| Posted: 07 Oct 2009 19:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 351
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
So we've had a couple of would Cap support this political cause or that one recently, and I got to thinking about the current big question on our plates.
Would Cap support a Public Option?
Now, I'm not saying would Cap show up at a town hall bull horn in hand, or would Cap declare that health care is civil right on Larry King, I'm asking on a more personal note, do you think Cap would see a public option as a good idea.
To me, you start off with Cap as a frail kid in the great depression, when the only care for the poor was charity care, you have his mother dieing and his family impovershed with no real way to pay for what ever medical care might be available across town to those that could pay.
Could a man who walked through that dark time not think that extending an option to people for coverage would be a good idea?
Sure you can say he would want a market based solution (those worked out so well in the 30's afterall) but might he not say, as a student of the good works of the new deal say that the state should be there as a stop gap for those the free market leaves behind?
What do you all think?
|
| Posted: 08 Oct 2009 18:47 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1770
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I don't know about Cap, but I don't want the government getting too involved in health care. Government involved in health care is just another way for government to get power which is another way for us to lose ours.
__________________
|
| Posted: 08 Oct 2009 19:05 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 351
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Government is already the largest provider of health insurance in this country through, Medicare, Medicaid, SDI, and the VA, so I think that ship has already sailed.
The question is, should there be a government plan in the mix with private insurers that people can buy into if they need insurance?
It's not clear if Steve's Mother would have qualified for SDI in our modern era or if his family would have qualified for Medicaid. Steve himself does qualify for VA benefits (though he likely rarely uses them being in peak physical condition and all) so I can see Cap worrying about the 40 million uninsured in the U.S. and want to support a system to get them the care that they need and his mother couldn't get.
|
| Posted: 08 Oct 2009 20:50 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 69
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
|
I think, Cap being the old school conservative, he wouldn`t like this one bit. No one really does. A government that tells you, "Hey, keep insurance or we`ll tax you till it`s cheaper to have insurance." wouldn`t bode well with him. I see Cap, maybe as Steve and not the hero, standing up and speaking clearly, calmly and effectively, his opinion. As the hero he would be more likely to venture onto a talk show of some sort, more than likely a radio show I would think. Nonetheless, I hope our government doesn`t go through with this, it scares the hell out of me to think what`s next.
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 03:06 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 135
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
I don't think Cap would be too big on FDR's legacy, really. FDR tried to stack the supreme court to overturn aspects of the Constitution he found cumbersome, he implemented socialist work programs and deficit spending (not unlike Hitler) which prolonged the depression. Add to that, FDR had campaigned on NOT continuing Hoover's policies, which he then expanded (not unlike Obama expanding on Bush's bad bailout strategy).
Since we can see Cap as one who supports individual freedom over a powerful government, he would probably be against the "public option."
__________________
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 15:50 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 351
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
It's an interesting rereading of cap to think he wouldn't support FDR's legacy.
It kind of reminds me of Conservapedia's rewriting of the bible "to remove liberal bias".
Cap lived through the Great Depression, and was a victim of it. Cap supports personal freedom, but there is a big differnce between supporting personal freedom and thinking that the state should protect citizens from domestic threats not just foreign threats.
Also, FDR's prolonging of the depression is not a perspective accepted by any mainstream economist, except those that feel he pull back on his new deal reforms too early and that prolonged the great depression.
FDR was a pretty bad guy on a lot of issues, I don't think Cap atlest the modren Cap would have approved of internment, Jim Crowe, or the use of African Americans as unknowing Guineapigs at Tuskeegee. That doesn't mean that the legacy of the New Deal, which came too late to help Cap's family, but likely saved many of his friends and aquintences back home from starvation and death, was something cap would see as a failure.
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 16:55 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1770
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Government is already the largest provider of health insurance in this country through, Medicare, Medicaid, SDI, and the VA, so I think that ship has already sailed. I'm not sure I dig that line of logic. It's never too late to change directions and head the other way. Lord knows I've had to do that a few times in my life why should the government be any different. Besides taking care of troops, I don't the the government should handle healthcare.
To have personal freedom, you have to have personal responsibility for your own health and well being. Give that to the government and you might as well make us into a bunch of children of the state.
__________________
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 19:46 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 351
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
So you would rather the poor and elderly just be about their business and decress the surplus population? 
The problem is you have people that can't afford health care. not young invincibles gambling, but folks who just can't afford it. Or worst of all get sick, lose their job and their insurance.
That's the humanitarian issue. You can say, well, that's hard cheese mate, and that's your right as an american to do so. I myself, can't look at a person who is sick and dying and not feel compelled to help.
We each get a vote, and our votes direct the congress, and may the majority rule.
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 22:42 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1770
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Well there you go pilgrim. You personally have the right to help a poor elderly person in need anytime we want too, but I don't think the founders thought you had a right to take my money to do what you thought was an humanitarian thing to do.
But by all means use all of your money to help others if you wish, just don't pat yourself on the back for taking mine too. 
__________________
|
| Posted: 10 Oct 2009 01:54 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 243
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
By law, no hospital can turn away treatment based on inability to pay by the Hill-Burton Act. From experience of family and friends in England, healthcare is rationed, people do have to jump through hoops to get treatment, and quality of care has some drawbacks.
I want my health conversation to be with my doctor only, no eavesdropping beaureaucrats. What difference is there between officials deciding the approved care and insurance companies? Not much from what I can see.
I want the freedom to choose. I have gone through being on insurance and not. I don't make a lot of money and been on unemployment. I still want the choice to be mine.
I think Captain America would want people to have the right and dignity to make their own choices. The right to choose is never easy; it comes with responsibility; it comes with struggle sometimes; but it's rewards are without price.
Estsanatlehi
|
| Posted: 10 Oct 2009 02:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 135
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
I think the use of the elderly to pass off the idea of government run healthcare is a little odd. The elderly will be, as in Germany, given prescriptions for suicide pills in lieu of treatment.
Back to the topic, Captain America, given that he represents the highest of American ideals, would support freedom for people to choose, which the Government Option doesn't permit.
Make no mistake, the healthcare issue is about control of people, not the provision of care. As noted, no hospital can turn someone away for lack of money. Likewise, the elderly are covered by Medicare, so they don't stand to benefit from this "new" initiative. Add to that the scores of poor people that qualify for Medicaid and other low-income healthcare programs and you have a National Healthcare provision that is for, who, precisely? For working folks who don't pay taxes--the large middle class. The folks who happen to be the larges swath of voters NOT under the Democrat's thumb of government handouts (overtly anyhow).
I believe that Cap would see right through this and stand against it as an overreaching government trying to exert control on the masses.
__________________
|
| Posted: 10 Oct 2009 17:47 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 505
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
So far, I can only recall 2 Cap stories that dealt with the Health care issue:
In the Gruenwald books, the Armadillo was a guy who spent all his money to treat his comatose wife, and subjected himself to an experiment that made him into that giant, orange armored humanoid. He became a villian, than part of the Texas Rangers, then back as a villian.
Before the Stern and Byrne books, Cap fought a very obscure Spidey villian, Guy named Joe (I think), who was targeting politicians who cut funding to special needs people (Guy named Joe had a son who suffered from an epileptic seizure).
I think of Cap as a protector or keeper of the peace. If people want to discuss, argue or amend the health care, Cap would be there to keep it from getting violent.
And it's a good thing that you're all discussing it. America is a rich and powerful nation, and that roughly 40 thousand Americans isn't covered by some plan, just doesn't seem right.
|
| Posted: 10 Oct 2009 19:15 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 42
Join Date: Jun 2009
|
|
Quote:
Before the Stern and Byrne books, Cap fought a very obscure Spidey villian, Guy named Joe (I think), who was targeting politicians who cut funding to special needs people (Guy named Joe had a son who suffered from an epileptic seizure).
That was in Cap vol. 1 #246 "The Sins Of The Fathers" by Peter Gillis and Jerry Bingham. Very good story.
|
| Posted: 10 Oct 2009 19:48 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 135
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
40 thousand not covered, but do they WANT to be covered, that is the question. Plus, there are ways to free up companies to allow them to offer plans that everyone in that group could afford.
I don't know about Cap, but being that he supports people's freedom, I think he would support free market principles, not big government or big business.
__________________
|
| Posted: 10 Oct 2009 22:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 243
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
Remember the stand that Captain America took about the registration of those with Superpowers that brought about the Civil War? I believe that that is further evidence that he would not support the public option and would support individual choice.
As far as elder care, the plan under debate wants to take monies AWAY from Medicare. Medicaid covers low income, and services to those with disabilities, developmental disabilities, and traumatic brain injury. If you take illegal aliens out of stats (which costs the healthcare services more than $235 billion each year), and the 20 somethings that are healthy and want to spend their money elsewhere, it brings the stats down to 12-15 million working uninsured. If you put through true tort reform and allowed ALL insurance companies to compete nation wide, it would bring the cost of everyday health care down significantly, and the costs of insurance far more manageable for the working people that don't have insurance at this time.
By the way, I spent five years working for an area of DHHS that works with services to the disabled and family support services so I have dealt with Medicaid funding of services, so I have dealt with the issue.
Given the track record of efficiency and effectiveness of government programmes, I think government staying out of the way would be a bigger help.
Estsanatlehi
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 09:46 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 15
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
The thing of it is, this thread is more what we each individually think about a 'public option' than what Captain America thinks. I think a lot of people are taking their own beliefs and then projecting them onto Captain America. As a libertarian I struggle with this myself. The thing about 'liberty' and 'freedom' is that they are malleable concepts and while many people can say they believe in freedom they can range right across the spectrum.
There are some good hypotheses here. Cap was born in the 20's and would have grown up in the Keynesian economic revolution and strong political shift towards great Govt intervention. However that does not mean he necessarily himself agreed with majority opinion. Small Govt conservatives/libertarians still existed and the movement grew throughout that period and into the Goldwater and Reagan movements.
So, Cap could have been either.
I guess what really matters is what the canon (aka comic books say on any issue. Except for 'Cap Goes to War Against Drugs' of course; any product of the Fed Govt's bribery campaign of the late 80's and early 90's doesn't count.
At the end of the day, as long as you don't believe in any totalitarian political philosophy (or prob one that doesn't place an emphasis on individual liberty 'either negative or positive') you can really bend Cap to suit your own personal political philosophy.
*shrugs* I guess it's a dangerous debate in a way. I just say that I love Captain America and then talk about MY beliefs.
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 15:59 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 5
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
|
I'm sure Cap would be for freedom of choice, but the simple truth for anyone who pays for health insurance is that YOU KNOW something has to be done to reign in the out of control gouging that we're all getting. For the last ten years the costs have grown higher and higher with no reason to believe they'll slow down anytime soon. Don't know about any of you other folks with kids, but I can BARELY afford to keep up with coverage costs now. I praise our current President for trying to make a change. I think Cap would want his President to try and find a way to help the people who are struggling.
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 18:27 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 62
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Captain America would do whatever his puppetmaster writers would have him do unfortunately. As stated above by Tim however,
"Well there you go pilgrim. You personally have the right to help a poor elderly person in need anytime we want too, but I don't think the founders thought you had a right to take my money to do what you thought was an humanitarian thing to do.
But by all means use all of your money to help others if you wish, just don't pat yourself on the back for taking mine too."
Things for me and my family are actually worse off since the change in presidents. Our country is becoming more and more Socialist by the day. Our freedom of choice is being handed over to the more "responsible hands" of Big Brother.
My Grandparents are on Medicare and it hurts me to think of how unhealthy they may get when it gets cut further when the new Healthcare program starts to effect them. Breast exams will be cut til our women are 40 or older leaving them vulnerable to cancer at earlier ages. There will be long wait lines for life saving practices that will kill patients that would normally have been saved under the current program.
A civil note to the people in Washington: If we wanted our country to be socialist, we would have let Hitler take over the world.
__________________"--When the mob and the Press and the whole WORLD tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and tell the whole world 'No you move'."
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 19:37 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 351
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Oh, so it's o.k. for your grand parents to steal from me to pay for thier medicine, but it's not o.k. for some guy who got laid off to steal from you so that his kid can get asthma medication.
Why do you hate america so much?
Why should you grandparents, who are contributing nothing to society get a free ride off the sweat of hard working americans?
Why your grand parents (unlike the guy who got laid off) don't even want to return to work. Just lounge around in their government funded healthcare (and social sercurity) luxury.
Communists like your grandparents are what are ruining this country you know that!
Just kidding of course, your grand parents worked hard all their lives and the state is taking care of them in return. The only question is should the state help out those others who like your grand parents are unable to get work and thusly health care at this time?
Should the state take care of those whose employers won't provide health care?
That's the thing, right now we have a federal insurance program for anyone over the age of 65. This is costing the U.S. billions of dollars and (if the Republicans get their way) will be cut drasticly to pay down the debt, (the democrats spend thirfts that they are want to expand medicare coverage, fiscal conservatives want to cut it, get that strait, look at the platforms and policies of those you are endorseing).
We don't live in a libertarian ideal, we live in a social welfare state, for good reason. The libertarian ideal eventually leads to socialism, because the vast majority of people get screwed over by it (likely yourselves included but you don't realize this because you have had the luxury of living in the social welfare state your whole lives).
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 20:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 307
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
"A civil note to the people in Washington: If we wanted our country to be socialist, we would have let Hitler take over the world."
If by that you mean to say that Hitler was a Socialist, time to go back to the history books.
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 20:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 62
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
I beg to differ. Communistic views lead to Communism, not as you say. It is really disheartening to hear you twisting reality in such a stereotypical libral fashion. Communist people appointed to important positions in our nations Capitol Hill makes our country communist not libertarians.
This gentleman for example:
Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones
Title: Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Head of Council on Environmental Quality Nancy Sutley
Appointed: March 2009
Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Environmental Protection Agency; Labor
• Will focus on environmentally-friendly employment within the administration and boost support for the idea nationwide
• Rose from near obscurity in the Oakland, Calif., grassroots organizing scene to the leader of a national movement to spur the green economy.
• Founded Green For All, an organization focused on creating green jobs in impoverished areas
• Also co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Color of Change, which includes Bay Area PoliceWatch, a group devoted to "protect[ing] the community from police misconduct"
• Published New York Times best-seller The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems, in October 2008
• Started career as a prison-reform advocate in Oakland, Calif., lobbying for reform of the juvenile justice system and youth-violence prevention programs
• Has law degree from Yale
• 2007: worked on the Green Jobs Act with then-Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored the bill in the House
• 1993: was arrested at the Los Angeles riots that followed the acquittal of cops in the Rodney King beating. "I was arrested simply for being a police observer," says Jones, who had just graduated from Yale Law School and was working with the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco.
• 1999: was arrested in the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization
• Excerpt from a Nov. 2005 interview in the East Bay Express:
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. They protested police brutality and got arrested for crashing through police barricades. In 1996, Jones decided to launch his own operation, which he named the Ella Baker Center after an unsung hero of the civil-rights movement.
__________________"--When the mob and the Press and the whole WORLD tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and tell the whole world 'No you move'."
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 21:01 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 351
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
No...you misunderstand, you see, yes socialism derives from socialists being elected...what you fail to understand is that socialist are only elected when libertarian ideals fail.
See if you say, everyman for himself, the everyman will likely get himself squashed by the much bigger more powerful man who nolonger has the state as a check on his hubris (see recent events or the events of the 1920s).
This leads to great disatisfaction by the electorate and the eventual embrace of some sort of radical ideology in which the state rectifys these inadequaces, often with negative results.
The only way you prevent this sort of thing is by establishing a certain baseline of care by the state for the common man. The question before us is should that baseline include healthcare.
Given that people like your grandparents (and my parents) currently contribute nothing to the economy but draw these benefits, the question is should we not extend some sort of health benefit likewise to those who do contribute or at least are attempting to contribute, but whose situation prevents them from aquiring adequate health care.
Now, you can say the state has no responsibility to care for those who cannot afford it, and that's fine, however, you have already endorsed the states health care of the elderly, so it's not an ideological question, but a question of whom should receive this benefit.
So please, let me know who is deserving of picking my pocket for healthcare, since it's not a quesiton of should we have a sponsored health care system or not (right now we have four, Medicare, SSI, Medicaid, and VA)it's just a question of who should or should not be allowed to participate.
Note all plans currently before the house and senate forbid the use of this system by illegal immigrants so that's a none starter for you.
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 21:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 62
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
I do agree with you on this part. If people don't stand up for what they believe, Socialists will take the opportunity and find their way into office. In that respect they seem like the only option. That doesn't make it right, but it's done out of despiration.
__________________"--When the mob and the Press and the whole WORLD tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and tell the whole world 'No you move'."
|
| Posted: 09 Feb 2010 21:44 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 307
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
The Van Jones bit is, word for word, from the Glenn Beck website.
Source:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/
|
|
|
