Pelosi - $15000 Socialist insurance policy or 5 years in prison

[Sassy]

Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.
Source: www.youtube.com
Congressman Rogers' makes his opening statement on Health Care reform legislation that is under debate in Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

[Pox Eclipse]

As a riposte, I offer this man:



Hie thee hence and READ.

That was a very, very powerful bit of writing.  I can't believe that we are so willing to accept this death-by-a-thousand cuts of our freedom. 

One man's freedom is another man's tyranny.

[RainDog]

One man's freedom is another man's tyranny.

Sure. There's freedom of choice, and there's freedom from choice, for instance.

[Whitlock]

One man's freedom is another man's tyranny.

Sure. There's freedom of choice, and there's freedom from choice, for instance.

And it looks like there's soon to be freedom from force

[StinkerBell]

I do not trust the Fed's. Look at an Indian Reservation and just see how the Fed's treat people and honor their word.

[Pox Eclipse]

I don't trust corporations for the same reasons.

[MountainDon]

I agree with P.E.

We have had several experiences with an assortment of insurance companies over the past decade. One, and only one, was very good. That was our home owner insurance company. The others have been crazy frustrating experiences; one with a property insurance company, and another two bad experiences with health insurance companies. They were our greatest friends, or made out like they were, until they had to pay out a large amount or in one case until we had to apply for individual coverage after leaving the benefit umbrella of a mega corporation.

[Woodsrule]

For those Sheeple who believe that "Big Pharma" or "Big Insurance" is the problem, ponder this: Ask the head of your small, medium or large sized company that you work for (or yourself, if self-employed) what the company's profit margin is. No tricks here. Last year, the average health insurance company posted less than a 3% profit, so where exactly is the gouging going on? Liberals only operate through fear - we had a Wall Street "crisis" so we spent trillions, how did that work out? We had a vehicle buying "crisis", hence Cash for Clunkers, which cost taxpayers $24,000 per car. How did that work out? Now we have a health care "crisis" although 92% of AMERICANS have health care coverage. This "crisis" is not about health care, because any American can get health care. It's about health insurance, something that is not a "crisis." The only "crisis" here is that we are trying to prove a negative. The negative component is a total relinquishment of your freedom, traded for health insurance. It is not worth it.

[Woodsrule]

Wall Street Journal Article

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
OPINION / NOVEMBER 7, 2009
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a
Visit us at www.defendyourhealthcare.us
$20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
Visit us at www.defendyourhealthcare.us
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
Visit us at www.defendyourhealthcare.us
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.



Excuse the lengthy post, but we should all know exactly what is in this ridiculous 2000 page bill.

[Pox Eclipse]

Wall Street Journal Article

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
OPINION / NOVEMBER 7, 2009
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY 

First off, that was not an article from the Wall Street Journal.  It was an opinion piece by the former Republican lieutenant governor of New York.  Opinion pieces have no obligation to present an accurate representation of the topic; indeed, they always express only one side of the debate with no journalistic obligation to truth or verifiability.  It is up to the reader to decide if the person expressing their opinion is worthy of respect.

Secondly, Betsey McCauhey is the whack-a-loon who was spreading the "death panel" nonsense long before Sarah Palin saw that it scared the tea baggers and put in in her stump speech.

Nearly everything she has cited in that screed is a distortion at best, and an out-and-out lie at the worst.  McCaughey can peddle her crazy somewhere else, cause we ain't buyin' it.

[Woodsrule]

Pox Eclipse,

You assert that the article contains either distortions or out and out lies. The author cited specific pages and passages from the bill. Please let me know which passages and/or page numbers are incorrect for I wish to understand this 2000 page gargantuan.  Your response is the exact type of response that we often see from the left. First, engage in ad hominem attacks of anyone you disagree with. Next, engage in juvenile name calling (whack a loon?). These tactics may work for the adherents of the ah.. estimable Keith Olbermann show, but clear minded folks don't buy into them. Until you are willing to address Dr. Mccaughey's points and admit that this "health care crisis" is anything but, you are doomed to the dust heap of illogical thought that passes for "Progressive/Liberal" discourse.

[Squirl]

"qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services"

Incorrect.  Almost any health care plan in place at the time of signing is considered grandfathered in under the grandfather clause.  So it the plans are "qualified" and not designed by the secretary.

"provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it."

Incorrect.  SEC. 224. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.  It is 18 months to adopt a process for recommendations and in the entire 3 page section there is not a single mention of costs or payments.  Completely false. 

I could keep going, but I am not going to make the effort.  If they start out at best misleading with some completely false statements, they lose credibility to me.  Some politicians are good at inciting anger and fear but not very good at reading a legal document.  There probably are parts of this bill I would hate.  It is 2000 pages and I can imagine they slipped something in or will attach some crazy stuff before it gets passed. My belief is that we live in a representative form of government and I don't realistically expect that every single thing it does will exactly match my opinions of what is best. 

Although some of her "problems" I love.

Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients

I believe we need to be giving more ability for care to health care professionals other than doctors. Examples include nurses for simple cold medications and shots to mid-wives for birthing help.

[Woodsrule]

Squirl,

You cherry picked your reply. The "grandfather" clause has a life of five years. (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 201, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 221. 

Also, if your insurer LOWERS costs or switches a particular coverage, guess what? LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and exceptas required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1

Next, here's the page 118 text that you misread. (1) INITIAL STANDARDS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards. (2) PERIODIC UPDATING STANDARDS.—Under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide for the 15 periodic updating of the benefit standards previously
adopted under this section. (3) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may not adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits package or for level of cost-sharing that are inconsistent with the requirements for such a package or level under sections 222 (including subsection (d)) and 223(b)(5). Adopting an initial set of standards is pretty clear to me, as well as the statement "essential benefits package".

These are exact excerpts from http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf and not my opinion. I could refute any of your points, but what's the point? There is a reason this bill is longer than War and Peace and that is to stuff it with ridiculous power grabs like these I have outlined. I am hopeful that the Senate will exercise a thought process before voting on a Saturday like the House did, although the measure barely passed. One point I do concede is the addition of nurse practicioners and the like being able to offer low risk procedures in order to free up medical doctors. More of this type of reform and less MANDATING would lead to improvements.

[rwanders]

   Pox, I assume the same caveat applies to your opinion piece above?  Can you provide a similar list of citations from the proposed house bill and give us your informed interpretations where they differ?  So far, all we have from you are unsupported assertions----you may be right but you have not provided any real information for us to judge.

[Pox Eclipse]

Most of it is half truths and distortions, such as when she claims that "qualified" plans are designed by the SHHS.  The bill calls for the creation of an independent commission of including patients, doctors, employers, and all stakeholders in health care to determine what is qualified, not the SHHS.  She claims Section 224 says the government will determine what qualified plans will cost; that is a bald faced lie.

She claims that plans will cost people 17% of their pretax income; that is an outrageous lie.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that ""Under the House bill, the maximum share of income that enrollees would have to pay for the reference plan in 2013 would range from 1.5 percent for those with income less than or equal to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 12 percent for those with income equal to 400 percent of the FPL."

She claims that the benefits for all plans are the same.  This is a lie.  What she claims is a ceiling on benefits is actually a floor, mandating minimum benefits, not maximums.

And the part about eviscerating Medicare is totally false.  The bill does not fundamentally change how doctors are paid.  And nowhere does the bill givce the government the power to make treatment decisions.

Ms. McCaughey is lying to you. 
.

[Don_P]

For those Sheeple...

First, engage in ad hominem attacks of anyone you disagree with. Next, engage in juvenile name calling

What alternatives do you propose? So far there hasn't been anything realistic presented. Under the present system a doctor is required to stabilize anyone who comes in the door, insurance companies bear a large part of those unpaid bills. An uninsured neighbor's wife ran up a >$300,000 bill before they got her stabilized enough to send home, this is not uncommon. A person who does not carry insurance intends to steal that coverage from his neighbor if he becomes seriously ill or injured. I'm not in favor of this plan but I'm not in favor of being robbed by the irresponsible either. As usual neither option is particularly appealing. The government typically steps in when people choose not to take responsibility for themselves, that is what is happening here. If one of you who doesn't carry insurance would like to explain to me how you intend to pay a large medical bill without stealing works, I'm listening. If this is your plan, you are a thief, the plan is there waiting for opportunity, you've already sold your soul. One alternative I see to the present system is to free the doctor to send you away untreated if you cannot pay, that would work. If you want to opt out you and your family should be allowed to totally opt out, that isn't the case now. The effect on the innocent is not happy to contemplate.

Alternatives I see; insurance pools of private citizens or people having a preplanned arrangement against their assets if they wished to self insure.  I do not want to pay for people who chose to lay around in the sunshine out of my wallet, nor does any charity. If you have a rational alternative to stealing from me then I'm listening, short of that you're bellyaching is falling on an ever increasing number of deaf ears. I suggest you find a realistic alternative, this will not really go away until some resolution is found that does not involve welfare for the undeserving.

[Woodsrule]

Don,

You caught me! In my original post I was trying to be facetious and a bit funny, but failed I see. Mea Culpa. My facts still stand however. "BIG INSURANCE" is not our problem here, no more than "Big Oil", Big Banks, Big Food, etc.....   What is the problem is the tens of millions of folks who pay nothing for their care. My wife worked at a hospital for many years and saw first hand the amounts of folks who came in to the ER for minor bumps and scrapes that you and I would take care of at home. The reason? They don't have to pay for it. And if anyone thinks that these same folks, as well as the tens of millions of illegal immigrants are not going to go to the ER for every bump and cough, they're sorely mistaken. There's a lot to change in health care right now and Obama and the Democrats have the mandate, but I fear they are going to squander their mandate by attempting to force private citizens to buy a product they just don't want.

[Sassy]

Don,

You caught me! In my original post I was trying to be facetious and a bit funny, but failed I see. Mea Culpa. My facts still stand however. "BIG INSURANCE" is not our problem here, no more than "Big Oil", Big Banks, Big Food, etc.....   What is the problem is the tens of millions of folks who pay nothing for their care. My wife worked at a hospital for many years and saw first hand the amounts of folks who came in to the ER for minor bumps and scrapes that you and I would take care of at home. The reason? They don't have to pay for it. And if anyone thinks that these same folks, as well as the tens of millions of illegal immigrants are not going to go to the ER for every bump and cough, they're sorely mistaken. There's a lot to change in health care right now and Obama and the Democrats have the mandate, but I fear they are going to squander their mandate by attempting to force private citizens to buy a product they just don't want.

I agree with Woodsrule...  there is a major problem with health care.  Having worked in a "socialist" form of health care for 20 yrs now - the Veterans Admin Medical Center, I also see 1st hand the abuse.  We see the same people come in - several times a week, to the ER... the other day a couple people had the complaint "I think I feel a cold coming on, so came to ER to get checked out."    They will call an ambulance at the slightest whim - "don't have transportation, my pinky hurts, got a headache" - an AMBULANCE!!!  And because their income is low enough they won't have to pay a cent.  

Those that have a co-pay or will have to pay for the ambulance, will drive themselves in even if they are just about dying...

And the VA is just the tip of the iceburg.  I had never gone to the ER for myself & took my kids a couple times when they were growing up.  This year I've had to go 2x's.  One because I was deathly sick from a gallbladder attack that ended up giving me pancreatitis & causing my liver to be inflammed & ended up in the hospital for a week & having surgery - never been that sick.  Even had to be transported by an ambulance to another hospital from the ER because they didn't have the ability to care for me.  Again, recently I had to go because I smashed my hand in a door & split the top open & could see tendons, an intact blood vessel, & probably a bone or 2 - otherwise would have just butterflied it...  didn't see a doc for 10 hrs, took 12 hrs before I was discharged - but I drove myself back into town - 25 miles - had just finished a 13 hr shift at my ER got home at 1am & had to turn around & go back to town after the injury...    

That was the large regional trauma hospital - there's over 100 beds in the ER plus the hallways are full.  The waiting area was full of non-English speaking people, interpreters were needed if the nurse or doc couldn't speak their language.  My sister who worked in ER for 18yrs said that mainly those who were on welfare or who were here from another country & had no way to pay used the ER...  women came in to have their babies in this country so then their child was an American citizen & they would be eligible to get all the free services besides the fact they didn't pay for having the baby delivered...  

I pay for insurance & also have to pay some hefty co-pays for the care I receive.  We have such an "entitlement" society - the gov't feels they can steal from the haves to give to the have-nots & the have-nots have no conscience in taking advantage of all the freebies.  We don't have cable/satellite TV, we seldom go out to a restaurant (Glenn goes to the fast food places when he's working out of town).  We don't smoke or drink, so don't have any expenses there...  Those that use the services with no conscience for the costs or who is paying for it seem to be the alcoholics, heavy smokers (my parents both smoked but they paid for their healthcare), druggies, illegals, deadbeats - they can pay for all of their vices, they can afford the big screen TV's & all the channels, their cell phones (as someone noted earlier) & all the other perks but won't go to work or pay for insurance or their health care, just take advantage of the system.  (if people want to smoke & drink, that's their perogitive but don't make me pay for it!)

Now, if you can change the mindset of entitlement that our country has gotten into - the selfish attitudes, the envious attitudes, maybe we can get somewhere...  but when our own representatives are the biggest group of leeches we have setting the example, what do you expect?  

And yet, some think that the health care monstrosity that is being proposed & pushed through congress/senate think that's the answer - our country is doomed    

Every socialist society has fallen - when there is no incentive to work harder because any extra you do is given to some slacker, it kills the incentive.  And you will see that every society that has adopted what our country has & is, is doomed...  altruism is great but forced slavery & robbery of the fruits of our labors will never work no matter how good the intentions are...

[Woodsrule]

Sassy,

I bow down to your expertise. You said very eloquently what I feel. Thank you.

[StinkerBell]

ER horror stories....

Most urban myths are really not myths!

[rwanders]

 

Sassy:  There is a great deal of truth and wisdom in your thoughts on this subject----human nature can be so harmful at times. It can be discouraging to those of us that value living responsible lives. Don't give up.

[Pox Eclipse]

Every socialist society has fallen...

That will come as surprise to Canada, Australia, Israel and others, I am sure.   

[rwanders]

I don't recall any successful pure socialist countries left---unless you consider North Korea successful----there are quite a few "mixed" or quasi socialist ones----Cuba is even sliding quietly back into a semi-capitalist economy and China is going capitalist as fast as they can. We are somewhere in between also----there are virtually no "pure capitalist" economies either.

[OlJarhead]

I promised myself I wouldn't do this (I tend to get too passionate) but I'll make this one post:

Do you beleive in the Constitution, the nation as it was founded and with the tools it was given?  Do you beleive in 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?  Or do you believe in "to each according to their means, for each according to their needs"?

It really comes down to that I'd wager.

Me?  I believe in the Constitution and the founding of this Nation as well as the tools provided.

By the way, for those aghast at the idea that someone would say that let me remind you that there is a tool provided called 'the amendment process' in which via the Constitution itself you can make changes (like abolish slavery).  So perhaps when all this is said and done 'we the people' can amend the Constitution to say do something like 'abolish social health care'.

In the meantime sadly, the socialists will have their way though amazingly they won't even be providing health care for all American's.  No that's right, I hear now they are saying they won't be providing health care to at least 30 MILLION people.  Hmmm....funny but what you are saying is that since we have about 30 million people who don't (supposedly anyway) have health care (45 million minus the illegals by the way) then you have to pass a 2000 page law that garauntees that you will cover exactly everyone BUT those 30 million??

Color me stupid but just how does that work?  How is it those who support this can do so with a straight face in light of the fact that it actually does not do exactly what they claim they need to do.

It's like saying you need a new firetruck to save all the people from burning houses but now that you almost have the firetruck making the statement "well this firetruck won't actually save any of those burning houses from burning, but it costs more then the other one".

I'm just curious, but once you're done spending this TRILLION dollars when exactly, will you cover those 30 million people?

ALso, while I am at it, if I am to go to jail for not having a plan doesn't that mean I'm then one of those 30 million who couldn't afford one in the first place?  SO um, how does that work?

ahhhhh.....ok I'm out....

No I lied....this last thing....

If this is the end all to be all health care bill why does it not just abolish ALL OTHER plans, bills and programs?  I mean if the good ol' gubermint is going to fix health care then why not do away with medicare, medicaid, the VA etc etc etc.....after all, if they could fix it (and Medicare is going bankrupt remember) then why not fix it all?  Why not just abolish it, socialize it all (if that's the answer which clearly supporters -- however ill informed they are -- beleive in)?

I'll tell you why.....one word:  sellout

You see, it's just one big pile of donkey dung and the easiest way to spot it is by digging into it and seeing what's included.

So you want to fix the problem by having government come in and save the day huh?  Well I'm just curious, when did we start putting out house fires with gasoline exactly?

Cheers
OlJarhead.

[Sassy]

Every socialist society has fallen...

That will come as surprise to Canada, Australia, Israel and others, I am sure.  

Just give them time    

Anyone ever read the book Marx & Satan ?  By Richard Wurmbrand?  He was a prisoner in Romania for 14 yrs.  He quotes a lot of Marx, Engels, Bruno Bauer, Lenin, Stalin...  

On his deathbed, Lenin wrote "I committed a great error.  My nightmare is to have the feeling that I'm lost in an ocean of blood from the innumerable victims.  It is too late to return.  To save our country, Russia, we would have needed men like Francis of Assisi.  With ten men like him we would have saved Russia."  

Marx wrote "A silent, unavoidable revolution is taking place in society, a revolution that cares as little about the human lives it destroys as an earthquake cares about the houses it rages.  Classes & races that are too weak to dominate the new conditions of existence will be defeated."  (Wolfe Marxism--One Hundred Years in the Life of a Doctrine

Engels wrote  "The next world war will make whole reactionary peoples disappear from the face of the earth. (Engels, MEW, XXXV, p. 122)
"This too is progress.  Obviously this cannot be fulfilled without crushing some delicate national flower.  But without violence & without pitilessness nothing can be obtained in history."  (Deutschland Magazine,  Feb. 1985)

Milovan Djilas, prominent Communist leader of Yugoslavia who was personally acquainted with Stalin, wrote:  "Was it not so that the demonic power & energy of Stalin consisted in this, that he made the [Communist] movement & every person in it pass to a state of confusion & stupefaction, thus creating & ensuring his reign of fear...?"  He also says about the whole ruling class of the U.S.S.R.:  "They make a semblance of believing in the ideal of socialism, in a future society without classes.  In reality, they believe in nothing except organized power."  (Milovan Djilas, Strange Times, "Kontinent" 33, p. 25)

I could post a lot more quotes - much more scary & some more pathetic by these men at the ends of their lives, but this is enough for now...

So much for socialism/communism/the collective...  

BTW, there were several postings before I finished this post...