Possessing Health Care

I love these idiot liberals who claim that the Comrade isn't doing anything like socializing GM, the financial industry, or proposing to socialize health care. They say that "socialism" means that the government owns it.

Hey, ya dopes, the government does own it -- or wants to.

I once came across a definition of "ownership" that read something like, "to control the use and dispoal of [a thing]." Looked up "own" in Webster's 7th Dictionary (yeah, I know, it's old), and it referred me to "possess".... which suggested "own."

So here we are again. Actually, I like a corollary definition from Websters:  "To enter into and control firmly: DOMINATE (~ed by a demon)." I think this is what the Comrade has in mind for the health care industry.

Does "ownership" exist because you hold the deed or title, or the majority of the stock? Because you manage and direct something? Because you pay the employees? Even if someone else sets the policies and prices and everything else?

Read an article in the Wall Street Journal about the Comrade's 11-page health care bill, delivered today, just prior to his powwow with Republicans -- trying to blame them for it, apparently. Yeah, the George Bush thing is wearing a bit thin. Time to recruit some other Republicans to hold accountable for the errors and mistakes that originate in the Obama White House.

Anyway, WSJ says the Comrade's proposal is much like the Senate bill, except that it adds $75 BILLION to the Senate bill, for a cost of $950 BILLION over 10 years. It raises taxes and cuts Medicare. It dumps enormous, unfunded mandates on the states -- which means an increase in state taxes. It gives control of insurance policy pricing to some dopey bureaucracy, and overall vastly increases the cost of health insurance and the government's control over it.

Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of this exercise, doesn't it? I thought the idea behind health care reform was to make it available to everyone, not to price it out of the market.

Oops!! With the government setting prices and levels of care, there really will be no "market" will there? Just more like: Here it is. Take it or... Oops!! You can't leave it, can you? That would be illegal, wouldn't it?

So much for adding choice and options.

Gosh, the Comrade is such a flaming marxist. He just kind of automatically comes up with stuff that even Lenin would champion. It's boggles the mind. He just has no capacity at all to consider anything like individual liberty or free enterprise. Those things have absolutely no value for him. They just go right over his head. They're trivia he just brushes aside.

Where did he learn this demagoguery? Harvard, wasn't it? Or Yale? Or from William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright? Too bad the Comrade was never exposed to any kind of rational thought or even very much human history over his lifetime. (Actually, he's a "Demogorgon." Look it up. I'm dangerous when armed with a dictionary.)

Furthermore, Give'em'pork Harry Reid has agreed to jam this drek through on reconciliation if congress refuses to accept it voluntarily. So not only has the US republic failed, but so has the democratic legislative system. All to spare this butthead Comrade the humiliation of losing his "signature legislation." Yeah. Destroy the nation to make this jerk look good. Harry Reid has a profound death wish. Just wish he'd keep it to himself. ("Thanatos", from the Greek, an instinctual desire for death.)

But getting back to ownership and possession... If I hold the title to a car, but the guy down the street decides he knows better than I do about how and when to drive it, although as "owner," I still have to fill it with gas and do the oil changes... What does it really mean that I hold the title? Is that "ownership"? Suppose the guy down the street threatens to punch me out or chain me to the plumbing if I don't agree to his control of my car? Socialism by any other name still reeks like horse manure -- and worse, like what Mark Levin calls "soft tyranny." Only it's not really very soft, is it?

So all the liberal/progressive buttheads out there who insist that Obamacare isn't socialist -- Hey, wake up, fools! You've been blind-sided by semantics. You've been hoodwinked and conned. Somewhere deep in your oh-so-gullible little hearts, you probably suspect the truth, but your mamas told you to respect "those in authority" and you don't have the will or the capability to question. Easier just to tow the line, isn't it? And you probably believe yourself to be one of those "authorities," don't you? You'll be the guy making the decisions, not the poor slob who has to live with them.

Certainly you'll get a better job than others -- probably some cushy boondoggle position attached to a federal paycheck, filing the fifth and sixth copies of lengthy requisition sheets, with six weeks vacation and automatic raises. All you'll have to do is punch in every day and cooperate with every smarmy sycophant who walks into your office. And never wonder who the hell is getting stuck paying your salary. (It's the guy selling pirated designer sunglasses from a suitcase in the park, who can barely make his rent, the guy who runs every time he sees a police car, because he can't afford the permit.)

And here's hoping you never need a doctor or a hospital, because if this crap legislation passes, you'll be totally out of luck, as will we all.