Clinton splits hairs over what "socialized" means:
Clinton was asked why as a candidate for president she is "still insisting" on bringing "socialized medicine" to the United States, when people are "pulling away" from similar systems in Canada and Great Britain. Worse, the questioner said, such systems hurt rather than help poor people.So explain to me what the difference between socialized medicine and Hillary Care is? Apparently she believes it is the ability to choose which doctor you go to -- implying some kind of competitive ability within the marketplace. However, that's only one part of the supply and demand equation.
"That was a string of misrepresentations about me and about the systems in other countries," Clinton started. "Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists here heard that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."
Clinton then asserted that "on balance," countries with uniform national systems of health care, including Japan, Australia and Canada, offer better health care than the United States. The answer left her questioner shaking his head in disagreement.
Let's have a quick recap shall we? Capitalism (and all true markets) are driven by scarcity. There are two things that enable the consumer to differentiate between product or service providers: cost and quality.
Medicare (presumably) allows the consumer to differentiate between service providers for quality, but not cost -- because ultimately its not their money. The price of payment is set at least in part by the government. This is the same as if the government garnished all wages and redistributed them for any necessity in life. But wait...isn't that socialism? According to Clinton it isn't, because only a "small minority" of Americans believe that it is. Didn't you know popular opinion dictates facts?
This is a stupid, stupid argument. Another analogy is in store. What if under HillaryDrive, a percentage of all paychecks was taken to provide auto insurance and a "vehicle for All America"! The best part is, its not socialism if the consumer chooses which vehicle they buy...right?
The fact that there are (sort of) private companies ultimately providing services doesn't change the fact that the means of payment is through a forced redistribution of wealth -- the primary tenet of socialism.