Was Bush's Medicare Plan D Prescription Drug Plan an Act of Socialism? Are the Republicans in Congress that?
voted for it Socialists or free market people. Are Bush and these congress people even real Conservatives?
- R JLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
not at all it was a bailout or a way to allow the insurance companies out of contracts that they were not making a killing on and threw it on the back of the country.
Insurance gave more to get out of the contracts with people and also the drug guys pitched in as they know they can charge us 100% and the rest of the world ten percent for drugs as government backs it.
drug guy bribes
May wonder why it keeps going up in donations but remember obama care is a huge wind fall for both and also the drug guys had to pay congress to make it illegal for people to buy the same drugs across the borders with Mexico and Canada, so they have to pay all the time, but worth it. Remember drug guys were going to give FED a $4 billion discount that Obama kept hawking about which was nothing considering what they will reap when everyone is on health care, not to mention how much more fraud the hospitals and medical professionals and doctors can defraud. It's sad but money talks.
Since Obama in office they are donating a record $3.5 billion each of his years in office!!!!! guys like Reid has his family working for them, Biden's son has his own firm, even mcCain has taken half a billion and Kerry the poor man's friend who stiffed his own state on taxes on his eight million dollar boat has taken a ton.
So you are right and i wonder why did he and obama now undermine the Sunni regimes in the middle east while not doing a thing to the shite run syria killing thousands? I mean Libya has not human rights violations according to our own government
- 9 years ago
Yes. Medicare Plan D is socialism. So is Plan A and B. So is Medicaid, and social security, and food stamps, and unemployment relief, and all the other welfare programs out there. These plans are a redistribution of wealth from the tax payers to the poor and the sick. While the attempt to help people in need is a respectable one, I do not feel that it can be justified economically or in terms of the violation of individual persons and property rights. When government programs such as these distort markets, it obviously distorts the price mechanism. The price of healthcare in America has risen dramatically, even if inflation had not of taken place (which in our Keynesian government that's so unlikely we should call it impossible) since the inception of Medicare Plan D. This increase in prices has no cost justification, and can be explained only by the fact that the increased money now chasing the goods in the drug market is working as upward pressure on the price of prescriptions.
The result, the socialist government welfare programs, while guaranteeing that some people will be covered completely, actually forces the prices of affected markets upwards. This means that in the current environment of static incomes, the only way people can afford to pay for these goods and services is for them to allow themselves to become part of the welfare state, where they are also covered by government safety nets. The problem is that eventually too many people become attached, and somewhere down the road there will not be enough people outside of the system to support all the people in the system, and it will break down and collapse the market or the government will expand the welfare programs to forcibly cover everyone, making the government the sole provider of the goods and services, and the government will pay for its expenditures through inflation.
Finally, to answer the rest of your question, yes the Republican Party is also full of socialists. The Republican party has many members that fight very hard to guarantee government subsidies to many American corporations. Some of these corporations do not need the subsidy to stay profitable, others need the subsidy to avoid bankruptcy. No matter the reason, however, subsidies are wrong. They are a socialist redistribution of wealth from tax payers and consumers to corporations that have not earned the money. In the marketplace, the only way a company should earn money is by earning a profit. The moment you introduce government regulations and subsidies that either guarantee a profit or make it so a profit is not actually required to run a business successfully, you have thrown away everything that encourages growth.
Our government's problems are not one party problems, they are two party problems, and the biggest problem is called Socialism.
- CharlesLv 69 years ago
yes. thats the only agenda washington responds to. any legislation has been socialist in nature for 48 years.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Yes. & another stupid plan from a good as a dem Prez as far as economic ploicy goes.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 9 years ago
Yes, and it prevented a more expensive and more centrally-controlled option the entire Democrat caucus was pushing.
- 9 years ago
Anyone who looked closely at Bush's administration understands that he was not a Conservative.