Obama Medicare Czar is a Hardcore Marxist

Obama Medicare Czar is a Hardcore Marxist

Flashback: Donald Berwick “We Must Redistribute Wealth”

Today, President Obama officially made Donald Berwick his recess appointment to be the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In 2008 while speaking on the British health care system in the UK, Berwick said wealthy individuals must redistribute their wealth to those less fortunate for health care funding. Also during this speech, he told those in attendance that he opposes free markets.

“Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”

Any Questions?


— Doc Velocity






[edit on 7/8/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Obama Medicare Czar is a Hardcore Marxist

Any Questions?

— Doc Velocity

I have two!

Is there anything other than 'redistribution of wealth' that proves he's a Marxist?

And

If he is a Marxist, why is this a problem?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Any Questions?


— Doc Velocity

Yes. What does it matter?

This is what happens when the citizens choose a new political party to run the country, government departments are put under the control of people chosen by the new party. It happens with every new administration. It's what we voted for.

Well, if you don't see anything problematic with the proliferation of fekkiing Marxist ideology in the American capitalist system, then you have no problem with the working class rising up and staging a revolution to crush the government by force of arms, right?

I mean, if you love Marxism, then you've gotta love ALL of old Karl's philosophy, don't you? Just to remain consistent?

Karl Marx thought that socio-economic equality could be achieved by redistribution of wealth and/or by revolution of the working class against the government.

So, I suppose you Donald Berwick supporters have no issues with the American population staging an armed revolution. I mean, revolution IS the fast-track to attaining your socialist objectives, isn't it?

And who do you think would come out on top in a new American Revolution? The fat and sassy Socialists in our central government who led us to this dire turn of events, or the enraged conservative majority that comprises the civilian population?

Your silence is answer enough.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 7/8/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by links234
Is there anything other than 'redistribution of wealth' that proves he's a Marxist?

Yes, the fact that Barack Hussein Obama appointed him. Everything this president does reeks of Marxist intent.

He should not be surprised, then, when the Marxist chickens come home to roost and he has a full-scale armed revolution on his hands. In the best Marxist tradition, of course, so that should titillate your jolly.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Since 1981, how close to making us the USSR has Bernie Sanders gotten us?

Or are you perhaps henny pennying it up here?

Doc, when did you turn into a giant troll?

-Kaytagg
(Ps, you don't have to put -[Your name here] after all your posts. We can tell you who made the post by looking at the avatar or reading the authors name )

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Or are you perhaps henny pennying it up here?

Henny Penny was afraid that the sky was falling. I INVITE it.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Kaytagg
(Ps, you don't have to put -[Your name here] after all your posts. We can tell you who made the post by looking at the avatar or reading the authors name

)

Well, GEE, thanks for pointing that out... Yawn.

The byline serves as my "second line" when I give a terse reply.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Or are you perhaps henny pennying it up here?

Henny Penny was afraid that the sky was falling. I INVITE it.

— Doc Velocity

So that would be since 1981 having a socialist serving in government has yet to make the US a socialist country then? Thanks for answering like an adult with a genuine interest in reality vs. irrational hyped up nonsense.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The byline serves as my "second line" when I give a terse reply.

— Doc Velocity

In lieu of substance, you resort to repeating your own name?

Why do you even bother to post these threads when you never have any intention of having a serious conversation about anything? Are you just looking for attention? Is there some political agenda? Can you think of more than one line?

I am seriously posing the question to you about having a certain type of ideology with our own government. You just seem to want to shout "fire" and then hide behind one line insults. Can you discuss your OP at all?

Perhaps it's too early in the morning to ask you deep thinkers out there to reconcile our government's abrupt shift to Marxist political tactics with the government's infringement on our Liberty in this country. I mean, when you embrace Marxism, you'd better be prepared to embrace everything it entails. If the socio-economic situation gets so bad that redistribution of wealth is necessitated — as Obama and Donald Berwick maintain — then the situation is bad enough for an armed revolution to take place.

Isn't it a bit provocative to clamp down on American liberties (such as free speech) when you're trying to implement a Marxiust redistribution of wealth? Isn't this just ASKING for a revolution?

— Doc Velocity

I am kind of curious... Why is it right to take stolen money back from a bankrobbers... But not a corporate thief who has rigged prices on every product?

Is it some twisted logic that people can choose to not buy the product? Such as food when it is illegal in some areas to have a home garden or even farm animals? Medicines? Fostered culture of pure consumerism where people are told they are un-American for not having over 50,000 in credit card debt?

What exactly makes capitalism something remotely noble?

So a Marxist has been named to the post of Health "Czar".

Does anyone else find that a tad ironic?

reply to post by Doc Velocity


According to the the geniousness of wikipedia Marxism has three primary aspects:

1. The dialectical and materialist concept of history
2. The critique of capitalism
3. Advocacy of proletarian revolution

Judging by your presumptions of this man's single quotation you believe he would fall under #2 in our short list, thereby allowing the label of 'Marxist'.

Now, if I were to take a narrow-minded view of Marxism as you have, and focus on your second and third posts in this thread, I can proclaim that you would fall under #3...thus, making you a Marxist.

So, I ask again, as others have also repeated the question; why is this a problem? Especially now that we know you and he share the same ideals.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


I really don't see the problem...

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I am seriously posing the question to you about having a certain type of ideology with our own government. You just seem to want to shout "fire" and then hide behind one line insults. Can you discuss your OP at all?

If you knew what you were talking about — which you don't — you'd know that I am not a one-line poster, except when the responses out there run dull and dry and humorless, and then I might resort to a one-liner or animated GIF here and there, like jabbing a sharp stick in your stupid eyeball.

Just to evoke a response, you understand. Nothing personal.


— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity

Well Doc, if you listened to him he addressed the extremely inflated cost here in the U.S... He threw out a 17% GDP figure, then he made it sound as if it could be 9%... I don't know about the accuracy of that statement. What I do know is its a problem, we are the wealthiest nation on Earth and there are millions of Americans assed out. I do not like the proposed solution, but at the same time I don't like the inflated cost or the crap people go through. Thats a whole lot of money and the cost is inflating at an out of control rate. Maybe you don't get that some of us are seeing this as a cost issue; you are looking at it from one perspective, but don't seem to heed the other concerns involved in the whole debate. If people are going bankrupt to stay alive or fight for their damn lives there is something wrong...

Its healthcare, if you think such a thing should remain exotic or luxurious I am not even sure who you would care about when you worry about socialization. Its a funny thing to worry about socialism and not worry about lord knows how many people who are locked out of basic system in society. I would think if you are concerned about the effects of socialism on people, the same would apply to some of the people in a bad situation due to the current system.

As I said, I do not support the "fix" proposed, but then again I don't think it is a pressing issue in your eyes, its clear by your specific hang, not cost, sick people, but
method. I would prioritize cost and sick first, but thats me, probably that's what makes you a conservative and me a lib.

I would propose an opt in system, you choose in or out and get money deducted if you want in, that would keep everyone free to choose. That would not be socialism, we could also finally see if this can work, if you don't pay for it would you still care Doc?

Could you make that concession? Doc does not want to, so count him out, no cost for him...




[edit on 8-7-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by links234
So, I ask again, as others have also repeated the question; why is this a problem? Especially now that we know you and he share the same ideals.

Who said it was a problem? Why are the kids in the peanut gallery automatically assuming that my posting a thread denotes an objection to the turning of political tides?

If anything, I posted this thread as an "I told you so" — I've said many times that we are being led down the garden path to socialism by our corrupted leaders, but I've never said that I was AFRAID of socialism. Indeed, socialism precipitates a lot of the things that I love most: armed insurrection, the grisly demise of the Intellegentsia, guillotines, blood flowing in the streets, politicians and lawyers and judges running for their lives, living like wildmen in caves, et cetera.

I'm not complaining — I anticipate with some excitement the beginning of unabashed Marxism in America. I'll finally get an opportunity to use all these marvelous survival gizmos and weapons that I've been stockpiling for years, waiting breathlessly for SHTF.

— Doc FVelocity

reply to post by lordtyp0


I like capitalism, more or less. Markets are an interesting thing, too..

What Doc doesn't understand is that markets can't solve all of our problems. He doesn't understand what socialism is, either. And he doesn't understand that both parties have spent public monies on social projects (at the cost of, mostly, the wealthy) for more than 100 years.


This frenetic blabber about marxism is explained pretty well by Noam Chomsky, I think (worth listening to):