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.
All of it.
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
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.
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.”
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.
Why bother? You cannot convert the liberal.
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.
Thanks everyone for your feedback !!!