Yesterday, David Alelrod acknowledged that one of the ways the Senate health care bill will slow down the rise of medical costs is by 1) limiting the salaries of the CEOs of health insurance companies, 2) limiting the amount they can spend on administration, and 3) limiting the amount of profits that can go to shareholders. Another way of saying this is,1) diminishing the quality of leadership, 2) diminishing the quality of administration, and 3) diminishing the ability to attract investors. No one could argue that this is anything less than true and pure fascism (government control of private industry).
To the pragmatist, this may seem like a reasonable approach, but to those whose pragmatism rests on a foundation of core principles, this is unAmerican. If the federal government can simply legislate this level of control over one industry, it can legislate total control over all industries. Is it really unreasonable to suspect that this may be the secret agenda of certain of our nation's power brokers? Is it really only a wild conspiracy theory to believe that, just as there have been men in the past who have thirsted for power, there are men alive today who are motivated primarily by a desire to exercise power over others? After all, Mussolini was a favorite of the American left until his association with Hilter made him anathema.
15 comments:
Dave, you are quite correct. This time, they used the pretext that this medical takeover is necessary to save the poor besieged American middle class and "cover" the (fictional) huddled masses. "Dingy Harry" Reid uttered the preposterous lie that every ten minutes in America, someone dies because he was uninsured. Rush pointed out that in the time between now and 2013 or 2014 when this miracle of miracles actually takes effect, some 210,000 people will die, under Reid's calculation. This shows how abjectly stupid these communists think Americans are. But nothing prevents these Bolsheviks from declaring something else an emergency, that is "broken" and needs to be "reformed," and the next thing you know, there'll be a right to a car, to a nice cushy job where you don't have to work, etc., etc., etc. After all, this was the substance of FDR's "Second Bill of Rights," or whatever he called it. Great Americans have warned of this type of thing for hundreds of years (see John Adams); but the average American who wants his comforts, his ease, his beer, doesn't give a rat's rear-end about liberty. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be in this hell-hole.
Dave, you could be right. That kind of conspiracy theory has been around since the Jefferson days. Maybe now is the time. I will have to watch my mentor, Glenn Beck, and see what he has to say. Anyway, the senate bill is such a sham I just hope it dies in conference. If not, and some of that stuff is in the final bill, I hope it gets voted down.
I will defer to Brian, but I do not see how some of that stuff in the bill is constitutional, especially paying a fine on your tax form if you are not insured. Brian, do you have to show you have been harmed or have standing before you can sue on that part of the bill? I even think those nasty leftists are against that fine.
Don't respond to Tom, guys; it's a trick!
I heard the president say explicitly that he favors fining and even imprisoning the people who, as he says, are working the system by not buying health insurance. What kind of leftist does that make him? Is there something beyond nasty?
LOL, Brian.
Yes, I heard him say he favors the fines which he was not in favor of during the campaign. I've not heard him address the jail part, but as I said, that is wrong and I think most lefties disagree with that. I have told you guys I think there is only one effective way to have universal health care, but the dems bailed on that pretty quick and now they bailed on the public option. No trick Brian; the senate bill is not worth beans. It is basically a huge subsidy to the insurance companies and adjusting certain accounting practices probably makes Axelrod's comments false in real life practice despite the language of the bill. It appears Wall Street thinks so.
Again Tom, what would you call a guy who favors public policies that are even more tyrannical than those of the typcal leftist?
I would call him wrong and misguided.
. . . but still vote for him
No Bill,
If this fine passes I would not vote for him a second time unless he was running against Palin and even then I would probably just sit it out unless there was a 3rd candidate I could possibly vote for. The fine is wrong. I don't know of any other way of saying it. Further more, even if the fine goes away, and I think it will, if whatever they wind up passing fails to curb health care costs and all that other stuff, he will not get my vote. He has to this date, 12/23/09,failed to deliver what was pledged during his campaign. I'm sure you guys would love for me to call him a fascist, but that kind of name calling is a far left, far right ploy that they like to play. I did not agree with the lefties calling Bush a fascist for his warrantless wiretaps and torture policies, nor do I agree with the far right calling Obama a fascist for his policies. He is wrong on this fine and the far left is saying as much if you would guys would listen. I understand the logic of why it is there, especially when a public option was on the bill, but regardless of the public option, it is still wrong and misguided.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
David,
If you agree that health care reform is an important debate and should be an honest debate, what would you call a senator who blatantly tells an untruth on the most watched cable news channel in america, of a tax increase that is contained within the senate bill?
By the way, no correction was ever offered by that cable news channel.
I would call anyone who blatantly tells an untruth a liar, unless the purpose behind the untruth is to secure an importnat and moral good. For example, if I were hiding a Jewish family in my attic in 1944 and the Gestapo came to my house and asked if I was harboring any Jews, I would not be lying if I said no. A lie is an untruth told for malicious deception. Most of the untruths that flow out of the mouths of politicians are lies.
BTW, I want to point out that when we call the president a fascist, we are not using this term as a pejorative; we are using it in the technical sense as the best way to describe his political philosophy. At this point it is undeniable that Mr. Obama believes that it is legitimate and appropriate for government to exert excessive control over private industry. This is a core element of fascism. Some would even say it's the essence of fascism, though I think that true fascism encompasses more than this. For example, we know from his public statements that Mr. Obama favors the redistribution of wealth, another tenet of fascism. We also know that he embraces Lenin's concept of "the Commanding Heights" (the doctrine that some industries are too big to be allowed to fail and therefore must be controled by the government). This is another fascist policy. These are empirical observations, which at this point cannot be denied. Therefore, we are compelled to call the president what he in fact is: a fascist. We suspect he may even be a socialist, believing that in the public interest the government should own industry (e.g. the public option). Time will tell. In the mean time, those of us who believe in the ideals of our founders are compelled to resist every move in the direction of fascisim and socialism, no matter how seemingly minor. This is what it means to be guided by principles.
Dave, well said. I think that at heart, Obama is a communist. He would like for the government to own the means of production. So far this year, he has been acting like a fascist, because that is what he has been able to get away with.
Tom, what amazes me is that the only thing you seem to be upset about in that health care monstrosity is that stupid fine. Hey, c'mon, cooperate with "the People." If you ain't gonna cooperate, why shouldn't you have to pay a fine or go to jail? This is health care for all "that can never be taken away." It's nirvana. How could you let some selfish #^*&%@@ screw it up for the rest of the struggling masses?
Taxing "cadillac" health plans is another. I think your Gipper wanted to tax employee benefits and congress said no. I think it might just be labor union plans that get taxed, I'm not sure. Doesn't matter though, it's wrong whether is just labor unions or all plans. One can only hope saner minds prevail in the end.
Sane minds? In the Democrat party? That's a good one.
Specter, Casey, Udall, and Bingham.
Post a Comment