Is the current health care bill just the first step towards socialized medicine? Do we need a 3rd party.?

Question

I believe yes, as the public option had no chance of being signed into law and now the the left has opted to incrementally bring socialism to America's citizens.

I also believe the the CBO report does not account for the 10 billion annually in cost to employ an additional 10,000 IRS agents (who will tax and fine those found to be non-compliant) nor the 200 billion medicare fix that will come in a separate bill to insure that doctors who accept medicare will not go in the red.

Also, (even Chuck Schumer d Ill) acknowledged that this bill will not reduce health care costs to the bulk of American citizens.

Seems to me that the progressives will use and say in 5 to 10 years down the road (after America is addicted to this "social welfare entitlement program" and they have given amnesty to 20 million illegals) that health care is too expensive and we must now go into socialized medicine in order to contain costs.Do you see health care legislation ending with the current bill??? (I don't)

To me; this current bill is not about cost or really even health care; it's all about accumulating power and regulating more and more aspects of American citizens lives, its all about social and economic justice (AKA communism/socialism).

Please don't think that I believe in the Republicans very much though, as their spending habits have been almost as bad as the dems in the last 15 years or so. They too have committed economic atrocities against the citizens of this country by encouraging the Global economy and the export of American jobs by big business to our competition overseas.

This is why I'm in favor of a third party, because dems and republicans both seem to only care about maintaining power but go about it in quite different ways. We need new politicians who respect the constitution, not tax & spend our money for their own interests or in the interests of big business, someone who will enforce our immigration laws, and govern by the will of the people who elected them, respecting individual States rights etc...

Funny how the country before the progressives instituted "temporary income tax" to the constitution the government supported itself (including the military) through tariffs on imports. (Seems to me that do to the nature of the trade imbalance over the past 30 years; this may be in the people's best interest to investigate once more as I know of no one personally or of any average American whom has benefited from NAFTA. (do you???) I think gay marriage should be unrecognized legally but should be tolerated socially. Although I don't smoke pot I say legalize it and tax it as we must keep the drug cartels of Mexico from gaining any more financial power and not allow their violence to continue spilling over the border. I don't personally believe in gay marriage either, but I say let them do what they want (are any of you going to stop them from being gay? Also, let them serve in the military "God knows someone needs to" only I would throw them out for sexual harassment if they solicit Heterosexuals for sex just the same as if someone harasses another of opposite gender.
Lastly, equal rights means equal rights... I would do away with "affirmative action" but severely penalize anyone guilty of discrimination or hate crimes (we need common sense balance in our country not left or right).

So if anyone asks me if I am a Republican or Democrat I say "neither, I am a constitutionalist/social conservative libertarian. Does the abbreviation CSCL sound good to any of you as well ?

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

there is nothing in the health care bill that has anything to do with medicine. Its all about money.

rose · Answer

hear hear! Partisan politics has done exactly what the founding fathers said it would: Destroyed America. We need to eradicate Washington of all career politicians, and make serving in congress, the senate, and even the white house like serving jury duty: A civil right and responsibility that a person takes a year out of their lives to do. During that year, they must propose one bill that is limited to one page in definition and it must be focused on making the country better, not just satisfying lobbyists. Each civil servant in government will be in session everyday excepting weekends and bank holidays. For that year of service they will receive $100,000 tax free and live in a housing complex near Washington D.C. Travel and moving expenses will be provided by the tax-payers money, but no food or transportation apart from public transportation and the basic healthcare that is provided to all American Citizens. During that year of service they will have two weeks of sick leave, but no vacation days. If we were to adopt this system, and vote only on our local politicians and the President, Vice President, and executive branch cabinet (that's right, no more bringing all the president's buddies to the white house with him), then we would at least get more ideas into the government, and it would certainly be a government for the people, by the people, and of the people.

Anonymous · Answer

Apparently "Fox News" or Rush or Beck have already confused you to the point you have no idea what you are looking at; how can "the current health care bill" be "just the first step towards socialized medicine" when the USA already HAS "socialized medicine" in the form of Medicaid & Medicare?

If you are REALLY a Constitutionalist. then I assume you have read the Preamble? It charges the US Government with providing for the "General Welfare", that's how taking dollars from taxpayers to fund Medicaid & Medicare (oh, and the Army, LOL!) is "Constitutional".

If you are going to call yourself a Constitutionalist, you really should READ the Constitution!

Thanks for the chuckle!

TheHumbleOne · Answer

My personal opinion - it is a step toward socialized medicine to which I am adamantly opposed.  This country - the best on the planet - came into existence because our ancestors wanted to get away from kings and dictators.  Now, we have Woodstock, D.C., filled with radicals from the 60s, who want to control everything.  They would do us all a favor if they left the USA and started their own country somewhere.  As for a 3rd party, I'm not so sure this would be a good idea.  Two parties with similar ideals would split the vote and the 3rd party would win.  For proof of the pudding, I voted for Ross Perot and we got Clinton.

Basilica Collins · Answer

I'm a registered Democrat, but as I've gotten older, I find myself identifying more and more with the Libertarian party.  A Liberal in the true sense of the word.  The concept of Liberty is a very powerful one, but only if people really understand what it means for us as individuals.  It means no one telling you what to do with your money, with your body, with your property.  It means freedom of everything: speech, religion, self-defense.  Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats understand this concept.  Our founding fathers would be ashamed.

When people ask me if I'm a Republican or Democrat, I tell them I'm a Libertarian with a touch of Anarchist.  But CSCL sounds pretty good :)

ETA: We need a third party, but the voting Americans need to understand what every party really stands for before that can happen.  They barely understand what the Repubs and Dems stand for.  Heck, the Repubs and Dems barely know what THEY stand for themselves.

? · Answer

The problem with a third party is the eventual corruption of said party so it becomes little more than Democrats or Republicans. We do not need a third party, what we need is a massive outreach to voters to educate and support individual decisions not based on partisan affiliation.

singlecountrygent · Answer

dems better be looking for jobs, there won't be 1 in 5 dems in nov reelected. this bill will be yrs in court. el bummer with be a one term looser. el bummer has done more damage to america in 12 mos than any president in the history of america. the public's outrage over him will make it unlikely he'll be allowed to live in america when he leaves office.

Cory · Answer

Yes, and Yes.  It's a little late however.  Most Patriotic Americans have been asleep too long.

Anonymous · Answer

Take a look at this site before you decide whether this is a good idea or not:

daryl leckt · Answer

of course it is a step towards socialism. it makes economic sense. that is why it is practiced in every 1st world country except america.. a 3rd party? hell yes we need one. i am a liberal .neither party represents me.

Trending News

Is the current health care bill just the first step towards socialized medicine? Do we need a 3rd party.?

11 Answers