond of its common blood.[16]

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My univ tuition rose 20% during 8 years of Clinton, 100% during Bush.

Mine rose 100% during Bush/Clinton.

For UC, the state financial picture and governor matters a great deal more than the federal picture. For private schools, it's a different set of factors.

So you won't seperate the increase as I have....OK, not surprised.

What % rose under Clinton, what % under Bush for you, or are you not interested in the truth?

that was a long time ago. I recall the start and end points. My best recollection is that the increases were backloaded, which would be during the Clinton years, but I've already tried to explain to you that this is more about California. In the latter 90s fees were held steady after the 100% gain during my period, largely because the state enjoyed substantial growth during the tech boom, and it was done dealing with the decline in military spending in the state which plagued it in the late 80s and early 90s.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you use "fascism" as a critical term for repulicans but beg for universal health care?



(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

wouldn't govenrment controled heath care put more power in the hands of the government?

Neo-fascism is largely corporatism; putting corporations in charge of everything - the means of production.

The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life. I'm pretty sure universal health care would fall under that.

I think you're just shooting off buzzwords to try and make your argument sound reasonable. Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist.

Another reference:

http://www.virtualcitizens.com/articles/WelcometoNeoFascism

1. Economic fascism is based in a merger of big business and big government. Sometimes, a formal corporatism emerges; other times, the private sector (monopolies and oligopolies) simply pass over into the public sector (as in the US), capturing the state and using it to wage that most profitable of activities: war. This later scenario is what happened in the United States, and the incestuous relationship between Big Business and Big Government ushered in a new Gilded Age of cronyism and corruption. Benito Mussolini was clear: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.”

Third, remind people who use the term “Islamo-Fascism” that the term is historically inaccurate and that the main ingredients of classical fascism – 1) monopoly capitalism; 2) erosion of democracy; and 3) militant nationalism – are coming together in the United States like a Perfect Storm.