Ok.....and? Which part of that is socialism? Governments make laws. You are aware of that right? Just because you don't like a law, doesn't make it "socialism".
I know the answer to this already, but do you know what socialism means?
And you just showed that the far left propaganda in you is to strong to be broken with facts.
This may help you:
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great. Now in your own words, which part of what you just quoted applies to our healthcare system? Which part of Obamacare is state ownership, citizen ownership or common ownership?
Dear RDD:
Yes and no. The ACA is forcing a transition stage that is designed to fail, so that it will force companies/citizens to opt to pay for govt services instead of private.
A. The taxpayers are being forced to give money to PRIVATE INSURANCE companies (as opposed to investing directly in medical schools, teaching hospitals, and/or charity or other programs to provide the actual MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES to the public)
So this is worse than govt owned/controlled, because it is govt forcing citizens into a private contract with private businesses UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.
The trick in the wording of the law is that the tax penalty is a tax, where certain people are exempted from it. And the requirement to buy insurance is part of the exemption.
B. The process is to force the public (both companies and citizens) to not be able to afford or compete with the govt option (which doesn't cover the whole population either) in order to FORCE it into govt control with all the funds required to go through there.
So it is headed to more "socialism" where govt would control the funds and resources REQUIRED of citizens to "pay for health care"
and PENALIZE people for funding options and services outside of govt control
That penalty part is already in place with the insurance mandate,
but it is disguised as a tax and only indirectly forcing people to pay money to PRIVATE INSURANCE companies (as opposed to retaining previous freedom to pay for health care through charities or other choices of provisions)
This was designed to be unpoliceable, unfixable and uncheckable by the Constitution because it is a hybrid policy that mixes private and public jurisdiction.
When proponents want to make it mandatory by law, they emphasize some parts to justify it. When they want to say it still allows free choice and isn't govt socialism, they paint it another way. And blame the "free market" for why that part isn't working, since as long as private companies are in charge, that is outside the check of govt.
So you/we could argue day and night if this transition stage is or isn't socialism
and we'd stay caught in the same game! It has elements of both, and if you look
at the whole process, it is stuck somewhere in between. On purpose!