Posted by
lge on Monday, July 13, 2009 9:22:35 AM
I heard some caller on the Sean Hannity Show the other day making a big deal over the difference between "nationalized" medical care and "universal" care. Hannity had said Obama was proposing "nationalized" medical care, and the caller said it wouldn't be nationalized -- the government wouldn't own medical facilities, and wouldn't employ doctors. It was just to be universal -- government would pay for care, set the rules, regulate medical schools, etc.
Big deal. That just says Obamacare is fascist, not communist.
The fascist approach to economics was different from the communist approach on one way: they figured they didn't need to actually own businesses; they could just control them. Fascists didn't need to nationalize or expropriate businesses; they would just regulate them, control them, and milk the rewards.
In "Modern Times," Paul Johnson described Mussolini's party this way: "Its programme was partial seizure of finance capital, control over the rest of the economy by corporative economic councils, confiscation of church lands and agrarian reform..."
Fascists control the economy; they don't seize it, like the Communists. So "universal" medical care, completely prescribed and regulated by the government, is fascistic not communistic. That makes a big difference...?