ObamaCare is NOT socialism

[Two Thumbs]

https://www.newsday.com/opinion/ope...gs-but-it-s-certainly-not-socialism-1.6211076

You know who should be angry about Obamacare? Real socialists. The tea party opponents of the Affordable Care Act promised them a government incursion that the new law does not deliver.

Think back to the rallies of 2009 and 2010. All those signs mocking President Obama with the word socialist emblazoned upon them were as common as Gadsden ("Don't Tread on Me") flags. But the health-care exchanges that launched Tuesday bear no resemblance to what Merriam-Webster defines as "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." And actual socialists have noticed.

"Obamacare cannot be considered socialist in any way," according to Greg Pason, the national secretary for Socialist Party USA.

"The ACA program relies on private health insurance companies to manage health services," Pason said. "A socialized system would not include 'health insurance,' but would be an actual national health-care system which would be publicly funded through progressive taxation and controlled by democratically elected assemblies of health-care workers and patients."

He's right. Under the ACA, health insurance in America is still being delivered by private practitioners and paid for by private insurers. In fact, the vast majority of Americans who receive their health insurance from employer-paid plans will see no discernible change in their coverage or delivery, and need not access the exchanges. The only people who have to access the exchanges are the uninsured or those in the individual market (the 12 million to 15 million who purchase insurance for themselves). Soon, small businesses with 50 or fewer workers will go on the "SHOP exchange." Seniors are another group that should experience no change.

"Those who are reliant on Medicare need not be concerned, either," Mary Agnes Carey of Kaiser Health News told me. "Medicare has its own separate enrollment period. It starts in just a couple of weeks. The Medicare enrollment period is if you want to switch within Medicare to a different plan. ... But regarding the Affordable Care Act and the health insurance exchanges, you don't have to do anything."..............................................

You're right.

It's pure tyranny.

 

[bianco]

Would anyone here care to, be able to, explain to me [a foreigner looking in], in simple terms, just what basically Obamacare is?

An Aussie!

Basically Obamacare is a fucked up version of universal healthcare because the Republicans kissed major ass with the large insurance companies. Made a lot of Congressmen rich in kick-backs from the aforementioned insurers that I listed in my previous post.

Is your healthcare system anything like the U.K. or Canada's?

Seems to be.

Basically, we have a system called Medicare.

Every citizen who is working/has income pays a 1.5% [think that's what it is now, I must check one day] levy on their income.
They receive a Medicare card, which entitles them to free treatment in public hospitals, and free visits to doctors who 'bulk bill' [accept the govt's rebate as payment...most general practice doctors seem to].

A homeless citizen, for example, who requires medical treatment, can go to a public hospital for free treatment.
Or to a doctor for a consultation.

 

[Contumacious]

Obama Cares is not socialism.

The police department is socialist.

The fire department is socialist.

Public schools and universities are socialist.

Credit unions are socialist.

The U.S. military is socialist.

Social Security is socialist and has worked well for 76 years.

Medicare is socialist and is keeping my father alive.

So a felony is not a crime if it benefits you and yours?

.

 

[Vox]

It does not.
It actually fits fascism almost 100%
since fascism is a twisted form of socialism, one might call it a twisted one, but is is definitely NOT a classic socialist enterprise.
There are no socialist economic structures in this country.
YET.

And there never will be.

The Citizens United ruling sealed the deal on that one.

and that is VERY GOOD.

 

[Vox]

Would anyone here care to, be able to, explain to me [a foreigner looking in], in simple terms, just what basically Obamacare is?

An Aussie!

Basically Obamacare is a fucked up version of universal healthcare because the Republicans kissed major ass with the large insurance companies. Made a lot of Congressmen rich in kick-backs from the aforementioned insurers that I listed in my previous post.

Is your healthcare system anything like the U.K. or Canada's?

Seems to be.

Basically, we have a system called Medicare.

Every citizen who is working/has income pays a 1.5% [think that's what it is now, I must check one day] levy on their income.
They receive a Medicare card, which entitles them to free treatment in public hospitals, and free visits to doctors who 'bulk bill' [accept the govt's rebate as payment...most general practice doctors seem to].

A homeless citizen, for example, who requires medical treatment, can go to a public hospital for free treatment.
Or to a doctor for a consultation.

you are not telling the whole story, aren't you?

 

[bianco]

An Aussie!

Basically Obamacare is a fucked up version of universal healthcare because the Republicans kissed major ass with the large insurance companies. Made a lot of Congressmen rich in kick-backs from the aforementioned insurers that I listed in my previous post.

Is your healthcare system anything like the U.K. or Canada's?

Seems to be.

Basically, we have a system called Medicare.

Every citizen who is working/has income pays a 1.5% [think that's what it is now, I must check one day] levy on their income.
They receive a Medicare card, which entitles them to free treatment in public hospitals, and free visits to doctors who 'bulk bill' [accept the govt's rebate as payment...most general practice doctors seem to].

A homeless citizen, for example, who requires medical treatment, can go to a public hospital for free treatment.
Or to a doctor for a consultation.

you are not telling the whole story, aren't you?

A general and true story, yes.
It's not a perfect system, there are waiting lists for operations, you can't choose your own doctor, but it's not too bad if one is poor and cannot afford private health insurance.

For details;

Medicare website

 

[RKMBrown]

The subsidies paid to those under the 90k line by those over the 90k line is socialism. The regulatory parts of it superseding the state regulations is federalism. The part about forcing us all to buy private insurance.. yeah that's corporatism in the form of a government mandated oligopoly.

Go Google the "definition of socialism", before you start making your "90k" comments.

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

 

[Vox]

Seems to be.

Basically, we have a system called Medicare.

Every citizen who is working/has income pays a 1.5% [think that's what it is now, I must check one day] levy on their income.
They receive a Medicare card, which entitles them to free treatment in public hospitals, and free visits to doctors who 'bulk bill' [accept the govt's rebate as payment...most general practice doctors seem to].

A homeless citizen, for example, who requires medical treatment, can go to a public hospital for free treatment.
Or to a doctor for a consultation.

you are not telling the whole story, aren't you?

A general and true story, yes.
It's not a perfect system, there are waiting lists for operations, you can't choose your own doctor, but it's not too bad if one is poor and cannot afford private health insurance.

For details;

Medicare website

you are not telling the WHOLE story - if you mention that there are public hospitals, then there should be private ones as well.

so how does that part work?

 

[Vox]

The subsidies paid to those under the 90k line by those over the 90k line is socialism. The regulatory parts of it superseding the state regulations is federalism. The part about forcing us all to buy private insurance.. yeah that's corporatism in the form of a government mandated oligopoly.

Go Google the "definition of socialism", before you start making your "90k" comments.

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

It is a deviation of definition of socialism as it was coined in by it's father. What you provide as definition of socialism is actually social-democratism.

There is no private property for the means of production in real socialism - at all.
as a result there is no private property at all - in some pure socialist countries.
AT ALL.

Even the people are owned by the state.

 

[Billo_Really]

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

Yeah, but that re-distribution of wealth is "upward", not downward!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Obama Cares is not socialism.

The police department is socialist.

The fire department is socialist.

Public schools and universities are socialist.

Credit unions are socialist.

The U.S. military is socialist.

Social Security is socialist and has worked well for 76 years.

Medicare is socialist and is keeping my father alive.

And let's not forget that there was plenty of opposition to SS and Medicare when they were introduced.

So I just wonder how many of these righties plan on standing on their high moral ground and refusing either when they turn 65, if their sorry asses aren't on both programs already.

why would anybody not collect on funds they were FORCED by the socialist statists to take out of their paychecks....?

yes.....socialist statist programs like Obamacare are based upon FORCE....

 

[RKMBrown]

Go Google the "definition of socialism", before you start making your "90k" comments.

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

It is a deviation of definition of socialism as it was coined in by it's father. What you provide as definition of socialism is actually social-democratism.

There is no private property for the means of production in real socialism - at all.
as a result there is no private property at all - in some pure socialist countries.
AT ALL.

Even the people are owned by the state.

What part of the 16th amendment and the 14th due process clause confused you? You think you own your property? You think you are not owned by the State? ROFL who do you think you are kidding?

 

[regent]

The subsidies paid to those under the 90k line by those over the 90k line is socialism. The regulatory parts of it superseding the state regulations is federalism. The part about forcing us all to buy private insurance.. yeah that's corporatism in the form of a government mandated oligopoly.

Go Google the "definition of socialism", before you start making your "90k" comments.

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

So if government passed a law taxing some people with the intent of helping others would that fit your definition of socialism?

 

[RKMBrown]

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

Yeah, but that re-distribution of wealth is "upward", not downward!

Huh? You talking about the CEO oligopoly on executive pay that the government continues to back? Or are you trying to convince me that taxes on Capital Gains are an upward migration of funds that should otherwise be entirely owned and distributed by some collective?

 

[Vox]

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

It is a deviation of definition of socialism as it was coined in by it's father. What you provide as definition of socialism is actually social-democratism.

There is no private property for the means of production in real socialism - at all.
as a result there is no private property at all - in some pure socialist countries.
AT ALL.

Even the people are owned by the state.

What part of the 16th amendment and the 14th due process clause confused you? You think you own your property? You think you are not owned by the State? ROFL who do you think you are kidding?

those amendments don't have anything to do with the economic basics.
if you want to assure me that any state can expropriate anything from anybody on any time I can partially agree - and that is why the state has to be chained and jailed, so to say, as much as we, the people, can restrain it - but there are different extents to which it can bee done under different types of government machine. In a totalitarian regime, which is necessary in order for any socialist "economy" to be imposed on people it is done 100%. In a free market economy with a democratic institutes functioning it is a bit more complicated procedurally.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ObamaCare is NOT socialism

Of course it isn’t.

It would be ignorant idiocy to ‘argue’ otherwise.

In fact, the ACA isn’t even a ‘National’ program, it’s a Federal law that authorizes the establishment of an online private sector marketplace where private insurance companies compete in the free market for customers, where prices are determined by that market.

It’s a republican/conservative plan, after all; if the president were a republican conservatives would love the ACA.

 

[Vox]

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

Yeah, but that re-distribution of wealth is "upward", not downward!

there is no wealth in socialism so there is nothing to redistribute

 

[RKMBrown]

Go Google the "definition of socialism", before you start making your "90k" comments.

You and I may not use the same definition of the term. In this context of redistributing health care funds from one income group to another as required by Obama Care to be 4x the poverty line, when I say socialism I mean:

Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. (Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I agree there are other definitions of socialism, but you will have a hard time arguing with me that socialism does not include re-distribution of wealth through government policies of taxing and spending, with subsidies especially being seen as robbing from peter to pay paul to make up for paul's supposedly inadequate income.

So if government passed a law taxing some people with the intent of helping others would that fit your definition of socialism?

Depends on the tax and whether or not the taxing and spending of my money was voluntary.

I'm ok with sales taxes and real-estate taxes that I volunteer to pay for when I buy a piece of property. I'm not good with income taxes. IMO the 16th Amendment was almost as vile as the 14th due process clause that gives government the right to take your life and liberty away as long as it's for the greater good as deemed by the majority.

Not all taxes are bad. Not all spending is bad.

I'd be ok with an involuntary tax to fund our military if serving in our military was a requirement for citizenship. IMO we should separate the fund for our military out from the general fund. Everything else should be very small at the federal level. I prefer local taxes for the necessary functions of society outside of the defense of the nation.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

ObamaCare is NOT socialism

Of course it isn’t.

It would be ignorant idiocy to ‘argue’ otherwise.

In fact, the ACA isn’t even a ‘National’ program, it’s a Federal law that authorizes the establishment of an online private sector marketplace where private insurance companies compete in the free market for customers, where prices are determined by that market.

It’s a republican/conservative plan, after all; if the president were a republican conservatives would love the ACA.

nice whitewash...

let's not forget the 'National' subsidies to millions....

and let's not forget the socialist statist arm of FORCE to implement the program....i.e., the IRS....

 

[RKMBrown]

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

It is a deviation of definition of socialism as it was coined in by it's father. What you provide as definition of socialism is actually social-democratism.

There is no private property for the means of production in real socialism - at all.
as a result there is no private property at all - in some pure socialist countries.
AT ALL.

Even the people are owned by the state.

What part of the 16th amendment and the 14th due process clause confused you? You think you own your property? You think you are not owned by the State? ROFL who do you think you are kidding?

those amendments don't have anything to do with the economic basics.
if you want to assure me that any state can expropriate anything from anybody on any time I can partially agree - and that is why the state has to be chained and jailed, so to say, as much as we, the people, can restrain it - but there are different extents to which it can bee done under different types of government machine. In a totalitarian regime, which is necessary in order for any socialist "economy" to be imposed on people it is done 100%. In a free market economy with a democratic institutes functioning it is a bit more complicated procedurally.

As to your statement, "those amendments don't have anything to do with the economic basics." Dude that's funny. Income tax has nothing to do with economic basics? ROFL the means by which most of the income for our government has nothing to do with money? Put down the pipe

In the past I calculated that about 60% of my income goes to federal, local, and state taxes. I'm probably doing better now because I've decided to wait till Obama leaves to start earning serious money again.

Let's say it's only 50% total. If you are correct, arguendo, that 100% imposition would be socialism and we are at 50% isn't that just half a free market or half socialism?

I'm reminded of the old phrase, we've already established what you are, now we are just negotiating price.