Is a federal mandate to purchase health insurance considered far left or far right?

[dkf]

I think its rather fascist myself.

[Oregone]

1. Corporatist

But some people here think its like providing free public schools to children, so, ya know, whatever I guess.

[dkf]

2. Except it ain't free. Not by a long shot.

[regnaD kciN]

19. Neither are public schools, in case you haven't noticed...

I, along with everyone else in my school district, pays thousands of dollars in property taxes for them every year. And you're not off the hook if you rent, either -- because landlords have to pay property tax for their apartment buildings, and don't imagine they don't pass that expense along as part of the rent.

And even in countries where there's single-payer (which I still think is the best solution, BTW), citizens still have to pay for that coverage as a large chunk of their income taxes, which are generally quite a bit higher than here (and would be even higher if they had the military spending we do). It may be somewhat lower than insurance premiums in the U.S. (and is more "invisible" than having to cut a check every month to an insurer to meet a federal mandate), but that doesn't mean it isn't coming out of your bank account one way or another. To reuse an old cliché, there's no free lunch -- only some quality lunches with less of a price-tag than others.

[Oregone]

29. Free to use, progressively funded with a negligable burden

And countries with single payer dont pay taxes that are quite a bit higher than your own. Sorry. Its just not the case. The US is funding a massive war machine thats sucking out your tax dollars bang-for-buck.

[ThePhilosopher04]

3. It's nothing like providing "free public schools"...

It's more like mandating paying tuition to private schools, with no public school option.

[Oregone]

4. You are preaching to the choir. Tell it to this guy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=93819&mesg_id=94096

Honestly, I think its a riot. :)

[HughMoran]

28. Corporatist! DLC! Cheerrleader! Pom Poms! Conservadem! Nazi!

Godwin!

[Oregone]

34. Im trying to find an accurate classification of this goverment behavior; not name-call.

Im not sure what else to call it when the government protects and subsidizes a private industry, and further mandates individuals purchase from it. Essentially, the government is working on the behalf of the corporations, so if the shoe fits...

[HughMoran]

42. You're creating a bogeyman

So that all one has to do is invoke the 'bogeyman' word/phrase and all rational discussion 'goes to the wind' as it were. It's lazy and it doesn't lead to intelligent dialog.

[Oregone]

66. Ah, so you aren't supposed to identify patterns of behavior because it might scare people?

Interesting

[Psephos]

5. As Koestler showed long ago, there is no difference between the far left and far right.

Look up the essay, "The Yogi and the Commissar."

[jonnyblitz]

10. what a crock of shit. nt

[Psephos]

12. Cliche put-down, ignorance of Koestler, zero argument...you won the trifecta. lol n/t

[mix]

38. that reference is a crock of shit...

...we left that ideological universe long ago.

[dkf]

13. I'll be on the lookout for it.

So far nothing free.

[Echo In Light]

23. How the terms generally apply in our era, yes, there are substantial differences

All it takes to be 'far left' today is to be against war, especially America's phony war$, and therefore against corporate rule in an equally sham rep democracy that is the front that allows elites to engage in that sort of war profiteering/expansion of empire and its intere$ts.

Far right is the antithesis of those qualities: hates anti-war types, belligerently dismisses the moral concerns espoused by 'loony lefties,' and is basically authoritarian in nature, meaning, people who unquestioningly favor strident adherence to authority and hierarchical based systems and "traditions."

[lostnfound]

27. Huh? Mandated purchase of insurance from private companies isn't "far left".

Bizarre.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Yep, it's fascism

Precisely as Bennie Mussolini defined the term over 60 years ago. The merging of corporate and state power, and this insurance mandate bullshit is the most blatant example of it yet.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Mussolini was talking about corporate power being used for nationalistic purposes, though

If insurance companies don't really have any objective other than to fatten their wallets then there's nothing really fascist/corporatist about it. If it is about exerting some sort of control over society then it could be fascist/corporatist. But capitalism and fascism/corporatism are two different things.

[mix]

39. I totally agree with you pointing this fallacy out, which is widespread on DU.

The corporatism of Mussolini and fascism in general has NOTHING to do with contemporary American politics or society. In the USA, the only legally defined corporation is economic in organization and favors management and owners, i.e. corporations serve private interests; in Italy the entire country was organized into different corporations, not just economic ones...this was to make particular interests national ones. It is anachronistic to think that corporations like GE et al have anything to do with Italian fascism, and vice versa.

Fascist corporatism was about bringing together different groups of Italian society--based on regional, religious, and class identities--into a national whole by absorbing them into the state itself. That is what is meant by the merging of state and corporate power. This is how fascism envisioned the governing of a society riven by class and regional divisions. The economy was collectively managed under the corporatism of Mussolini--between the state, private interests, and workers...this is hardly the case in the USA.

wikipedia gets it right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism

[alp227]

7. Hmm, from what I've heard and learned, fascism is primarily a far-right thing.

Wikipedia's article on the ideology says that it "is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum". So I was right. However, some conservatives argue that liberals are guilty of fascism as well: take National Review columnist Jonah Golberg's recent book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Timothy Noah of Slate.com criticized that book.

Hmm, so the villains of health care reform (Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman) aren't liberal at all, that's quite telling!

[dkf]

8. I thought so too, but wondered why we are being tagged "far left"

after this bill gets through the Senate. Looks like Daley is warning about being too left, but I don't consider this left at all.

[jonnyblitz]

9. there is no profit motive in far left. "purchase" and far left don't

go together. whoever told you that doesn't have a clue about "far left". I can pretty much guess it was one of the apologists that called you that. red baiting critics of Obama is one of their ploys.

[Angleae]

11. The far left considers it far right, the far right considers it far left.

The far right will see it as an attempt to control peoples lives. The far left will see it as handouts to corporations. Those of us in the middle see it as being screwed by both sides.

[Selatius]

18. I really don't think the far left screwed you over on this.

If you opposed the notion of a Public Option or even the idea of social insurance, then yeah, you could make an argument for that, but no Public Option exists in the Senate bill; it's just a mandate to purchase private insurance from private for-profit health insurance corporations. In fact, any socialist aspect of the bill essentially disappeared when the Public Option or even a Medicare buy-in were deleted.

When you say that you got screwed by both sides, I feel like I'm being shot at by the middle even though most of the bullets were coming in from the right.

[Lerkfish]

21. precisely in what way has the left screwed you? the left has obviously no influence

on this bill. all concessions were made in a rightward direction, including antichoice.

[TorchTheWitch]

25. there is no "far left" in our government

Hell, there isn't even any "left" in our government.

[OHdem10]

14. Since Big Business is the beneficiary it is more Right that Left.

A State(meaning government) Plan is more Left.

Here is the rule of thumb. Power is with the State(Government)
Left

Power with Business Right.

[TexasObserver]

15. far right

[snot]

16. left and right are like the space-time continuum --

it's not a straight-line continuum; rather, they curve, and the far ends ultimately meet.

[Selatius]

17. It's corporatism, but older folks would be more familiar with the term of "fascism."

There is nothing left wing with enshrining a corrupt, abusive cartel by mandating citizens to purchase their product. It would have been infinitely more tolerable if there were a serious possibility of a Public Option, one that is both publicly administered and funded by taxpayer dollars. That way, people would have a real choice between the two.

[mmonk]

22. You're correct. Government and business as one.

Mussolini's
third way.

[Raine]

24. Fascist nt

[Edweird]

26. Far Right. The RW'ers dream of privatization is realized. By a Dem president, no less.

Reagan must be doing back flips.

[Individualist]

30. Fascist far right

[TheWatcher]

31. It's Fascism, but it's a "win" so we have to rejoice in a Stockholm like convulsion of ecstasy.

Now never mind that this is the kind of win where Monty informs you that had you not chosen the box instead of the curtain you would have won the Buick instead of the dog food.

But, hey, it's a "win".

In fact it's a Major Award!

[AllentownJake]

32. Fascism

But we've been dealing with Fascism for a while, this is just the democrats have embraced it now as a solution to social problems.

[area51]

33. Far right.

The first person I ever heard propose a law forcing purchase of private, for-profit health insurance was Newt Gingrich; this scam should be called Gingrichcare instead of Obamacare. As has been pointed out, this is as intelligent as getting rid of homelessness by forcing people to rent an apartment or buying a home. What our government needs to do is to stop the two wars of choice, slash the military budget, bring soldiers home and offer them either free or low-cost medical training, and start ramping up for a transition to single-payer, the most cost-effective, pro-life thing to do.

[shadesofgray]

35. Fascist - I agree with you.

[mix]

36. It is far right in terms of economic policies...

the state is inherently neoliberal in the USA, meaning it serves corporate and private interests above all else...this philosophy of government is not just corrupt, but grounded in the conviction that if corporate and private interests are satisfied, the public good will be too.

There is nothing "fascist" about it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

37. single payer - far left / private corporations - far right

eom

[Thickasabrick]

40. Neither - it is considered "centrist" ...either party label would do.

Centrist = Corporatist

[Zoeisright]

41. Models of political science draw the political spectrum as almost a circle.

And the far left and far right can almost meet in the top center.

[557188]

43. Hardly anyone uses that circle definition

Any, reasonable, political scientist can easily destroy that dumb argument. It's the type of argument that is used, mostly by conservatives, to try and hurt both sides and keep their agenda. It's like those idiots that say Hitler was left wing because OMG National SOCIALISM.

The far left and far right have nothing in common economically.

The far left and far right have nothing in common socially.

The difference is that you can be far left economically and far right socially at the same time. THAT is where the uninformed do that circle crap.

EDIT: Apparently it won't let me make the proper graph. But you need to use a scale that identifies both the economic and social "wings" of the ideology.

[Zoeisright]

49. See post 16.

And I got that info from my husband, who has a degree in political science. Do you?

[557188]

50. I do have a degree in poli sci

and I will have a Masters in a semester. Does your husband?

Instead of depending on your husband for your misinformation you should probably study poli sci yourself. We need more independent thinkers and not those that depend on their "husband" as their source of information.

And post 16 wasn't exactly informative. So I dunno what I was suppose to see there?

[JoeyT]

53. The circle is generally used by people trying to defend the indefensible.

Mostly what I've seen used was either the Nolan chart or something like it. (Obviously I have no degree in polisci.)

The closest I've seen to an accurate graph would be something like politicalcompass.org uses.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 , for instance, will give a frame of reference for how they judged the last election.
Hope that helps. ;)

[varelse]

44. Totalitarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

[Enrique]

45. radical centrist n/t

[treestar]

46. Everyone wants to be covered for medical bills

If you get $$ from your fellow Americans to pay for it, use it for health insurance.

This is a dust up about nothing.

And it is far left. The far right would consider it to be an offense against their liberty the same way they think taxes are theft and any regulation of their activities is confiscation of their property.

[557188]

47. WRONG

A CORPORATE mandate to buy PRIVATE insurance is NOT far left.

Far Left is against corporate control of ANYTHING. Far left would be Universal Government provided health care in Government run hospitals.

This isn't rocket science.

[treestar]

51. A very republicanish reason to be against it

It is republicans who don't want the government telling them what to do and don't want the government using their money to help anyone else. The Far left would certainly be wanting the government to run things. If the government runs things by buying insurance what is wrong with that - the government is using insurance benefits rather than paying directly, that would be cheaper. And it is adding the young and healthy people into the mix.

I buy insurance for my health coverage, I don't just leave that and pay directly. So far, I could afford it and so could many people - just pay the bills you incur. The reason you buy insurance is in case you accumulate medical bills you could not afford to pay out of pocket. If the government does this for you, that is socialistic - they could pay directly or buy insurance - buying insurance saves money, in the case of people who accumulate high bills.

[JoeyT]

54. That doesn't sound very Republicanish to me.

I have no problem with the government taxing me and using my money to help others.
I DO have a problem with the government demanding I enrich the private corporations that screwed everyone in the first place and maybe help someone in the process.
There's a bit of a gap between the two. One is left wing, one is right wing. It isn't hard to figure out which is which.

[treestar]

58. Your second sentence is getting so old

It's like saying that if the government pays for food they are just enriching the big corporations. Even insurance companies provide a product. This product is to help people - the Republicans hate that.

The Republicans don't like the government making them help people - they'd just say screw the people who can't get insurance already - they got theirs and they don't need "hand-outs" yadda, yadda.

You may as well be against any government program because it "enriches" somebody who is providing what was otherwise not provided.

[JoeyT]

67. Yep.

There's a big difference in the government buying services from a private corporation on our behalf and the government passing a law forcing US to pay a private corporation. One's a contract the other is fascism.

So what, we're on the side of the insurance companies now? "They help people?" Jesus, if we could hook generators up to some of this spin we'd never have to mine coal again.

[mix]

48. Far left?

The ruling, upper, and most of the propertied classes, i.e. the economic "base" of the far right, have ALWAYS relied upon state power to enforce and subsidize their "liberties." Corporations are no different.

Your ahistorical and abstract argument is laughable.

[treestar]

52. The right doesn't want the state to do anything but leave them alone

They don't want to pay taxes, which are "confiscation" of their earned property, in their minds. They don't want money taken from them to pay for anything for others, from welfare to insurance to school loans.

Learn something about the right wing.

[JoeyT]

56. No, but they still demand all those services be continued.

What you're describing are the libertarian wing of the right wing.
There's also the corporatist wing of the right wing.

The vast majority of 'em are just parroting back the talking points their preferred flavor of radio show/Fox imbecile gives them, though.

[Echo In Light]

61. Bingo

[Odin2005]

55. Fascism. Totalitarianism.

[Laelth]

57. Agreed. Fascist. n/t

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[WeDidIt]

59. Rational n/t

[bullwinkle428]

60. The very definition of fascism is the merger of corporate and governmental power,

so this would seem to fit that to a "T"!

[TheKentuckian]

62. Corporations using the IRS as Vinnie the Enforcer ain't left at all

that there folks is corporatist.

Mandating entry into a predatory monopoly is corporate communism as is the heads I win, tails you lose banking/gambling policy.

Corporatism is neither left nor right as we look at it but it is closer to the right's pro-business no matter what belief system than anything we have.

Of course this describes this particular mandate matched with the system in place. The political orientation of a mandate depends on it's structure and who benefits.

[CRH]

63. It certainly restricts our freedom of choice, ...

over what type of health care we choose for maintenance of our own body.

That is very fascist, when the legislative solution is corporate AMA, for profit, health care.

God and corporations forbid, a person should choose natural holistic methods of health maintenance, that do not add greatly to corporate profits.

[Toots]

64. You have been doing this already for decades now.

You have a mandatory payroll tax taken from your check every payday for medical insurance. It is called Medicare. It is an Insurance Policy in the sense that when you reach sixty five you are insured that eighty percent of your medical bills will be payed.

[slackmaster]

65. Authoritarian

I think its rather fascist myself.

IMO that is not an unreasonable assessment.

[KrR]

68. Single payer is Fascist too then n/t