Obamacare is Socialism; Obama is a Socialist

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

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. Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (see utopian socialism). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, seeing socialism as a transition state between capitalism and communism, appropriated what they found useful in socialist movements to develop their “scientific socialism.” In the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the principal model of strictly centralized socialism, while Sweden and Denmark were well-known for their noncommunist socialism.

.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialist

.

1
:  one who advocates or practices socialism
2
capitalized :  a member of a party or political group advocating socialism
.
Nah...I changed my mind.
To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments

  1. gbakere

    Yes, and the key is, “non-coercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all.” While I do believe in a level of capitalism, I also believe that contributing to the social structure is of primary importance for the benefit of all, and the idea that those at the top can have more influence in my government than I with my vote is abhorrent. It’s capitalism run amuck.

    November 23, 2013
  2. 12SunOryx

    A Welfare-State is not Socialism per se. Americans consider Sweden and Denmark Socialist, which is strange since neither of these countries call themselves that, nor has any political system any different from a typical Western nation. France has a much deeper historical and cultural character of Socialism, since that is where it originally developed, with Marx & Engels in Germany not long after.
    However both traditional forms of Socialism, Utopian or Scientific, believe in social control of some form, and thats where they differ from a Welfare-State. Because Socialism can only occur through democratic control over major industry and the economy.
    Obama has not given the public control over major industry or the economy. Quite the opposite actually.

    November 24, 2013
  3. johnmariow

    There are many degrees of socialism as was stated in this post. I don’t think socialism is the core issue of the voters. I think the core issue is how voters’ tax dollars are spent.

    November 24, 2013
  4. deaconjim

    The definitions posted for Socialism and Socialist are intended to illustrate, as livelonger calls it, the upside-down, backwards thinking of conservatives. I do not believe Obamacare is Socialism, nor do I believe Obama is a Socialist. Neither meets the definition. The post was also intended to promote discussion of Socialism and Socialists, since the conservatives love to throw it out there when they don’t have an argument to put forth.

    November 23, 2013
  5. deaconjim

    Of course, because a government-run program is not for profit and would not be paying out million dollar salaries and bonuses to CEO’s and other executives.

    November 23, 2013
    1. deaconjim

      I see that went over your head. You were talking about government-run, which I said would be not for profit, which would cost less than the private sector, and you start talking about non-profit organizations. Try to follow the thread and keep up, okay?

      November 23, 2013
      1. mrmacq
        “The privat sector does not need to employ as many people as the government does”

        .
        Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, a typical major insurer, employs 6680 people to administer insurance for 2 1/2 million customers, more than are employed to administer public health insurance for all 28 million Canadians
        .
        look it up dude

        November 24, 2013
    2. mrmacq

      " I should have the freedom to choose from the privat sector "
      .
      dude
      the private sector is where you will be getting your insurance from
      .
      you haven’t a clue how this works do ya?
      just want to sit there and bitch

      November 24, 2013
  6. jillsthoughts

    Exactly right, Troll. Administrative costs are typically less than 5% with government agencies.

    November 23, 2013
    1. gbakere

      And nothing taken out for profit, exorbitant executive salaries, or sales commissions which are 30 – 40% of first year premiums.

      November 23, 2013
    2. jillsthoughts

      It’s true that government jobs are valuable, but that is because they offer a livable wage, healthcare and a retirement plan. But that doesn’t make the government top heavy. Again, administrative costs are less than 5%.
      .
      Politifact researched the subject back in May 2011, after Barbara Boxer made a comment comparing Medicare and the private health industry.
      .
      “To measure the administrative costs for Medicare, we first turned to the 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds — the document prepared by Medicare’s fiscal overseers.
      .
      The trustees’ summary listed total Medicare expenditures of $522.8 billion for 2010, of which $7 billion was characterized as “administrative expenses.” That works out to 1.3 percent — not far off from what Boxer stated.
      .
      For the private insurance market, we turned to a 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress. CBO cited data, compiled by the McKinsey Global Institute, that estimated administrative costs for private insurers at 12 percent."
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/

      November 25, 2013
  7. mrmacq

    The U.S. pays $911 per person per year in administrative costs. Canada by contrast pays $270 per person.

    The disproportion in insurance overhead costs is even more marked: insurance overhead per capita comes to $212 in the U.S., $34 in Canada. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, a typical major insurer, employs 6680 people to administer insurance for 2 1/2 million customers, more than are employed to administer public health insurance for all 28 million Canadians.

    November 24, 2013
    1. deaconjim

      Proof that if Obamacare was truly Socialism, it would be a lot less expensive for the taxpayers.

      November 24, 2013
      1. mrmacq

        exactly
        ours could be classed as socialism
        but not your ACA

        November 24, 2013
  8. mrmacq

    When Germany recently shifted dental services from the public system to private insurance, administrative costs tripled from 5% to 15%.

    November 24, 2013
    1. mrmacq

      drag you up from 38th place
      95% of we canucks would NOT want to throw away our system for a system like yours
      does ours require tweaking?
      hell yes
      but even if we were to double the monies spent on monthly premiums
      it would be just over 100 bucks per month per individual
      (less for families)

      November 24, 2013
    2. mrmacq

      nope
      sorry youre wrong yet again
      .
      References

      1. Evans, Robert G., Barer, Morris L., Stoddart, Greg L., Bhatia, Vandna. The Premier’s Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice. June 1994. 2. Himmelstein, David U., Woolhandler, Steffie.

      The National Health Program Book: 1994.

      3. Stoddart, Greg L., Barer, Morris L., Evans, Robert G., Bhatia, Vandna.

      The Premier’s Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice.
      .
      ya know you could have found this out for yourself simply by using google there
      instead you look again the fool

      November 24, 2013
      1. mrmacq

        all liberal group?
        are you fucking serious?
        .
        “The Premier’s Council on Health”
        heres one from alberta
        “In August 2000, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein established a 12-member Advisory Council on Health under the chairmanship of the Right Honourable Donald Mazankowski. The Advisory Council was asked to review Alberta’s publicly funded health system and develop recommendations to improve the quality of health services and preserve the system’s sustainability.

        The Advisory Council’s report, A Framework for Reform,(1) was released on 8 January 2002 to considerable media attention. This was followed, two weeks later, by the Alberta government’s response to the Advisory Council’s report, indicating that the Government would begin immediately to implement a number of the Council’s recommendations."

        http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0133-e.htm
        .
        let me tell ya dude
        Ralph Klein has been called many a thing
        but never a liberal

        November 24, 2013