America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Here are the 10,535 pages of ObamaCare condensed to 4 sentences...

1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured.

2. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured.

3. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.

4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured, which will be free of charge to them.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called "redistribution of wealth" ... or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM.

Is there a real difference?

I agree that this is a form of Socialized Healthcare but the only wealth being re-distributed is from the people to the insurance companies.

With the well documented and ever increasing "concentration of wealth" for the 1%'s and most of the rest of us losing ground each year, you carp about people finally getting needed health care insurance? Where do you think the money to pay for the uninsured going to the emergency room comes from?

Socialism - like when people drive a highway without paying a toll?

Actually, this is very similar to what the Nazis did pre-WWII, when they discovered that pure socialist dogma was an inefficient failure. So they controlled "private enterprise" by letting only a select few run these industries.

here in the US, Idi Amin Jr. controls who is able to sell insurance by fiat regulations, and the extreme cost of each individual plan. This runs the smaller operators out of business, and makes the market exclusive to large operators who can a) lobby for legislation that games the system in their favor, and b) create cash reserves to wait out the pruning of other providers from the market to create a defacto government-created monopoly. So this way, they can become "too big to fail," and have the government bail them out when they either spend foolishly, fall victim to the stupid leftist fiscal schemes, or both.

And like the Nazis, these large operators are filled to the gills with Democrats and Republican politicos, mainly for their influence over legislation.

So yes, they are socialist. You just don't see it because you choose to be ignorant of history.





Oh, and I might add, one of the reasons why the Nazis fell apart in WWII was because their entire enterprise system was based on this model.

You spewed a bunch of nonsense trying to draw a parallel between Obamacare and Nazis. Then decide that proves obamacare is socialist. When will you become smart enough to realize that having "socialism" in your party name doesn't necessarily mean the same thing in a 1920's Germany as it does now.

The Nazi party was neither socialist nor capitalist. They were neither right-wing nor left-wing.
What's even funnier about these infantile comparisons of any group to Nazis is that UNLESS the comparison is about their genocidal proclivities, the entire comparison is stupid.

You know, the Nazis marched and had uniforms too. Must mean high school bands are just like Nazis.

So, to sum up:
Your "Obamacare = Nazis" and "Nazis=socialists" therefore "Obamacare = socialists" bs is just that, bs. It's broken on multiple levels.

But, EVEN IF it weren't the **** idea of a chimpanzee brainstorming with a rock, it's absolutely idiotic. "Oh no! the Nazis let only a select few run their industries!!! That's JUST LIKE OBAMACARE!!!"

You once again cannot do math. And your apology is accepted.

He had a lot of balls.

Lol. Seriously, victor how in the hell would you know if I am right or wrong about anything given your obvious ignorance

Nazi stands for National Socialist. Duh. They were non-Marxist socialists. In fact after WWII, many Nazis CHOSE to live in the Eastern Bloc rather than live in the West bacause Soviet occupation was more compatible with their beliefs. So, they were more aligned with Marxists than you claim.

Likewise the left- / right-wing definitions orginated in Europe. While liberal morons like you LOVE to claim that Nazis were "right-wing" because of their nationalism, the fact is they were as "left-wing" as the Soviets, by the classiC definition.

As for the rest of your response, it was as unhinged and irrational as everything you believe. Which is comical seeing that you run around touting science and method. The reality is you're probably more clueless than wheel.

Yes... and the Democratic party only allows presidents to be elected by a strictly democratic election.
A name is just a name.
Basic internet research identifies quotes from Hitler which are both anti capitalism and anti socialism. Basic research shows that hitler, and his party by and large had little interest in economic policy at all and the name was just a name. If you think having "socialist" in their party name is sufficient proof that they espoused socialist economic policies you're a fool.



Yeah? I call BS. Let's see a reference on that. Percentage of former Nazis choosing one side vs another based on anything other than where their house was.


While conservative morons like you love to try to make retarded leaps between someone who is reviled for his genocide and racist attitudes to an economic policy.

Your constant "Nazis are Socialists!!!" crap is simply incorrect and boring. Hitler didn't give a rat's ass about economic policy, and his rhetoric proved it. He's made anti socialist quotes in an attempt to rile people up against the jews, and he's made anti-capitalist quotes in an attempt to rile people up against the jews.

How is it so hard for you to understand this?

What's even funnier, is it's completely irrelevant. Hitler wasn't reviled for any economic policies (right or left). Hitler and the Nazi party was reviled for their genocide. What flavor of economic policy they chose to accompany their genocide is absolutely irrelevant. Your claims, while wrong, are as relevant as the Nazi party choice of uniform color.


Speaking of unhinged.... as always, you are wrong, I don't expect anyone with as poor a grasp on math as you have to truly realize this, but your apology is accepted.

Hang on... so is Hitler a Socialist who revived the economy of Germany, in which case socialism is great for the economy?
Or is Hitler a capitalist, therefore giving the right credit for restoring an economy, but taking the hit on the nazi thing?

(that sound you hear is potts's tiny little brain whirring in circles)

Those Bassards..!!