Posted on 03/25/2010 10:58:10 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon
I am needing some help identifying what parts of the health care bill are socialist in nature.
Regards,
The whole thing is socialist. A free people pay for care for themselves.
Three parts specifically:
The beginning, the middle and the end.
If you don’t know, i’m not sure anyone can help you.
Actually, the part that forces Americans to purchase a product from private companies is, technically-speaking, fascist rather than socialist. The part that makes us re-imburse them for purchasing said product is socialist.
All of it.
Everyone is forced to pay into a program they have no control over, A enormous mass of govt. wonks will control guidelines that will be based on keeping afloat bad policy, not giving people good health care.
In the end it will make it easier for many to ride the system, they are never gonna squeeze blood from some of those turnips.
The bill requires individuals to buy insurance from private companies. If the government has the authority to tell you how to spend some of your money where is the limit? Can they tell you how to spend all of your money? Why not if the liberal claims that this is constitutional is correct? The commerce argument is very weak in my opinion because if you don't buy something you aren't participating in commerce at all...so how would the government then have claim to provenance under the commerce clause?
Now the other part of the argument then is based upon a bad ruling back in the 40's I believe it was where a farmer was prohibited from growing wheat beyond a government mandated quota even though he wasn't selling it and just using it on his own farm. SCOTUS ruled that by keeping it and not buying wheat on the market he was impacting the market price. But in this case the impact by one individual not buying health insurance has a non-existent effect on the insurance pool prices.
Ultimately, the liberals are twisting the meaning of the commerce clause in any case because the way they want it to be interpreted would give federal government complete control over every minute aspect of the lives of every American...congress would become a national dictator with an unrestrained interpretation of the clause...and there is absolutely no way that was the intent of the founding fathers.
Don’t forget to throw in the student loan aspect. The Government defining the scope of private bank’s loans and that they CANNOT issue loans to students. Socialism 101.
Argue on a macro level instead.
The government is dictating to each individual citizen not only that he pay taxes, but what to do with a substantial portion of what is left of his money. The theory behind this is that the government knows better how you must spend your own money than you do. If the government can tell you how to spend your own health-care dollars, it can tell you how to spend your food dollars, your transportation dollars, your entertainment, education, recreation, clothing and personal care dollars as well. This is antithetical to American values.
The entire bill is based on the premise: Make the wealthy & middle-class cough up the money for Health Care for the lower socio-economic class of folks, many of whom are Welfare cheats and illegal immigrants. May I submit the following for you, and your friend’s, consideration?
“What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.” Dr. Adrian P. Rogers 1931 - 2005
From an old thread with a booklet from 1939 about FDR and the New Deal. Obama is doing EXACTLY the same, but called the Big F’n Deal. This is a “brief” excerpt.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts
PROBLEM SIX THE DOMESTICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
....”Which course of action will tend more to increase the dependence of the individual upon the Federal government?” — and as if invariably the action resolved upon was that which would appeal rather to the weakness than to the strength of the individual.....
Secondly, by suggestion that in the modern environment the individual, through no fault or weakness of hie own, had become helpless and was no longer able to cope with the adversities of circumstances. In one of his Fireside Chats, after the first six months, the President said: “Long before Inauguration Day I became convinced that individual effort and local effort and even disjointed Federal effort had failed and of necessity would fail, and, therefore, that a rounded leadership by the Federal Government had become a necessity both of theory and of fact.”....
No individual life escaped, unless it was that of a desert rat or cave dweller.
It was thus that the hand of paternal government, leaving first seized economic power, traced the indelible outlines of the American Welfare State.
In the welfare state the government undertakes to see to it that the individual shall be housed and clothed and fed according to a statistical social standard, and that he shall be properly employed and entertained, and in consideration for this security the individual accepts in place of entire freedom a status and a number and submits his life to be minded and directed by an all-responsible government.
Why be distracted by the socialist label? Use the term unconstitutional,and Point out all the god awful aspects, like the rationing boards, making medicare and medicaid even more financially unsound, taxes on wheelchairs loss of jobs, loss of current insurance etc etc.
“Everyone is forced to pay into a program they have no control over,...”
True, but then the ‘argument’ becomes about Social Security, Medicare and whether or not ‘you’ are ok with currently or expecting to receive it...and if so, it is pointed out that it is also an “unconstitutional” plan where “Everyone is forced to pay into a program that they have no control over,...” ... I AM disabled and on SS and Medicare...so, not sure how to argue?
The socialist section begins on page 1, and ends something like 2700 pages later.
It's mainly the parts with the words.
You might start with the section about this bill requiring more IRS agents to enforce it.
Rep Weiner (D-NY) doesn’t seem to think that this is fascist in nature, but then O’Reilly didn’t seem to be able to find out from Big Mouth Weiner who was going to enforce the law on recalcitrant citizens.
Fascism is a type of socialism but with more emphasis on enforcing favor for certain businesses (e.g., insurance companies) and preferences for certain groups in hiring practices (e.g., women, homosexual men).
I saw this yesterday and thought it was great. You might throw it the mix too....
“When you grant an individual a “civil right” to a product or service which must be produced by another individual, the application of that right requires imposition upon the producer. The inalienable right of the producer to liberty, the capacity to act upon his own judgment, is adversely effected. Such a “right” is not a universal protection. It is redistributive thuggery.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.