For years, you’ve been telling me that the policies of the Democrats are pushing the United States ever closer to socialism. As a Canadian, I found this interesting.
In 2008, when President Bush (R) laid out the bailout, it was American. It was patriotic for him to give the auto companies, the insurance companies and the banks a leg up, to the tune of $700 billion. Obviously, the business owners couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong, so they deserved the money. Interesting, because I recall banks lending money they didn’t actually have to people they knew couldn’t pay it back, and were shocked when exactly that happened. But I digress.
In 2009, when President Obama (D) continued the bailout and expanded it, it was un-American, and unnecessary, apparently. This wasn’t because most of right-wing America disagreed with the bill itself, it was more about partisan politics than anything. They called it “socialist”, yelled at their TVs in disgust, and went to wash up for dinner, made with USDA-certified ingredients and water from a public source.
In 2001, President Bush decided to drop into an elementary school classroom, and read a book to the kids there. I, for one, supported this. I like it when a leader encourages kids to stay in school, and sits and chats with them. That’s good for everyone. In 2009, President Obama is about to deliver a televised speech to kids in classrooms to encourage them to do the same thing. Again, I fully support this. Yet some parents are in an uproar. They’re under the impression that Obama will show the kids all the things Lenin did in order to mould them into agreement with his “socialist doctrine.”
That, of course, brings us to the delicate question of health care. In most first-world countries, you go into a hospital with a bleeding arm and you receive treatment. In American hospitals, you go in and you get asked for your payment method. Obviously, health care isn’t free in Canada, or any other country. It’s paid for by taxes. Most Republicans, when asked why they think America doesn’t want universal health care, will point to higher taxes as one of the top reasons. That’s curious, because a recent poll shows that most Americans would be fine with paying a little more on their taxes if it meant a big change in health care.
As a supporter of universal health care, if the bill lost in the Senate and the United States didn’t have some level of reformation of the system, where could you move to? As I said earlier, pretty much all first-world nations have UHC. You could move to Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, all of Northern Europe, China, Russia, Brazil, Australia and more. Heck, you could even move to Iraq or Afghanistan, because the United States military is currently providing universal health care to citizens in those countries.
Say you oppose UHC though, and say the bill passed in the Senate, and you considered moving to another country on principal, because the good ol’ USA is now the United Socialist America, apparently. Where could you move to? Well, most of Africa doesn’t have UHC (though South Africa does), and neither does India or Pakistan, or North Korea, for that matter.
I got a little sidetracked didn’t I? I was talking about how the Republicans have been consistently promising a socialist USA. Now, I support most semi-socialist nations, including Canada, France and Germany. I think they have great policies, and their economies do rather well, even if they aren’t the glorious economy of the US.
I’ve been promised socialism, and I don’t see it. I’m disappointed.
