Awaiting typical denial of Obama’s socialism and daily “party of no” rant from Jack Shithead in 5…4…3…2…

Posted by Mr_e_m_t
2010-02-22 08:35:07

Dude seriuosly, by defibition, ANY control of an industry, by regulating the manner, type, or quantity of distribution is SOCIALISM. Dictating what types of insurance the industry can sell is controlling the type and quantity, thus falls very CLEARLY under the definition of SOCIALISM. Nothing in COTUS gives Odrama or Congress the power to DO such things, these laws are being written are extraconstituional but no one in Washington is willing to stand up and SAY IT and make the rest understand.

It’s either socialism or its cousin, fascism. Everything in the bill and Obama’s proposals will make it impossible for insurance companies to operate independently.

The government will force them to accept customers regardless of risk, which destroys a centuries old business model right off the bat. The government will set the medical loss ratio, which will dictate the percentage of revenue companies must spend on health care services. They’re going to control the rates customers pay, and doubtlessly the salaries of company managers and executives.

They’re in essence going to turn health care into a publicly-regulated utility…a business model that kills innovation and competition, lowers quality, and leads to higher prices.

Anybody want to go back to the early 1990′s era for telephone and computer service with costly long distance, almost no consumer choice, and little to no technological innovation? That’s going to be health care under the Obama Tax and Takeover Plan.

It can’t be socialism because that would be an attempt to overthrow the US government.

You’re deliberately confusing the issue. No one thinks Obama’s going to send tanks into Washington and declare himself Dictator. Whatever you call it, any move to centralise State control over private industries is antithetical to everything America stands for. It’s not so much overthrowing the government as subverting it.

“Socialism and fascism are opposite ends of the spectrum”

No, not really. Socialism is the state control of land, industry, and business under a centralized authority. Fascist economics maintains the facade of private ownership, but chains business to the government through regulations, taxes, and strongarm tactics.

Technically speaking, Obama’s agenda is more fascist than socialist since he’s really only nationalized General Motors, but has used legislation and strongarm tactics to barge his way into the financial firms and Chrysler.

Obama may be creating history’s first example of a fascist republic. Fortunately the voters seem to have realized this and are voting Democrats out of office about as fast as possible. Thanks for opening the door for me to explain that in detail, by the way.

Socialism and fascism are opposite ends of the spectrum, unless you are Jonah Goldberg and you carefully pick and choose to omit the historical truth. Let’s put Goldberg’s tome up for scholarly analysis, shall we? It’s basically toilet paper.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, completely and utterly WRONG. Facism and Socialsm are BROTHERs, not brother and sister. Right-wing govts call for little or NO control of business and the economy.

As for Obama the socialist, William is trying to claim one man can change the paradigm of the country so completely, to William Obama must have the power of Jesus Christ itself.

Well not exactly, Teach is saying this is what Odrama wants and what the Dems in Congress are WILLING to give him.

The government role is to regulate business as it fosters it.

Wrong, govts role is do NOTHING, unless the company has acted unfairly or fraudulently.

Insurance is a social contract where risk is spread among people so individuals don’t bear the total cost. Skimming profits at the expense of coverage us basically unethical.

Wrong insurance is a BUSINESS contract where the risks of expense are spread among the buyers to provide he a cost savings to the insured. Profit (less than 5% of total revenue for most health insurance companies), is the means by which the company inproves it services. There is NOTHING unethical about profit. However stealing from the rich to give the less rich is unethical, ammoral, and illegal.

Besides, when your side Ean the country you ran it into the ground.

Payback’s a bitch.
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-02-22 09:47:01

There hasn’t been a truely conservative majority in the Fed since at least 1925, so I don’t see how this can be even remotely true.

“The government role is to regulate business as it fosters it.”

Yes, in accordance with the Constitution…but regulate means regulate, not take over or operate.

Hey, by the way, since the liberals seem to now be against national insurance exchanges in the name of state’s rights (that’s rich), has anybody told them that the Federal government has no authority to regulate intrastate business?

All these fancy new taxes, takeovers, and mandates? Blatantly and totally unconstitutional, and unenforceable against insurance companies that don’t cross state lines.

Obama’s bill is a huge farce unless an insurance company decided to take the bait and starts to sell nationally. Any company that continued to operate as an in-state entity could avoid all the taxes and mandates the liberals are so eager to enforce.

The government role is to regulate business as it fosters it.

Problem is, the left is never interested in regulating government.

Jacqui, you too funny –

Let’s put Goldberg’s tome up for scholarly analysis, shall we?

OK, let’s. Get ready for that scholarly analysis. Here it comes…wait for it…it’s big…really big…

It’s basically toilet paper.

That was your example of “scholarly analysis”? ROFLMAO. What a joke you are Jacqui.

Hint: You were a better troll when you didn’t try to explain yourself. Now, when you explain you ‘thinking’, it’s apparent that there isn’t much going on between your ears, intellect-wise. Kind of like your four word “scholarly analysis”.

You too funny, Jacqui.

Depends how you go about making said profit. Toyota and there skimping on safety to make a profit comes to mind.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-22 11:35:12

A. Nobody knows, except toyota, what and if they skimped on anything. This is another form of democrat class warfare to sell more govt motors cars. All we have are claims.

B. That is in no way similar to insurance and what you THINK is going on there. Remember when you said we cannot judge the entire canadian system based on the tonsil kid and the premier coming here for heart surgery, then you went ahead and said everybody in the usa dies or goes BK from our system……remember that?

Depends how you go about making said profit.

Those who break the law ought to be punished. That’s the entire role of government in business. Period.

B. That is in no way similar to insurance and what you THINK is going on there. Remember when you said we cannot judge the entire canadian system based on the tonsil kid and the premier coming here for heart surgery, then you went ahead and said everybody in the usa dies or goes BK from our system……remember that?

Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-22 11:50:24

NO, because I said no such thing.

Progressivism is the American version of Fascism and National Socialism. The One (PBUH) are Ptogressives, it is just that simple. They appear to believe that industry exists to serve the intersts of the State. What are excessive or windfall profits? Who decides what is excessive? You? Me? The government? If I am invested in a specific company than there is no such thing as excessive profits. Only to an anti-business Progressive is profit somehow bad.

Have an Evil day

Will you defend their right to skimp on safety in the name of making a profit?
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-22 12:30:46

WIll you defend your comment that David Duke voted for Bush?

Socialism and fascism are opposite ends of the spectrum, unless you are Jonah Goldberg and you carefully pick and choose to omit the historical truth.

Shows what you know.

Game. Set. Match.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Government has no place in regulating private business beyond the limits of the judicial branch where it comes to enforcing criminal law.
Fascism, communism, socialism, “nationalism”, are not just subversive, they are treasonous and have no place in our government any more than imperialism and totalitarianism.

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Posted by RightWingRocker
2010-02-22 13:32:53

You should ask whats_up, as he made the attempt to smear Bush as a white supremacist that Duke voted for. Three years ago, and whats_up has never provided proof or retracted his claim.

Thus explaining his zero credibility on any issue. In fact, the only one he has any possible knowledge of is gay marriage.

If Sarah Palin were not a socialist, why did she, while governor, bargain to increase the tolls that oil companies pay to the state of Alaska for extracting oil within Alaska rather than seeking to overturn the Alaskan State Consitution which states that the ownership and control of Alaska’s oil is vested in the state of Alaska.