"Comprehensive" = "socialized" health care

The Comrade has invited Republicans to participate with himself and the dems in some kind of health reform summit conference at the White House. He asks Republicans not to come empty-handed, but to bring their suggestions for health care reform. Then he cautions them that "piece-meal" solutions don't count. He wants their suggestions for "comprehensive" health care.

So tort reform, selling health insurance across state lines, eliminating certain pre-existing condition restrictions and things like that -- which would improve private health insurance, make it much more competitive and available to more people -- none of this counts. It isn't "comprehensive."

I think what the Comrade means by "comprehensive" is "nationalized" or "socialized." That is, the Comrade doesn't want to fix or improve the system so much as he wants the government to take control over it. He doesn't seem to care much about what any kind of "comprehensive" system would look like, so long as the government runs it. The government doesn't even have to own insurance carriers or offer insurance itself; it just wants to absolutely regulate and control private health insurers.

That's a government take-over. That's socialism. Under such a "comprehensive" system, all that's left for insurance companies to do is to shuffle the papers. The government makes all the other decisions and totally controls the industry.

From what I've been able to learn, the Republicans have responded to the invitation by asking that the dems take "reconciliation" off the table. That is, the dems promise not to jam the existing (sucky and unacceptable) legislation through on a technicality. And apparently the technicality is so limited in scope, it wouldn't work anyway. Congress isn't supposed to be able to vote on policy changes using reconciliation. And it would be pretty tough for them to make the case that nationalizing the US health care industry is NOT a policy change.

So anyway, all the Comrade is doing is inviting the Republicans to join in the fun of taking control over the health care industry. Anything short of that is not acceptable to the Comrade.

My question: Why are Republicans reticent about telling the Comrade where to stick it? Or maybe enough Republicans DO want nationalized medicine that a flat-out "nyet" would be impossible. But I doubt that. There aren't even a majority of democrats who want nationalized medicine.

So what's the Comrade up to? Trying to dazzle us with his vocabulary and convince us that "comprehensive" health care reform as he defines it is anything different from nationalization?

Well, Comrade, us stoopid commoners outside the beltway also have pretty big vocabularies and we certainly see through this. I, for one, hope the Republicans refuse to play this silly game.

'Course, if the Republicans don't join in the plundering and pillaging of a private US industry, then the dems -- from their point of view -- will be justified and calling the Republicans "The Party of No."

In this case, I truly and emphatically hope that the Republicans continue to refuse to support socialized medicine. They're our only hope.