The media and the Republicans are having a field day with President Obama's Healthcare proposal, and especially so-called "conservatives" who clamor that the huge expenditure is frightening.

Please, let's never forget that Ronald Reagan and his Republican Administration ran up such an unrealistically big debt for the republic that it seemed as if the party had looted the Treasury and borrowed heavily to deliberately transform the U.S. into a debtor nation. And then Bush II and his Republican Administration plunged us into unnecessary, illegal and expensive wars with Afghanistan and Iraq again depleting the federal Treasury and deliberately creating a mountain of debt for the U.S. These two reigns of obscene expenditures made it seem as if it was an absolute Republican necessity for the U.S. to become a debtor nation. And perhaps, for these people, it was.

If the American people hadn't been so willing to go to these wars we would have had the funds to support a public healthcare program. Personally, if it's acceptable for Americans to foolishly misuse and deplete our federal Treasury—and military strength—runnng up huge deficits for unnecessary wars and to support the profits of a military-industrial complex, it's acceptable to me to incur large debt for the "welfare of the American people."

Other so-called Republican "conservatives" claim that health care is definitely not a human "right," that it is a move toward socialism, and that the health of the American citizenry is not the business of government.

Well, these people are correct on the first claim, for there is no such thing as a human right, you can look the world over and never find one. They don't exist. "Rights" are an invention of the human computerbrain; an intellectual concept; a wishful idea. A right cannot exist unless those demanding the right possess a Greater-Force to support their demand.

Republican/conservatives are wrong on the second claim, for U.S capitalists have always feared and been antagonists toward anything "socialistic", and the republic's political community, long under the influence of the republic's economic rulers has always shunned anything that implied "socialism"

But Republicans happen to be wrong on the claim that the health of the American people is not the business of government, for the Founders of our republic clearly indicated in the preamble to their constitution that it is a function of the new government to "promote the general welfare," If the health, and security, of the citizenry isn't part of the "general welfare," then what is? As far as I'm concerned the subject is closed! If the Constitution of the United States doesn't use the precise language, "welfare of the citizenry, the term "promote the general welfare," implies it.

So, all good Americans should step back and allow the prez to give us what he promised, and what the American people expect—a public healthcare system.

While I'm on this subject of government responsibilities let me put my two cents worth in and try to clarify this dilemma of what government is and what it isn't.

Let's, first, understand that we're talking about a human "collective:" an assemblage of people who voluntarly live together for the many benefits to be derived, and who of necessity, voluntarily relinquish some personal values and physical behaviors unsuitable for collective living. We are not talking about a social environment in which individuals live isolated from their nearest neighbors, and can do as the want when they want, for what these people do affects no one but themselves.

As I've often said in this space, the concept of "government" in a collective is a necessary one. Government is the central headquarters where all essential decisions concerning the collective are made. It is the agency that provides order and stability to the group. Government is neither bad nor good and size has little bearing on whether it is bad or good. A small collective should get along with a small government and a large collective, like the U.S., obviously, needs a big, complex government.

It's the people who operate and control government who make it a good or bad government, not its size. And if a government is good or bad, it is reflected in the society and its institutions, which become either good or bad.

But the critical question always to be asked, but hardly ever is, is good for who, and bad for who?

The U.S society operates in a money economy, therefore, its government is good for people with lots of money—wealthy Americans. It's good for Americans who own or manage corporations. It's good for wealthy investors and moneylenders. It's good for successful politicians who live off the public's treasuries. A government functioning in a money society is good for successful sports heroes, music stars, tv stars, film stars, porno stars and all other citizens of the collective able to accmulate wealth.

These are a few of the "privileged" classes of the American society; a society that encourages the worship of wealth and economic success, disdaining "common" citizens who must labor to survive. Such a society is, also, contemptuous of those who are comfortable merely seeking knowledge and wisdom.

Consequently, the American society is bad for Americans who must work to survive. It is bad for teachers, professors and those involved with intellect and the search for new knowledge, wisdom, and answers to humanity's universally, perpetual problems, such as poverty. It is bad for poor Americans, non-white skinned Americans, female Americans and non-Christian Americans. It is bad for gay and lesbian Americans, retired Americans and all other Americans who do not possess an independent "estate" capable of supporting their economic needs and wants. These groups comprise the vast majority of Americans. United, they can produce any kind of society they want.

Allow me to analyze the concept of "socialism" as I understand it. The pocket edition of Webster's New World Dictionary defines society as "a system of living together in a single community." It defines social as "living with others; gregarious (man as a social being.)" It defines social work as "the promotion of the welfare of the community and the individual."

Communism was never a true socialistic movement, because the Communist party was stolen early in the game by an extremist group, which treated the wealth of Russia as its private treasury. The group misused the power bestowed upon it by this wealth by arrogantly treating Russian commoner peasants and laborers as inferiors. Actually, there has never been a true socialist society on planet Earth.

In very simple language: capitalism is a philosophy for the individual; it is concerned with money—profit—while true socialism is a philosophy for the collective/society—and is concerned with people. To be more precise, a true, properly structured socialistic society is concerned with the "welfare" of its citizens—all of its citizens. Anything less is not true socialism.

Theoretically, a properly structured Direct Democracy should be socialistic, for it must concern itself with the welfare of "all" of its citizens. It's been difficult for me to comprehend why so many working commoners cannot understand this simple fact. A Direct Democracy is operated by the citizenry without the need of professional politicians. The people themselves—on an arbitrarily rotating basis—take care of their own affairs and make their own laws. They decide how and where to spend their tax dollars, they decide whether or not a conflict with another country is serious enough to send their children off to die in war.