To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
I'll have everyone know that Down with Tyranny has set up an ActBlue page for you to pledge your support to the members of the Progressive Caucus that have taken a stand: no public option means that no bill will pass the House.
Or would you rather make the claim that H.R. 3200 establishes "death panels," which I'm going to guess you also know is untrue?
Tell you what: if you really want constructive dialog, why don't you write a diary detailing exactly what it is that you don't like about H.R. 3200, as well as the parts you do like about the bill? Maybe Rep. Pingree will answer your concerns.
And more importantly, if you really wanted to speak to Rep. Pingree in person, why haven't you made any attempt to go to the myriad public events in the district over the last several months?
Do you only attend meetings in the month of August? Only when instructed by your radio?
Socialism: An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Source: www.Dictionary.com
I answered your question below: your question is a straw man, a rhetorical tactic used to change the subject to a more favorable topic.
The definition of socialism will be relevant only when someone actually proposes socialism or socialist policies in this country. Has that happened? If so, where? When? Tell me now or stop trolling.
[ps. Thanks for playing.]
Have you read ANY of the bill? Or are you simply regurgitating the talking points you've read at other sites.
Discussion of topics is encouraged here at Dirigo Blue, but so far from you all I've read is unfounded bullshit, and when you've been challenged on that, you don't even bother to defend that bullshit.
Which is fine.
But you'll soon find yourself ignored - the worst thing - unless you actually bring some meat to the table.
So bring it. Bring your ideas, supported by facts, and then let's discuss them.
This is not to be confused with regulations ensuring public safety of products and services, many of which come about because of lack of self discipline of manufacturers.
Do I think the government should dictate what sort of vehicles, if any, a person owns? No. Do I think the government should influence that decision by placing taxes on some vehicles to promote the public interest? Yes. Placing a tax on vehicles that have low mpg ratings would be an example (or increasing the fuel tax further).
I acknowledge that "free" markets play an important role in how things work (I put the quotes there because such markets do not exist). It is when society determines that every member has equal access to a product or service that the free market fails - it's geared to provide to those that can afford to pay, automatically leaving out those that cannot. This works fine for cell phones, cars, fashion, etc. It doesn't work for fire protection, basic education, health care.
Markets are actually MORE efficient and fair when they are properly regulated. That's because even a small player has a chance to succeed if the playing field is level.
The public option is just that: an option. A government-run health insurance plan. Any American who chooses not to use it is free to do so.
Most importantly, your definition says that in socialism "cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity". That is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what has been proposed. The public option is a new competitor that the private health insurance companies must compete with. That IS capitalism.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an