the "socialism" red herring

Over at The Wit Continuum, http://thewitcontinuum.wordpress.com/, the question is asked about health care reform,
"is this the first step to a socialist form of government?"
My response... I don't believe the question is legitimate. Government exists to fulfill certain responsibilities in society. Those responsibilities shift over time. A look around the world clearly proves that today countries that offer public health care spend a lower % of GNP for better care for more people. It's simply a more efficient system, using competition to force all health finance providers to deliver better service for less.
Did public schools make the US "socialist"? Are public libraries a threat to democracy, just because they're public? Are there still private schools and libraries, despite the fact that the government assures a public option for education?? Of course.
This silliness over "socialism" is a red herring, an insurance lobby sound-byte  to divert attention from the real debate. The US is no more socialist than it was last week. It's just a better country.

Comments

[Snowy]

I agree. This is about the most stupid argument against Obama's long overdue health reforms imaginable, especially coming from a country with such a massive military budget. It seems that government spending on defence is OK, but government spending on health isn't. And those of us living in countries with so called socialised medicine know damn well which system is better..

[Endeesea]

[this is good] Agreed. Those who call 'socialist' cannot define the ideology, only an unreasoning fear of what they're told socialism is. There is one tea partier who is openly fulminating over armed insurrection! In this day and age, and in the US no less!!!! How the mighty fall. This is how.

[Kimberly J. Koch]

[this is good] Very good points.  I must have missed this.  Anyhow I really like this post.  It is all true, there is not a point made here that could be argued against logically