Medical Tuesday Blog
The II-liberal Disconnect
Dr. Rosen: There seems to be a battle between Liberals who now call themselves Progressives and the Conservatives. What is the difference? The Liberals have usurped the term “liberal” which formerly meant having an open mind to view and discuss any option to arrive at the best opinion. The Libertarian Party continues to attempt this open academic option without any limits, either traditional or moral. The Democratic Party has also opted the term Progressive in addition to being the Liberal party without any determative direction. Anything new is called progressive, whether moving forward, downward, or backward.
Dr. Edwards: I like those definitions. I think you may also add being more aggressive than the GOP which allowed itself to be coopted. I think one additional example occurred during the Roosevelt years in the 1940s and 1950s when many Democrats were seen as Communist or Red sympathizers. Time Magazine wanted to make sure their favorite party, the Democrats, would not be pictured as Red Sympathizers, so it changed the color designation in their magazine from Red to Blue and the Republicans as Red. This unfortunate designation has persisted to the present time.
Dr. Milton: The Grand Ole Party didn’t understand what was happening to them. It reminds me of a fabled Mafia member who didn’t quite understand the mission of the Mafia, when the Boss said that “he must go.” He didn’t understand until his friends showed up one day and killed him. They chopped him up, placed him in a barrel, and tossed the barrel in the river with enough cement to make sure it never surfaced.
Dr. Yancy: It’s hard to understand why the other members of the Grand Ole Party couldn’t react to the change in colors and designation. We need to start using “Purple” for the GOP to designate their Purple Heart status.
Dr. Sam: Why isn’t it clear to people, especially after one of the Democratic Liberals while running for the nomination of the party kept eschewing all the Socialistic or Communistic ideas? He was for re-instituting confiscatory taxation leaving the citizens with just enough of their own money for food and shelter with the government controlling nearly everything else, including which diseases are important enough to be treated with tax dollars; the ultimate control of our bodies.
Dr. Dave: The trillion dollar question is: Why is it when 80 percent of the population does not trust the government, that anyone would want that government to control our health care?
Dr. Kaleb: That is the paradox in any country. Countries that have a fully socialized healthcare system, who have criticized the US for decades, are now implementing private hospital and physician practices. Even Sweden has allowed some hospitals to privatize.
Dr. Ruth: When everything is free and funded by taxing people, sooner or later the government runs out of money. Didn’t UK’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill define it rather well? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. *
Dr. Kaleb: But it is important to note that this is not the people rebellion, but the government trying to avoid going bankrupt.
Dr. Ruth: In the EU, it was only Brexit that did it. They finally revolted over not having a vote in the EU. There is no popular vote in the EU. Everyone is appointed. That’s no democracy. That is government going in the opposite direction eventually to dictatorship.
Dr. Kaleb: World history shows that sometimes it takes a century for people to understand that they are on the road to a feudal or slave system. That’s an even more important paradox.
Dr. Milton: When Bernie Sanders got serious and started saying such noble things that the former 91% incomed tax was not a bad idea, it’s amazing that people didn’t choke on that one. But the college youth thought it was a great idea. Such naiveté.
Dr. Edwards: They’d come around once they experienced it.
Dr. Rosen: That’s pretty standard for youth. I know when I was in college; I thought I could design a great system. But as I was graduating and experienced the real world, it really shook me up that it would not be my decision to implement my ideas. I’d have to convince the majority. My efforts to do so fell quite short. That’s when I embraced my father’s conservatism again.
Dr. Patricia: Isn’t it amazing as we mature, we become more rational?
Dr. Paul: Who said anything about convincing the majority? The world never progressed with majority rule.
Dr. Joseph: You’re showing your youth, Paul. Without a majority changing the course of history, don’t you have to have a revolution?
Dr. Ruth: Didn’t we have our Revolution in 1776? Why would we want to go through another one? Didn’t that revolution make us the greatest country ever?
Dr. Michelle: But it didn’t make us all equal?
Dr. Ruth: It gave us equal opportunity. You can’t get more equal than that.
Dr. Paul: We can make them equal in income?
Dr. Rosen: It’s been well proven that even if you gave everyone the same amount of money, within one generation we would all be back at our present financial state. Hence absolute socialism would be unable to achieve what capitalism has done for our people in just two centuries. Why make the less industrious poor again?
The Staff Lounge Is Where Unfiltered Opinions Are Heard.
* * * * *