Carol on Healthcare Insurance

This is part of my ongoing e-mail conversation with Marxist Carol. In this issue, she is ostensibly addressing healthcare insurance, but as you will note below she deviates considerably from the subject. My comments are in italics. This is what Carol has to say,


Well, I have no intention of turning the world upside down but am smart enough to know that if a problem exists on a wide scale, it needs to be addressed. As such, a high activity level is present here to help out.

I presume you are referring to healthcare insurance. On a more general scale, I agree that we should address problems large and small, with priority given to large problems. However, addressing problems is a societal function, which can involve individuals, families, local communities, municipalities, states, and very finally the federal government I also like to t think that is the proper order in which to consider resolution of problems. In my home will judgment, this is not the time for the federal government to consider resolving what it considers to be a healthcare insurance problem. If the federal government is uncertain or even has a reasonable respect for the rights of individuals, it might ask questions and make suggestions.


I have been on many government private industry committees tasked with writing legislation on such subjects as alternative energy, the failure of the missile defense system (budgetary input), climate change, clean air, clean water, endangered species...and have also testified before Congress on some of the preceding subjects.


Congratulations for your assistance to the federal government on your activities. You imply that private industries were part of the committees in which you operated. If you will think about it, the presence of those private industries was in a subservient capacity. That is, they were either looking for money in the form of grants or reduced government restrictions on activities. Therefore, the general tone of each meeting was that you and your government associates were in a power position, which tended to create in your minds a superior attitude that you had the answers and could impose those answers at your will. This is the usual psychological development of those in power.

As to it being hard to get an education, yes, it is. Never did I receive one penny of support for my higher education from the family. It was all paid for initially by myself and, later, by scholarships.
Due to an early divorce in my family, work for pay started at age 7
(because I needed money for school, a bike, clothing, entertainment, etc).
As a Civil Rights worker and later involved in helping to stamp out
discrimination, many personal experiences created involvement at the national level. The redistribution of wealth was an effect; new
opportunities were the cause.

Thank you, Carol for the background information. We are all persons with opinions based upon our previous experience and observing others. I can easily see now where you have obtained your Marxist philosophy. Your background is very similar to that of Pres. Obama. I presume from the early divorce that you were raised by a single parent, probably your mother. Such system is always an economic hardship, and the single parent mother indirectly contributes to development of a feminist mentality antagonistic to normal male components of the real world. The absence of a father deprives a child of fatherly advice and economic stability. Double parents (male and female) have been effective in family developments for thousands of years. As we have recently deviated from the system, we have created for ourselves many social problems and I suspect you may be one of the victims.