LETTERS: Obamacare points toward socialism

To the editor:

It’s very interesting to see where the U.S. economy is going and how it’s getting there. In the world of economic systems, America is mainly an entrepreneurial (free enterprise) model. If you were to look at economic systems in general, they could all be considered as part of a continuum, with the free enterprise model at the top of a circle.

As you move left from the top of the circle, it becomes more and more socialist, with the extreme version being the Leninist model or pure communism, in which the state owns all means of production and controls them in every way. The Soviet Union is the prime example. Move to the right on the circle, and you have another economic system called national socialism. Here the means of production remains in the hands of the private sector but is controlled by the state. The prime examples of this are Mussolini’s Italian government and Hitler’s Germany. As you move even further right around the circle, the government controls more and more of the economy, and the system can turn into the communist socialist model.

We already have many elements of socialist models, including Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Social Security and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Medicare. The Affordable Care Act requires the health insurance industry to toe the line in every way with what the federal government wants as the industry tries to implement this new way of doing business. This is national socialism. The 15,000 pages of regulations (and many more are coming) make it extremely difficult to comply with the government’s direction.

Due to the complexity of the ACA’s implementation, and the tinkering (much of which appears unconstitutional), a likely result will be failure of the ACA and a move to a single-payer system. That system would put one-sixth of the economy into the communist model and result in the demise of the health insurance industry.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 stated a single-payer system would be the preferred health care model. Both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made similar statements at different times. History shows that socialist economies always fail. Heaven help us with the future of our country.



Wealth distribution

To the editor:

Once again, some conservative demonstrates that some people are ignorant, in this case John Severson in his Thursday letter (“War on inequality”). That is, they are unwilling or unable to learn even basic information. And as the last election showed, they are not so good with numbers.

Mr. Severson claims that the top 20 percent earn 80 percent of the income. That would be nice if it were true. It is not. The top 20 percent actually earn 89 percent of the income, leaving a whopping 11 percent for the rest of us. If you think that is bad, the top 20 percent own about 95 percent of the wealth, leaving about 5 percent for the rest of us.

Maybe, like most conservatives, his mind is locked in the 1960s. And his numbers are as of 2010. There is a reason that the numbers have gotten worse. Most of the increase in debt under President Barack Obama has been an attempt to curtail the disaster that President George W. Bush left as his fiscally conservative heritage.

Really, what kind of idiot starts two wars and not only does not raise taxes to pay for them, but lowers tax rates? While I am no fan of President Obama, one does not make an argument for a smaller or more responsible government based on made-up numbers and cherry-picking data.



News Headlines
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like