But....ok Two things: 1) Wanting government regulated health insurance isn't socialism. Sorry, but it isn't. Perhaps you could make the argument with government OWNED health insurance, but not government regulated health insurance. Also, you don't have to have health insurance. You have to pay a fee if you don't get it, but that fee is 1% of your income, which is probably less than it would cost you to get health insurance. Besides, are you really denying your work-given health insurance? The government also doesn't let you threaten the life of a President or yell fire in a crowded room -- is that Progressives taking away your freedom? The government makes you wear seatbelts -- are you complaining about that terrible loss of freedom? 2) Socialism is an economic movement. Communism is a system of government. You cannot replace democracy with socialism -- it's an impossibility. But that's just words. I do appreciate your attempts to help this naive progressive understand, but I must confess I still don't understand your clarification. How is pushing through reform ending democracy? There are more Democrats than Republicans in the Congress. The Democrats passed their bill. Did they do it in the best way? No. Did they do it in a shady way? Yes. But in 2008 America voted in more Democrats than Republicans, and the Democrats are passing their agenda. In November, you get to fight this. This means Democracy is still working. I totally admire your passion, but simply am having trouble understanding your logic. Democrats aren't representing the values of Republicans, so they're ending Democracy? I honestly am having trouble understanding.
Yes, you are correct that Socialism is an economic and/or political theory and democracy is a type of government. I did not refer to the US Government as a Constitution-based federal republic with strong democratic traditions , which is how the CIA categorizes it, not because I want to mislead people or because I don't understand the type of government we have, but because most readers refer to the US as a "democracy", not a "Constitution-based federal republic with strong democratic traditions". Also, most people do not refer to the US as a "representative democracy" we simply say, "Democracy". Since a democracy is a government by the people with freedoms that are secured through the constitution - when I said, "Progressives really think that the battle is won, and that the democracy we flourish in is over." I was implying that under the current bill, which I feel is part of a Progressive agenda, the 'democracy' granted to us by the constitution is being threatened. I wasn't trying to say that we are going from a Democracy to Socialism in terms of form of government. Since the word 'Democracy' is thrown around freely, and since America is Capitalistic (some would argue that point and to what degree we are capitalistic, but that is another can of worms) I assumed, shame on me, that it was implied that I was referring to the replacement of capitalistic with socialistic economic measures.
Democracy, or a Constitution-based federal republic with strong democratic traditions (CBFRSDT, for short), didn't happen over night. Socialism won't happen over night either. It is also a process. Many Conservatives feel that this Healthcare Law is a huge step down that path. In 2007, Obama said,
It is my belief that not just politically but also economically, it’s better for us to start getting a system in place—a universal health care system—signed into law by the end of my first term as president and build off that system to further—to make it more rational—by the way, Canada did not start off immediately with a single-payer system. They had a similar transition step.The Obama administration passed this bill because they needed a foundation to 'build off'. Clearly it didn't matter what was in the bill. Pelosi said,
we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in itI mean, really? This bill, I mean law, has nothing to do with improving healthcare or cutting cost! It was only a step.
If that isn't enough, the law does NOT cover children with pre-existing conditions. They all thought it did, but I guess that's what happens when not a damn soul reads the bill.
You mentioned that,
Wanting government regulated health insurance isn't socialism. Sorry, but it isn't. Perhaps you could make the argument with government OWNED health insurance, but not government regulated health insurance.The government is setting up the exchanges that contain 4 tiered plans that the American public is mandated to PURCHASE, in order to meet the minimum coverage requirement. So you are purchasing healthcare coverage from the gov't, which makes it gov't owned, not gov't regulated. That sounds Socialistic to me.
Now to Car Insurance vs. Health Insurance. One, you don't have to drive a car. When you drive a car it is on a public street, and in order to drive you have to obtain a driver's license. If you don't want to drive, then don't - but guess what? If you decide not to drive, you aren't fined. You are FREE to make that choice. And that is the difference!
Any form of Nationalization is a step toward Socialism, and with this Healthcare Law the government is now controlling part of the distribution and production within the healthcare market. America has always been the country with a Capitalistic Free Market based economy, so why are we now going down the Nationalization/Socialist path?
It is just 2700 pages of favors!