Sunday, September 13, 2009

And They Call Him A Socialist?

Next time someone calls the President a "socialist" or refers to his "socialist" programs, you really need to laugh in that person's face.

Socialism? As if...!

The President has called for a mandate: everyone must buy health insurance. At the same time, the President and his majority party are walking away from the concept of a non-profit plan, which means we will all be required to buy private insurance.

The Administration wants a political victory, and they will settle for a bill that permits them to impose some regulations on private insurance. A small victory, that would be.

And in no way socialist, when we are forced to purchase insurance from private corporations that will not even have to compete alongside a public plan.

I'm not impressed by soaring speeches. This is weak leadership in support of weak reform, and a victory for a desperate minority party that has contributed literally nothing to this important cause.

Socialism? As if....!

7 comments:

haddayr said...

If he were a socialist, I would have voted for him gleefully, with no reservations.

The man is a conservative democrat. Attempts to paint him as some sort of extremist are simply attempts for right-wing extremists to make themselves look like moderates.

Algernon said...

Right!

Nathan said...

I have hammered away at this with Obama supporters for most of the past two months. It's amazing how a few pep rallies can make people stop thinking and start drooling. Meanwhile, people like me, uninsured but not completely in poverty, will be facing some tough decisions in the near future if this passes.

Pam said...

He's not a Socialist. I'm not for Socialism.

I listened to his speech and it sounded sensible on the surface. It also, however, lacked what has been lacking all along: details and 'truth is advertising'.

Much of what he said was carefully worded. It was what was not said that still remains unanswered.

It's back to a framework, not specifics.

What is certain is that the details are where so many disagree or digress, it's where the fear for many lie.

And the cost.... to whom, for whom, how much....???

The water is still muddy, and I, for one, am as confused as ever about what all this means.

There is still no clear path to what we all want: heath care for all Americans.

Algernon said...

I think you would expect that a presidential speech to a joint session of Congress would be "carefully worded." It's not a bad thing.

I'd be interested to hear about the policy details you were looking for and felt were missing. It seemed to me the purpose of the speech was to make the case to the public (forget about the GOP -- they are lost) for health care and to outline the most important features he wishes to see in a bill.

This included his signal that the non-profit option is not a deal-breaker, as far as he is concerned.

Finally, it also gave him a chance to fire at the lies being spread about HR 3200 and the proposals for Senate legislation that are being passed around.

In that sense, I think you are right that he was laying out a framework -- but that would be appropriate, don't you think? The details come from the legislative process. I suppose he could suggest details, but in the end it is the House and Senate that must write and pass the bills.

Pam said...

Well, he went from 'framework' to wanting to lay out his policy proposal, then back to 'framework'.

As to details and careful wording, an example would be the 'no one will be forced to change their current policy or lose it'. I don't remember exactly how he changed the wording but he somewhat backed off that absolute.

If an employer decides a govt. or other private insurance policy is cheaper the employer can go for the cheaper policy.

Of course, employers often do that now.

He backed off some of the absolutes that he got called on over the past few weeks.

I still say the sticking points are going to be in the details and how they will find the money it will cost. It will cost much more than the numbers being tossed out.

Honest, thoughtful people are concerned about where the money is going to come from over time.

As I said, I liked the ideas the President laid out. I just don't know how all the details will work.

I also still think there are many good ideas out there and hope many of them can be looked at in depth.

I don't know all the answers, by a long shot. Some ideas sound good but probably won't fly. Other ideas sound reasonable at first then not so when laid out in more depth.

I don't pretend to have the answers. I can think of many things that should be done. I just don't know how we get there.

I think that's the problem in Washington, too.

AnarchyJack said...

Hi Algernon,

Wierd. I'm from central Idaho which makes me conservative enough to be suspicious of government programs. I was also a labor organizer, so I'm automatically suspicious of corporations. The proverbial rock in a hard place. Or, more accurately, I am reminded of a Benjamin Franklin quote presented to me by a libertarian this week:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. "

To paraphrase: Health care in 2009 is a luncheon between corporations, their sheep and politicians, where the sheep and the politicians split a grilled cheese sandwich and then argue over who gets to pay for the corporations' lobster, Champagne and caviar. Liberty has yet to enter the discussion.