ObamaCare versus Common Sense

East Berlin 1990 - Party of Democratic Sociali...

Image by Jim Linwood via Flickr

It hasn’t been in the news much lately, what with the elections looming and all, but the Health Care bill passed by Congress affectionately known as ObamaCare is bound to make a resurgence soon.  With this in mind, let us take a somewhat different look at this odd-Duck legislation.

When I first typed the term, “odd-duck legislation” a typo created, “odd-suck legislation.”  This could be an appropriate term, for the bill really does suck.  How so?

Well, I won’t lie.  I attempted to read the bill, but decided it just wasn’t worth the time and aggravation, so I read enough to understand the only real problem with the bill (which did not take long).  I have heard all the complaints and praises for the bill, but really, the problem with it boils down to one simple concept:  Capitalism versus Socialism.

For decades, America has been attempting to straddle the fence between our traditional economy based on Capitalism and the economy that the people appear to be wanting, Socialism.  Many will shiver at the implication, but the reality is,America has been attempting to straddle this fence for years, starting with Social Security (does “social” “security” really exist? – according to Ben Franklin, there can be no security when we surrender our choices to a government, but I digress).

And it is ok if America wants Socialism.  All that is, is a form of economic structure that allows for the kinds of “protections” that many want.  Some (or we could say, most) people do not want to live like a bird in the wild (Capitalism), but prefer to live like one in a cage (Socialism).  Facing facts, birds in a cage live much longer, healthier lives.

If that is what my fellow Americans want, that is fine, but we have a problem here.

The two economic systems are not near enough in ideology to merge and that is what we are trying to do.  We often look at other countries, talk about how they have universal health care (because they are socialistic economies), then demand our government bring us up to speed with the rest of the world.  However, it is not possible through a law of any sort to satisfy both the capitalists and the socialists in a nation.

At some point we are going to have to decide which economic system we want, for we cannot have both with any measure of success.

Now to be clear, because in my travels I have met so many people who do not understand this concept and how it relates to Democracy, I feel I should clarify.  There is no correlation between Socialism and Democracy.  Most people get this, but without understanding why.  This is so for the same reason that there is no correlation between Capitalism and Democracy.

The thing is, far too often our so-called “leaders” combine the two terms and in reality, they are apples and bananas.  Socialism and Capitalism describe Economic systems; Democracy is a form of rule.  In other words, there is no connection, no contradiction between Socialism and Democracy.  Hence, we can have a Democratic Socialism – just like the nations that are making socialized health care work.

Point is, until we decide which economic system to apply, we are going to meet with failure after failure.  The two economic systems are incompatible.

I really think there is but one person running for President this year who understands this difference and far too many people are afraid of him.  They are afraid because he speaks the truth.  Anytime truth creates fear in people, there is a serious problem with the people, but those are the facts.

Ron Paul seems to understand the difference, but I do not believe that he will win because he is the last true Capitalist in Washington.  America does not want Capitalism, we want Socialism.  For proof of this claim, just watch the elections.

If we get another President who erroneously thinks that we can successfully merge two opposing economic systems (when no other nation in HISTORY could do so), then America will have proven that Capitalism is just not what is desired.  Ron Paul is the ONLY Capitalist candidate; the rest are either full-blown Socialists (like President Obama) or wishy-washy and confused (like Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum).

Personally, I have not been pleased with the job President Obama has been doing, but I am a Capitalist.  But in the choice presented, if America does not elect to place a Capitalist in office this time, I vote for Obama.

We cannot continue to have it both ways folks.  We have to decide and the time for that choice is now.  Our economy cannot afford to continue to operate like a lame-suck…oops, I meant to type, lame duck.

 

About these ads

12 responses to “ObamaCare versus Common Sense

  1. Jeff,

    I read your article here and I have to entirely disagree with you. In fact, a economic system completely depended on Capitalism will fall like the Roman Empire as it only rewards the wealthy and leaves everyone else behind.

    I will say that I base much of my opinion on the basis that Capitalism is about money and nothing else. Socialism also doesn’t work by itself because it’s based on having a government carry all the purse strings and it doesn’t motivate its denizens to do anything besides what they have to do to survive.

    We must have a balanced system with both Capitalism and Socialism. You haven’t really made your argument that these two systems can’t be combined except the idea that European societies have tried and failed. I disagree there too because it isn’t the socialistic programs that are hurting Europe; those programs have gone for years without any major problems. It’s the unfettered greed of Capitalist who have been turned loose without proper regulation tha has tipped the boat and thrown the system into imbalance, and then used the same opportunity to reel in billions in profits to blame the socialistic part of European societies.

    Nothing can be further from the truth. This is what you should look at Jeff and that is; Where is the money all going? You will see a consistent move upwards of the wealth in this country and in the world, slowly destroying the middle-class and driving more people into poverty.This isn’t because there are social programs that are there to protect people if they fall into poverty but that wealth is falling into the hands of those who’re already wealthy.

    What we really need is more regulations on the control of wealth. There is no need for any one individual to become a billionaire. There’s nothing wrong with being wealthy; having a few million dollars to secure one’s future and one’s family’s future but no one needs billions to enjoy all the best things in life. When someone has billions and then seeks more billions, it isn’t about freedom and enjoying wealth, it’s about having power and controlling government.

    Yet those kind of people would use the idea of freedom and Capitalistic freedom to use as a vehicle to manipulate our government, destroying the fabric of our society that allows us to be compassionate to the needy and care about each other. They do this by working to destroy social programs that folks like you have chosen to demonize as though they’re what has caused the problems in our society. You should instead see the real problem and that is the distribution of wealth, not to poor saps who can’t hold onto a job, they’re not growing wealthy because of welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. That’s ludicrious. Do we need to fix these programs? Sure, but they’re not the blame for our problems.

    As far as your comments about Obama; you’re obviously not looking at what he has done since being in office. ObamaCare, as we call it, is far from a Socialistic piece of legislation. It was meant to be more so but instead, it’s a boondoggle for the health insurance industry instead. Obama in fact has been a very balanced president who has kept taxes low for everyone, lower than they ever have been. That’s not the actions of a Socialist president but one who has strengthened Capitalism while also trying to protect the Socialistic programs that so many of us depend on when things fall apart, such as when a health crisis strikes a family, and when we grow old and have no pension plans from our jobs.

    So yes, both Capitalism and Socialism can work together, as long as we strike the right balance and as long as we have strong rules in place to keep greedy wealthy, power-hungry people from manipulating our government and draining our wealth into their own hands, distracting people like you with the idea that it’s that bad old Social Security that’s taking all the money and it’s those welfare moms who’re taking all the wealth. The facts speak differently and that’s what you and other conservatives need to see before it’s too late.

    Sorry for the long blog but I wanted to state my case clear. You can read my blog related to this in your own “Related Articles – “Capitalism without Socialism Brings Imbalance”

    • fidlerten,

      Thank you for the strong argument, but I believe I am misunderstood. I did not and do not blame the programs. What I blame are short-sighted, weak, partisan politicians who have attempted only to secure their positions by apeasing the peole, not doing what is best and right. I simply stated that attempting to straddle an economic fence does more harm than good.

      Ancient Rome fell, not because of capitalism, nor because of the social programs they implemented later in the Republic (programs we would today term Socialistic), but because the people in power abused their authority to the extent that the economy could not continue. Rome did as we have done; they attempted to maintain capitalism while blending socialism only to the extent that they appeased the people (not really helping them).

      I am not opposed to socialism. I can live under any economic structure. I, personally, am one of those “poor” you cite, but I am so by choices that had nothing to do with society and government. I do agree with you that there should be safety nets in place, but I do not believe these should be nationalized. I believe they should be locally and state driven. This creates a system of state-to-state competition (capitalism) within the greater national economy. With some states choosing fewer programs and others choosing more, the national economy would grow, as a result of competition among the states.

      The first thing that would have to happen for ANY system (social or capital) to be effective is to eliminate Central Banking. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and for the first time in history, the National economy experienced real inflation. Inflation has driven the disparity between wealthy and poor more than any single factor. Research it for yourself and you will see this is the case.

      This is why I support Ron Paul over all others. I personally think Obama did an OK job, but he is still in the pockets of the Federal Reserve. He does what they want. He maintains the status-quo. Ron Paul has already stated that he opposes this blight on our national landscape and plans to eliminate that Bank and let the US control the printing of money.

      I referenced your article because I am a staunch defender of opposing views as John Stuart Mill advised. I do disagree with you, but enjoyed your argument. Stay in touch. Love hearing from you.

  2. I’m impressed, I must say. Really rarely do I encounter a blog that’s both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the head. Your idea is outstanding; the issue is something that not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy that I stumbled across this in my search for something relating to this.

  3. Jeff,
    Though I do see eye to eye with Ron Paul on some issues, I think he does have some explaining to do when it comes to some very bigoted statements he’s made in the past. Just denying he knew what certain newsletters said that had his name on it just doesn’t cut it with me. I think a simple confession and a affirmation that he doesn’t still think the same way would suffice. Bigotry has no place in the presidency.

    I have to disagree concerning allowing states to be the deliverers of social programs. That would cause many of the poor and needy to gravitate to those states which would discourage states from having programs. States are limited and sometimes don’t do a good enough job handling social programs.

    I should be clear about one thing and that is I disagree with welfare in its current form. I do believe we need a very temporary general relief type program that’s limited to only a month or two. We should instead provide a community work project that pays a minimum wage. It would provide menial jobs such as picking up trash in parks or other jobs that didn’t require any certain skills. It wouldn’t be a job anyone would want to keep for long but instead of just giving able-bodied people free money, they would work for what they got instead. If they didn’t like it, they’re sure welcome to find a better job.

    We’ve got lots of work that could get done and clean up our cities and our parks while also giving those without work a way to work for what they get.

    At the same time, we could provide more training programs that trained those out of work to learn new trades. Education is important and if we’re to stay on top as a country, we need to educate our citizens better. We should make it easier for low income kids to go to college or at least trade schools. Any investment our nation can make in educating our kids is a step in the right direction.

    As far as Ron Paul, I do agree we should end the war on drugs and we should bring our troops home and stop being a bully in the world.

    You’ve made some good points though we’re still far apart on some issues. It’s good to debate someone with decent amount of intellect, that’s for sure.

    • Thank you, it is nice. I only hope that more people have such discussions, for the time for action is comming soon. The number one priority needs to be the elimination of the national debt. For if we go bankrupt, no other issues will matter.

      Challenge us anytime friend.

      Regards,
      Jeff

  4. Jeff,

    I agree, eliminating the national debt is a very important issue. I also believe that we need to eliminated it with a balanced approach and not on the backs of the middle class and the poor, as Republicans have been pushing to do.

    Cutting the military budget will help and raising taxes on the wealthiest will help too. I even think that we could work on lowering the budget on social programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but not in a way that hurts those who depend on them the most. I in fact wouldn’t mind having my payroll taxes raised by a few dollars a month, as long as they don’t expect me to retire much later and to have to wait even longer to qualify for Medicare. People who live without preventive Medicare and die much sooner, should not have to deal with having to work even longer and deal with being without health care even longer.

  5. Pingback: Pregnancy is a Disease | SOSMass·

  6. Pingback: My Homepage·

Let me know what you think of this article...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s