President Reagan on Socialized healthcare

if the government administers the service, they are controlling it. who do you think would control the government health insurance system favored by obama? leprechauns? its socialistic, by definition, owned and controlled by the government, funded by your taxes.

" the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government."

who do you think obama wants to produce and distribute the health insurance? the centralized government perhaps?


stop telling people they dont know what socialism means. they know damn well what it means.

there is no "keep". we are not a "true capitalist society" now. ask red to explain to you the concept of balance. we are a hybrid. socialized medicine sways the balance further away from capitalism. this isnt really something to argue about it is just true. the question is where you want the balance point. again, for information on balance, i suggest consulting red.

 

The term is being grossly misused. If they're calling what is being proposed socialism, then I'm sorry but they do not know what it means.

Everything I have seen or read speaks of government regulation. Nothing even hints at the government supplying the services. Public and private businesses will still do that. The proposals are to put into place a vehicle to offer an opportunity for everyone to have access to these programs. The government doesn't provide for healthcare now. It offers Medicare as a way for people to have access to healthcare, but cannot afford it under certain circumstances and for caregivers to be paid for providing these services to qualified people.

That's socialism in the same way that the aids monkey is a mass murderer.

It's a fine line, but a line nonetheless. In socialism, businesses don't have nearly the voice that they will always have in this country.

Sorry if that upsets you...

 

I just wanted to add that when there's a proposal for physicians to become government employees and not get reimbursed by the government, then you can be worried about socialism.

 

i will do this back to you to show how pointless it is.

i am sorry i hurt your feelings, dont be so angry.

oh, your feelings are not hurt? you are not angry? i was just being a tool? i see.

dont do that, it is stupid. dont accuse folks of being upset or sensitive when they arent. it is cheap and pointless.

back to the topic.

you dont have to be sorry.

who do you think will fund and manage and administer and "control" the government health insurance?

if it isnt the people, it is a "socialized" meaning not managed by private individuals but by the government.

obama does more than "hint" at government-supplied health insurance.

when you get over your hurt feelings and anger, feel free to reply. (see what i did there?)

 

And your definition clearly says that collective ownership HAS NOT YET BEEN SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVED. You completely twist the meaning of conservative posts every time.

I seem to recall multiple people trying to spell it out for you dudes that we are saying that some of the things that are happening are INDICATIVE of a socialist trend...as in heading in that direction...as in not there yet.

 

this is so obvious that i cant believe you have to say it.

of course we are not gonna be living under a pure "socialism" under obama. but the fact is that he is increasing the amount of things that the government controls and manages. thats not to be disputed. he put billions of government dollars into GM and AIG. he threw billions at managing what sort of cars people drive by screwing taxpayers and giving their money to destroy "clunkers". in lots of way, obama is a traditional big spending democrat. (note for idiots: i didnt say bush isnt a spending fiend)

and so when obama increases the amount of government money and control of things that could be run privately, like health insurance, then this is by definition, an increase in the amount of "socialistic" policy.

and of course this is a scare tactic, to label things this way. people hate socialism and they term scares them. it should.

liberals just appear to be opposed to a political tool so powerful as accurate labeling of policy. it frustrated them that there is such a negative connotation in america with the term socialism. well, too bad. americans are at least in theory, more opposed to government control than most countries. thats what makes america great.

if red-state idiots all recoil in horror at the first mention of the word socialism, and refuse to have any part of it and tell their leaders to destroy and obstruct any legislation, then good, mission accomplished, crisis averted.

 

Apology accepted.

 

dont be that guy. dont be a tool. dont accuse me of claiming something i never did and then apologizing for it. what is the point? try to discuss the issue or disagree without being a tool.

like shaq said:

Originally Posted by shaqazoolu
I seem to recall multiple people trying to spell it out for you dudes that we are saying that some of the things that are happening are INDICATIVE of a socialist trend...as in heading in that direction...as in not there yet.

 

yeah the credibility of this thread was lost as soon as i read Ronald Reagan. I agree with you MLU.