SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HPilot who wrote (60833)4/22/2008 5:20:22 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 542596
 
So national health care is not socialist?

It depends on how it's implemented. If the government owns and operates the medical facilities and the personnel are government employees, like they have in Britain, then we have socialized medicine. If the government provides insurance and replaces/eliminates/nationalizes health insurance industry, then we have socialized health insurance. If it mandates private insurance, then it's completely capitalist. Perhaps heavy-handedly, super-regulated capitalist, wealth-redistributionist, social-welfarist, but not socialist.

Obama is definitely not socializing medicine. He uses private insurers so he's not socializing health insurance. Not socializing anything, best I can tell.



To: HPilot who wrote (60833)4/22/2008 7:34:37 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 542596
 
So national health care is not socialist? Do you think this is some strange form of capitalism?

Perhaps that's the problem, Hugh. Neither Obama nor Clinton, who actually has a stronger health care plan, argue for national health care, only for a universal, single payer insurance system.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News