The Politics of Obammunism

The Obammunist’s socialized health care legislation promises to cut Medicare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while increasing Medicare spending by hundreds of billions. At least half of all Medicare enrollees vote Republican; almost all Medicaid enrollees vote Democrat. This is why the Obammunists are so euphoric today.

Wicked Witch Pelosi (D-Botox) says this law is reminiscent of the Civil Rights legislation of the ’60s. Not really. It’s more like Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law that drastically reduced the number of Europeans who could immigrate to the U.S., more than half of which voted Republican, while vastly expanding Third World immigration quotas, almost all of whom vote Democrat.

Are the health insurance companies really upset over the fact that the Obammunists have mandated that every last adult in America must purchase their products or face fines (or possibly imprisonment)? Does anyone deny that this government-mandated explosion in demand will lead to an equally explosive increase in costs?

Cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

,

10 Responses to The Politics of Obammunism

  1. Tim March 24, 2010 at 4:00 am #

    This the new TARP program for the insurance companies. TARP 2 or 3 if you count the stimulus. Then comes the Cap and Trade or TARP 4 and even more taxes to help the rich stay rich. Isn't everyone sick to death of bailing out the ultra rich, and getting the bill?

    • Jeff Matthews March 24, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

      Yes. People need to realize that when you're rich, market forces don't apply to you in the same way. You get to privatize your gains and socialize your losses.

  2. jeff March 24, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    Any economic system cannot function if a significant proportion of its workforce is getting sick or dying because of a lack of health coverage. Also the idea that you cannot be covered unless you are employed will just slowdown economic recovery and impede economic growth in the long run. The government is showing a sense of greater responsibility to its people who need health care but cannot afford it.

  3. Dave March 23, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    Is that what capitalism is, Jeff ? Forcing eveyone to purchase a product ? It sounds more like corporatism or in other words fascism,collusion between corporations and big government. We can't have true free market capitalism with a central bank (federal reserve) printing fiat money at will. That's the "elephant in the room" Jeff.

    • Jeff Matthews March 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

      Exactly! Yes, that's capitalism. It's been going on for years. True, free-market capitalism allows private interests to lobby for laws until the cows come home. That's what they are "free" to do. If you want these practices to stop, you must LIMIT the power and influence of money.

      But how do you do that? Frankly, it is not possible. Everyone is motivated by money. It buys almost anything you want. So, as is easy to conclude, communism is not the threat. Hoards and stockpiles of multi-generational wealth in the hands of a relative few is the threat. Actually, forget "threat." It is happening. It is the problem.

      All the pissing and moaning about communism, socialism, fake money, etc. will not accomplish a single thing until we have a greater balance of wealth among the people. Through a greater balance of wealth, the people can afford to compete with the oligarchs in terms of the amount of financial influence they have.

      You can't simply take the position that multi-generational wealth in the hands of a small number of oligarchs must, at all costs, be protected from "communism" and then, expect the nation will be saved for the people. Fat chance. All that approach does is maintain the status quo. And we know where the status quo is taking us…. So, if you take positions that favor wealth concentration in the hands of the very wealthy, you wind up supporting the corruption that is occurring within our political process. There is no way around it.

    • Mark March 23, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

      No Jeff, your definition of Capitalism is off. A free market doesn't mandate every adult individual to purchase any product. What we have here is a dictatorship. Socialism leads to communism. A free market means less government intrusion.

      Capitalism means you are free to earn as much income as you want, and not be regulated in what, why, how, when, if, or from who you buy something.

    • Jeff Matthews March 23, 2010 at 11:56 pm #

      Right. Capitalism means no regulation. They can simply piss on your leg and tell you it's raining. From there, it's totally up to you to hire a lawyer and seek a remedy. Or you can just accept the golden shower you're getting. You can buy salmonella-contaminated meat and die, but most assuredly, you will be vindicated when your surviving heirs file suit on your estate's behalf. We don't need to regulate anything. So what if you die because there were no authorities to regulate the quality of food and other products you consume? Let "the market" rectify it. You might be dead, but the market is perfect.

      Capitalism means you are free to be trounced by those who control the means of production and wealth. Why don't you just go all out with your theory of free markets? Let them import all the slave labor they want until you will be begging to work for 50 cents an hour. Open the flood gates to immigrants. What's to fear? Can't take a little competition? Let the corporations do away with almost every quality control that helps insure product safety. They'll go out of business before long if they do that, right? Then, even though their products injure and kill hundreds or thousands of people, justice will be served, right? After all, all corporate execs are in it for the long-haul, and they "care" so much about the wee-little consumers. Surely, none of them are in it for a quick buck and golden parachutes. That's totally implausible.

      Anyway, I'm ranting a bit, and we're off-topic. The whole point of my original post was that what you are witnessing with this health care bill is all BUT communism. Under communism, the idea is to spread the wealth – especially from the rich to the poor. The quote in the article rightly notes that the idea under the bill is that wealth will be sucked out of the middle class and siphoned to the top by the giant insurance carriers. This is not communism. It is capitalism, marked by corruption. They bought their laws. What do you get for your money? At least their investment is paying off, right?

  4. Jeff Matthews March 23, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    Aha! "Are the health insurance companies really upset over the fact that the Obammunists have mandated that every last adult in America must purchase their products or face fines (or possibly imprisonment)?"

    This quote shows concern over a transfer of wealth from the bottom (the people) to the top (the insurance companies). It sounds like the opposite of communism to me. Just pure, plain-old, vanilla, corrupt capitalism.

    As soon as the people realize this and stop the nonsensical worry about communism, which isn't happening and will never happen, then, they'll be able to spot the elephant in the room.

  5. cathy March 23, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    There is an end-run to the real ID here. The FDA has implant radios ready to go for "medical history" purposes.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. uberVU - social comments - March 23, 2010

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: #10th: The Politics of Obammunism http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/the-politics-of-obammunism/

Leave a Reply