Is Nationalized health care the whole basis on which the far right calls Hillary a socialist?

Answer 1

No, she is a threat to their all white, Christian ultra right wing politics. Character assassinations are what they do best. I have read on her she is a socialist, communist, lesbian, ect., you get my drift. They have no basis in fact to disagree with her on so they make stuff up. The lie. Is this a shocker, can you imagine, a conservative lying. What is this world coming too?

Answer 2

The people calling Hillary a socialist are generally the ones who advocate a laissez-faire capitalist system in America. (Which, by the way, would be a complete disaster for reasons which I won't debate here.)

What you have to understand is the relationship between government and the Commons: those things that We The People own collectively, as in our roads, national parks, air, water, vote... and all our national infrastructure. One extreme is laissez-faire capitalism, which advocates privatizing pretty much everything. The other is communism, which advocates the government owning everything. Obviously the trick is to find a good middle ground.

Experience shows us that several things are best left in the hands of government: building roads, coining currency, raising an army, providing health insurance, investigating crime, etc. The government is not so good at making clothing, growing food, making cars, etc.

So most liberals believe that the best middle ground is for the government to take charge of health care insurance, but leave the actual doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. private and have them compete for business. The laissez-faire advocates believe that government should stay out of providing insurance coverage. However, experience shows us that privatized health insurance is not getting the job done: 47+ million will be without health coverage some time this year, and our quality of care is ranked near the bottom of industrialized nations. On top of that, we're spending more than twice as much per person as the next expensive health system. 53% or more of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Of those, 60% or more had private insurance. Obviously our system is not protecting against catastrophic losses either.

We already have many socialized programs in this country, like education, highways, currency, food safety, etc. The knee-jerk labeling of Hillary as "socialist" is basically a way to deflect attention away from the real debate.

Indeed, when posed a question like: "Do you want your government determining your health care?" most people will say... HECK NO! But the honest question is: "Do you want your government, who answers to your vote, to make health care decisions, or do you want a CEO who doesn't answer to you, and wants to minimize your benefits so he can maximize his pay, making those decisions?"

The answer tends to swing the other direction then.

Answer 3

No, but to any intellectually honest person, nationalized health care - the government taking over 15% of the economy - is very much socialist.

And her book, "It Takes a Village" is based on a whole socialist concept.

I don't know why you people fail to see that she, as well as most of the Democrats, espouse socialism, regardless of its failure in the rest of the world.

Answer 4

That would be my bet. At least, reading this forum, thats what interpretations are most glaring.

Also, from reading this forum, I've learned that most participants do not understand socialism, and certainly have no full understanding of the notion of a national healthcare system. In addition, what I can gather from the exchanges I read...many Americans are not truly interested in the welfare of their countrymen...its every man for himself! If only they knew how that sounded, and how dangerous it is for a country.

Answer 5

No, her health care ideas are just an example they use. They call her socialist because they want to create the image of Hilliary as some kind of communist plot.

Answer 6

No; but it's a big reason. Also are her recent statements regarding the redistribution of corporate assets for public use.

But it's not fair to single hell-ary out. These are basic democratic party platforms.

Answer 7

No. They call anyone who disagrees with them, even in the slightest bit, a socialist.

Answer 8

No.

She is a Liberal. Therefore, her entire political thought is one of Socialism.

Health care paid for by hard working middle and upper class Americans for the benefit of freeloading poor people is just the most glaring example of "take from the rich and give to the poor" mentality.

Answer 9

Since I am an American, I know first hand that Hillary isnt only a socialist, but, shes a worthless criminal, who will not get very far.. Fact is, its sad how the Libs dont set their sites very high, of course birds of a feather always flock together, now dont they..

Answer 10

I'd say it's at least a big part of the reason. The whole Robin Hood scheme doesn't play too well for her either.