Need some help with the Obama care bill !! (vanity post)

[ColdSteelTalon]

I am needing some help identifying what parts of the health care bill are socialist in nature.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Start with a clear definition of socialism. There are different ones, but pick one and study it:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Applied to health care, this definition would cover any action by government which either has government providing health care insurance (ownership), or government defining what health care insurance must cover, or how much they can charge (control).

Remember that the bill is a health insurance bill, not just a health care bill, so you don't have to find takeover of the hospitals or doctors to be socialist.

Now, you just need a list of provisions that either provide health insurance or health care directly, or which dictate the terms under which health care or health insurance can be provided.

as someone else noted, things like "mandatory insurance coverage" are fascist, not socialist.

But for example, medicare is socialist, the new publicly-run health care clinics are socialist, the executive board that gets to decide what insurance has to cover is socialist. Forcing companies to provide insurance is I think fascist, not socialist, but the public risk pools are socialist, as are the changes to the medicare prescription drug plan, since that is provided by the government.

All the dictates about insurance having to cover pre-existing conditions, having to cover abortion, having to give free preventative coverage, and not being allowed to have yearly or lifetime limits -- they are all socialist.

In general, anything that is "government-run", or "government-controlled" is socialist. There is some fuzzy line when it comes to regulations, in that regulations do impose some measure of control, but are not always seen as being socialist, but rather being populist, or even authoritative, if they exist merely to protect the sanctity of private contracts.

Meaning that some regulations exist to ensure that citizens entering into contracts with companies (by buying a product) are not cheated; the assumption is that for most individual purchases, millions of individuals don't have the time or inclination to fully investigate the "contract" associated with the purchase of a good or service, so the government provides a framework.

But when those regulations dictate what types of contracts two people can enter into, they are definitely socialist.

Don't forget the student loan program -- the reconciliation completely socialized that program, although you may still be allowed skip the program and get student loans directly, but not at the government-subsidized and guaranteed rate.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The ruling in the 40s was fascist, and the idea that the federal government can prevent someone from growing food for their own family on their own property is one of the most egregious violations of liberty in recent memory.

[CharlesWayneCT]

i’m not positive they made private loans illegal, they just won’t be government-backed anymore.

I don’t think they could have changed bank regulations to prohibit private lending in a reconciliation bill. A year abo I also would have said that no way would our congress think they had a right to prevent private business transactions between consenting adults like that, but now I can’t say that any more.

[verity]

Why bother? You cannot convert the liberal.

[highlander_UW]

The ruling in the 40s was fascist, and the idea that the federal government can prevent someone from growing food for their own family on their own property is one of the most egregious violations of liberty in recent memory.

I agree entirely. SCOTUS made a bad ruling in the 40's and the liberals have been wielding it ever since. The problem is SCOTUS hasn't done enough to protect the constitution (such as that ruling). The intent of the commerce clause wasn't to give unlimited power to the federal government...and it's insane to even try to argue that it was...and yet that's the liberal contention.

In the last couple of days I've been asking liberals a question but none of them will dare touch it. My question is, if the federal government can mandate how you spend your personal money in one area then where is the limit? What stops them from telling you how to spend all of your money? And if you don't have your money you have no private property. The net effect is, the democrats have now turned all Americans into slaves....literally.

I guess the question is, which states are going to stand up and be free states and which are going to remain slave states. I thought we settled this long ago, but the democrats have returned to their slaveholder roots.

[backwoods-engineer]

Section 401. Provides for penalties if a person does not buy a “qualifying” plan, which the government taxes on a scale related to income. Forces income to be transferred (under threat from the IRS) from the “rich” to the poor. Ergo, socialism.

[Retired Greyhound]

Fascism, socialism = SAME THING

[ColdSteelTalon]

Because I am fighting for people on the fence its a conversation on facebook.... :)

[ColdSteelTalon]

Thanks very much for your help!!!!

[ColdSteelTalon]

Thanks everyone for your feedback !!!