(a) Yes, there are some liberals who regard it as contentious. But the majority of those I've seen discussing it think it's desirable, don't see the mandate as objectionable and indeed often consider it necessary, and don't show much sign of having considered the actual costs to the uninsured Obama was originally promising to "help." And more than once I've had them become angry at my pointing out the real impact.
(b) If you think calling it fascist is ridiculous, complain to Hamsher; she is quoted as saying "Rather than actually helping the poor, this bill is a dangerous and unprecedented step on the road to domination of government by private corporate players who use it to suppress competition and secure their profits — the textbook definition of fascism" at http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/will-obamacare-lead-to-new-anti-fascist.html, which is where I found the link to her actual column.
(c) The logic of calling it fascism makes perfect sense to me. Fascism as an economic system implements the command economy not by expropriating industrial firms, but by organizing them into industrial sectors whose production and distribution are dictated by central planners, while the nominal owners retain their nominal title and are permitted to profit from carrying out their orders. In other words, it's statism in the interest of capitalists. Or what they imagine is their interest.
If you'd rather call it dirigisme, though, be my guest.
no subject
(b) If you think calling it fascist is ridiculous, complain to Hamsher; she is quoted as saying "Rather than actually helping the poor, this bill is a dangerous and unprecedented step on the road to domination of government by private corporate players who use it to suppress competition and secure their profits — the textbook definition of fascism" at http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/will-obamacare-lead-to-new-anti-fascist.html, which is where I found the link to her actual column.
(c) The logic of calling it fascism makes perfect sense to me. Fascism as an economic system implements the command economy not by expropriating industrial firms, but by organizing them into industrial sectors whose production and distribution are dictated by central planners, while the nominal owners retain their nominal title and are permitted to profit from carrying out their orders. In other words, it's statism in the interest of capitalists. Or what they imagine is their interest.
If you'd rather call it dirigisme, though, be my guest.