Dems Want To Regulate Premiums - A Fascist Step?

Democrats have introduced a bill to modify ObamaCare and increase government's control over the health care industry... just as predicted. This modification would allow government to control health insurance premiums just like they do some electricity rates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/health/policy/21health.html

Mr. Harkin praised a bill introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would give the secretary of health and human services the power to review premiums and block “any rate increase found to be unreasonable.” Under the bill, the federal government could regulate rates in states where state officials did not have “sufficient authority and capability” to do so.

Reviving the proposal on Tuesday, Mr. Harkin said: “Rate review authority is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies’ jacking up premiums simply because they can. Protections must be in place to ensure that companies do not take advantage of current market conditions before health reform fundamentally changes the way they do business in 2014.”

That short blurb pretty much explains why they want to do this. You see, if everyone has to be accepted for coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, then premiums will rise. Not may, will... the insurance companies have to do SOMETHING to balance costs.


This is already happening now that insurance companies will cover pre-existing conditions for children... the first thing that happened was a series of insurance rate hikes. And what does that mean for Democrats in the fall elections? Unhappy people paying more for health insurance means fewer voting Democrat... and they can't have that, now can they?

So they want to change the law in order to protect their phony-baloney jobs in the fall.

This law will have government bureaucrats making business decisions for health insurance companies. In order to prevent "unreasonable" rate hikes, we have to agree on what is unreasonable, right? Actually, we don't... that decision will be made by a small group of people appointed by the ruling party in Washington.

That isn't anything remotely resembling a free market. Let's see, what do we call it when businesses are privately owned but run by the government? Hmmm... That would be fascism, now wouldn't it? Here's a bit on fascism from Mussolini's perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

In 1933, Benito Mussolini declared Italian Fascism's opposition to "decadent capitalism" that he claimed prevailed in the world at the time, but did not denounce capitalism entirely. Mussolini claimed that capitalism had degenerated in three stages, starting with dynamic or heroic capitalism (1830–1870) followed by static capitalism (1870–1914) and then reaching its final form of decadent capitalism, also known as supercapitalism beginning in 1914. Mussolini argued that Italian Fascism was in favour of dynamic and heroic capitalism for its contribution to industrialism and technical developments but claimed that it did not favour supercapitalism, which he claimed was incompatible with Italy's agricultural sector.

Thus Mussolini claimed that Italy under Fascist rule was not capitalist in the modern use of the term, which referred to supercapitalism. Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the "standardization of humankind" and for causing excessive consumption. Mussolini claimed that at the stage of supercapitalism "[it] is then that a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously." He saw Fascism as the next logical step to solve the problems of supercapitalism and claimed that this step could be seen either as a form of capitalism which involved state intervention, saying "our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."

And isn't that what we're seeing today? PresBo claims our capitalist system is causing all of these problems and that government intervention is the only way to fix it... just like Mussolini said.

At this moment in time, the US government owns all or part of FIVE-HUNDRED formerly private companies. Not one or two, but more than five hundred!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/12/new_bill_ends_government_run_companies_96956.html

The federal government currently holds various ownership stakes in over 500 private companies. This alarming fact, along with the events of recent days in the auto industry, should serve as a wakeup call for all those concerned about preserving the free market principles upon which our nation was founded. As we have been so rudely reminded, government ownership of private companies threatens the fairness of markets, creates coercive business conditions, and allows government bureaucrats to dictate business decisions.

Government ownership interests in private companies create an uneven playing field. Companies aided by the government are given an unfair competitive advantage that private companies do not enjoy. Because of this influence, government entities distort the competitive process and lead to inefficient market outcomes which favor the government-owned entity.

We may, in fact, be witnessing the conversion of the United States into a fascist form of government. We don't by any means meet all of the criteria, but we meet more today than we did ten years ago.

And if that doesn't upset you, then nothing will.