All News & Blogs
My dictionary defines socialism as "vesting of the ownership of production and distribution ."
Part of the ACA was to include 50 state-controlled exchanges, through which health insurance with the same basic features can be intelligently and affordably purchased from private, for-profit vendors.
Clearly, Mr. Parsons indulged in hyperbole. If he calls the ACA--using private suppliers with multiple payees--socialism, what does he label programs like TRICARE, TRICARE for Life, Veterans Health Care, Medicare and Medicaid?
Obama supporters were called "naive idealists who know little if anything about how the real world works." I'm 82, used to be a Republican and spent well over 30 years as an independent businessman.
We paid for inventory and met a "real world" payroll. In short, we stood on our own two feet and earned our own living, allowing us to buy health insurance with after-tax dollars.
Why should some get health insurance at no cost and pay no taxes on that benefit while independently employed Americans buy limited coverage at high prices with huge deductibles?
Why were lifetime caps and exclusions for pre-existing conditions OK?
Perhaps Mr. Parsons can also justify the existence of the make-believe chart master pricing that causes the majority of health-related bankruptcies.
Problems arise in many pieces of legislation and can be corrected. It's too bad that many letters opposing the ACA simply rely