If this were true, that it is a government take-over of health care, then it might be socialistic, but, unfortunately, it is not. What ObamaCare did was to provide more business for health insurance companies through the individual mandate. It is not a single-payer system, which, if it were, still would not make it a government take-over. Now, if government makes all doctors, nurses and other medical personnel work for the government and makes provision of such services outside of this realm illegal, then it would be a take-over.
Really, I am not sure this would be a bad idea, but we are a long ways from there. Nobody would become doctors if this were the case, they say. Why not? If their education is paid for, why not? If they cannot be sued, why not? Government-employed doctors do pretty well.
Most teachers are government employees. So are our soldiers. They do it out of a sense of service. Most doctors I know feel this too—they want to help people
How is ObamaCare unconstitutional? Oh yeah, it’s the individual Mandate, the idea from Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation—they must hate the Constitution and be working to destroy it.
It was modeled after RomneyCare in Massachusetts—is Romney a socialist?
Here’s the insane thing: if I have heard Romney correctly, which is difficult because he changes his mind as much as a kid in a candy store, he likes most of the things in ObamaCare except for the individual mandate.
Why is this insane? Two reasons:
- It is part of what pays for it. The people who do not have insurance now get free medical emergency care paid for by everyone with insurance; and
- It stops a massive redistribution from those making insurance payments to those not.
To be very clear, those not making payments are not generally lay-about good-for-nothing 47%-ers. Most of these are in one of the following situations:
- Working at companies that do not provide it and cannot pay for it on their own.
- Their employer provides it, but they cannot afford the portion not paid by the employer.
People have said to me that if they would give up their cigarettes and beer, then they could afford it. Really? Think about these things based on a family in Hennepin County, Minnesota (data from Hennepin County Social Services—see this page):
Costs in a two parent household with two children:
Can you live on this?
Where does the insurance or medical cost come from?
Give it a rest, republicans. What you really want is a plutocracy, where those with “skin in the game”—the rich—run things.
That is more likely to happen than the country becoming fully socialist.
Oh regarding redistribution? It has been here before the country started. What do you think ANY income tax does? Thomas Jefferson had these things to say about redistribution:
The collection of taxes… has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic. –Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110
The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings. –Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41
This seems downright Socialistic. Should his monument be removed from National Mall area?