Tuesday, March 23, 2010


Although I have not followed much of the health care debacle, I’ve heard pundits and other people refer to Obama as a socialist. I wish I could understand their rationale. And why does the average, educated person still buy into the right-left paradigm? I see virtually no difference in these two parties anymore – the sole purpose is to feed big business. Am I getting too soft and liberal out here in moist Bellingham? With the country’s (and world’s?) wealth controlled by the smallest percentage in the history of the world, and we continue to be scared of the notion socialism and the misuse and bastardization of its meaning? Though the economic theories are many, the basic premise of socialism is the redistribution of wealth. Obama a socialist? Hardly.

Where President Bush failed in creating a significant step towards fascism. President Obama succeeded. By this, I mean that – well I’ve heard, at least – that forcing the public to buy into any private industry by definition is fascism. Or something like that. At any rate, Bush failed with social Security; Obama succeeded with health care. Here is an interesting link. I do not know how true this is, but the second statement does not surprise me:

“This bill is almost identical to the plan written by the AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.”

Obama took the most financial contribution ever from the financial sector, and I would not be too surprised if big pharma, health insurance, etc. are far behind.

Maybe crony-capitalist? Corporatist? Fascist? But not a socialist. Meanwhile our healthcare system is the laughing stock of the industrialized world. At least we rank with South Africa as the only industrialized nation not offering universal health care. The health of this country does not have a bright future - in many ways.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"Crony-capitalist? Corporatist? Fascist?"
-He's a Statist

"Am I getting too soft and liberal?"