King/ Dictator Obama strikes again. Rewrites Obamacare

[Zaap]

LOL! If the left's spin on this could be harnessed our energy problems would be totally solved! Entertaining and sad as always.

 

[werepossum]

Nationalization has a very specific meaning. Allow me to quote it for you:

The government does not own the insurance industry, therefore it is not nationalized. You are confusing regulation with nationalization. If you believe this to be nationalization please provide a single nonpartisan source that describes it as such.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalize

na·tion·al·ize transitive verb \ˈnash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈna-shə-nə-ˌlīz\
: to cause (something) to be under the control of a national government
na·tion·al·izedna·tion·al·iz·ing

Full Definition of NATIONALIZE

1 : to give a national character to
2 : to invest control or ownership of in the national government

But do feel free to point out that merriam-webster.com is a part of the vast rightwing conspiracy.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalize

But do feel free to point out that merriam-webster.com is a part of the vast rightwing conspiracy.

Merriam-webster agrees with me. Control does not mean 'regulated by', it means as in the government actually controls the business. This is basic economics.

For more information on what nationalization is, please reference the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

 

[werepossum]

Merriam-webster agrees with me. Control does not mean 'regulated by', it means as in the government actually controls the business. This is basic economics.

For more information on what nationalization is, please reference the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

LOL Yeah . . . I would reference the wiki article, for we all know that all wisdom is contained in wikipedia, but all that spinning is making me dizzy.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL Yeah . . . I would reference the wiki article, for we all know that all wisdom is contained in wikipedia, but all that spinning is making me dizzy.

You're free to reference whatever you want! Nationalization is state ownership or control, not regulation.

 

[First]

LOL Yeah . . . I would reference the wiki article, for we all know that all wisdom is contained in wikipedia, but all that spinning is making me dizzy.

Yeeeeah except the inevitable conclusion of your definition of nationalize would mean every industry in the US has been nationalized which is a whole level of stupid that stands on its own. Unless, of course, you already believe said asininity.

 

[feralkid]

LOL Yeah . . . I would reference the wiki article, for we all know that all wisdom is contained in wikipedia, but all that spinning is making me dizzy.

Regardless, you don't seem to understand what nationalization means.

 

[Matt1970]

You're free to reference whatever you want! Nationalization is state ownership or control, not regulation.

Regulation is control. We went over this before.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate

werepossum is right, the spin from the left here is dizzying.

 

[fskimospy]

Regulation is control. We went over this before.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate

werepossum is right, the spin from the left here is dizzying.

We have been over this before, and you lost that argument really, really badly.

This should sum everything up:

Nationalize:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationalization
na·tion·al·ize (nsh-n-lz, nshn-)
tr.v. na·tion·al·ized, na·tion·al·iz·ing, na·tion·al·iz·es
1. To convert from private to governmental ownership and control: nationalize the steel industry.

Applicable definition of control:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control
1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.

Regulate: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate
reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

Applicable definition of control:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control
2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.

Just as in the definitions you cited, the word control has more than one meaning depending on the situation. That means that the "control" you keep bolding in the definition of nationalization does not necessarily mean the same thing as the "control" in the definition of regulation. Your entire argument relies upon both definitions using an identical meaning of the word control, despite logic and evidence clearly indicating otherwise.

This is likely why you have been utterly unable to come up with a source that says regulation is equivalent to nationalization.

I cannot believe this needs to be explained to you.

 

[First]

Regulation is control. We went over this before.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate

werepossum is right, the spin from the left here is dizzying.

lol yikes.

When you wimp out of every debate, at some point you have to stop posting in the same threads.

 

[werepossum]

Yeeeeah except the inevitable conclusion of your definition of nationalize would mean every industry in the US has been nationalized which is a whole level of stupid that stands on its own. Unless, of course, you already believe said asininity.

Any industry regulated to the point of health insurance under Obamacare has been nationalized. Offhand I can't think of any other industry that fits that definition, although there may be some others.

Regardless, you don't seem to understand what nationalization means.

Yeah, Merriam-Webster and I are funny like that. We just don't understand that proggies are free to dictate an insurance company's every action as long as you leave the fiction that it is free.

 

[HumblePie]

I think what werepossum was trying to explain and got confused is not that the federal government "nationalized" the insurance industry in that regard. He nationalized the mandate for having insurance. He made what was essentially a right to choose by the common man no longer a right to choose.

He nationalized the removal of our choice. By making the ownership of that choice in the hands of the federal government.

The federal government did not nationalize the insurance industry. That would basically make insurance a single payer program at that point. It may go there though. Who knows.

 

[fskimospy]

Any industry regulated to the point of health insurance under Obamacare has been nationalized. Offhand I can't think of any other industry that fits that definition, although there may be some others.

Well if that's the case I'm sure you will be able to point to a nonpartisan source making that argument. What's the holdup?

I can only assume that you're wading through the reams of sources making such a claim and just trying to pick which one is your favorite. It couldn't be that you're just not defining the word correctly, right?

 

[Matt1970]

Most definitions say Government ownership OR control. To regulate also means to control. The only way you lefties will accept the term Nationalization is if the government owns, controls and staffs every single aspect of the health industry, and only then, maybe.

 

[HumblePie]

Any industry regulated to the point of health insurance under Obamacare has been nationalized. Offhand I can't think of any other industry that fits that definition, although there may be some others.

There are a few. TSA strip searches anyone?

 

[fskimospy]

Most definitions say Government ownership OR control. To regulate also means to control. The only way you lefties will accept the term Nationalization is if the government owns, controls and staffs every single aspect of the health industry, and only then, maybe.

No. Please re-read my quoted post. By your definition, every single business in the entire United States is nationalized.

Forget for a second the fact that your pride is invested in not admitting that you're wrong. Does that definition make any sense to you? Do you genuinely think the entirety of the United States is nationalized?

Control has more than one definition, as do many words. One of those definitions EXPLICITLY talks about regulating something, another one of the definitions talks about dominating something. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense that the 'control' used in the definition of regulation was the one about.... regulating things and the one used in nationalization was the one about dominating things?

This would lead to a world where some things in the US are nationalized, and others that are simply regulated are not. Doesn't that sound a lot more like the world we actually live in?

 

[First]

Most definitions say Government ownership OR control. To regulate also means to control. The only way you lefties will accept the term Nationalization is if the government owns, controls and staffs every single aspect of the health industry, and only then, maybe.

How does this statement not therefore mean every private industry in the United States has already in fact been nationalized?

 

[Matt1970]

Nationalize - to cause (something) to be under the control of a national government
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalize

Nationalize - to bring under the ownership or control of a nation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalize?s=t

Nationalize - (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to put (an industry, resources, etc.) under state control or ownership
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationalize

Nationalize - to transfer ownership or control of (land, resources, industries, etc.) to the national government
http://www.yourdictionary.com/nationalize#websters

nationalization, alteration or assumption of control or ownership of private property by the state.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ationalization

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate

regulate
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

reg·u·late/ˈrɛgyəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate

 

[First]

Any industry regulated to the point of health insurance under Obamacare has been nationalized. Offhand I can't think of any other industry that fits that definition, although there may be some others.

Except your argument hings on this "to the point of....". What's the point at which a heavily regulated industry is, in effect, nationalized? I'm asking this because I genuinely want to know what you believe that threshold to be.

 

[fskimospy]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate

regulate
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

reg·u·late/ˈrɛgyəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate

You forgot a word:

con·trol (kn-trl)
tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols
1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control

con·trol
a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : regulate
b : to have power over : rule

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control

Now use your noggin for a minute and think about what that might mean.

 

[HumblePie]

How does this statement not therefore mean every private industry in the United States has already in fact been nationalized?

It's a matter of how much regulation. Creating regulation on how a used cars sales lot does credit checks properly is a form of regulation that isn't practically complete control of the industry short of staffing every position by federal employees. It's a difference of degrees and a strawman argument.

werepossum and others have made the claim with the latest round of "Regulations" by the ACA has basically nationalized the insurance industry in all by totality of staffing it from top to bottom.

Insurance has little sway in how it accepts applicants now as it can't deny anyone. Less wiggle room for pricing as it must pass certain price checks. And customers have only the apparent "choice" of what they want as long as what they want is insurance from one of a few "tiers" of available services.

The plans are defined. The pricing is defined. The people are forced. Again, short of staffing every position with federal employees the industry as a whole is almost completely regulated in every thing they can do by the federal government.

This is a far bit different that a regulation controlling how telecoms handle customer privacy (or not as the case maybe) and how telecoms do business overall.

 

[HumblePie]

Except your argument hings on this "to the point of....". What's the point at which a heavily regulated industry is, in effect, nationalized? I'm asking this because I genuinely want to know what you believe that threshold to be.

Hair splitting and a pointless argument. Some people don't think something is nationalized until every employee is either a federal employee or all the employees have to ask some federal employee for permission to fart.

Others basically look at what an "industry" does for business. And if it looks like the majority of business practices, rules, and procedures are constrained by a federal regulation... it's pretty much nationalized.

 

[fskimospy]

Hair splitting and a pointless argument. Some people don't think something is nationalized until every employee is either a federal employee or all the employees have to ask some federal employee for permission to fart.

Others basically look at what an "industry" does for business. And if it looks like the majority of business practices, rules, and procedures are constrained by a federal regulation... it's pretty much nationalized.

No, it's really not. I'll give you the same challenge that I gave werepossum. Can you find a single credible, nonpartisan source that describes the ACA as the nationalization of the insurance industry?

The US government neither owns, nor runs the US insurance industry. Therefore it is not nationalized. If people would like to look at what nationalization of the insurance industry ACTUALLY looks like, see Canada.

 

[First]

It's a matter of how much regulation. Creating regulation on how a used cars sales lot does credit checks properly is a form of regulation that isn't practically complete control of the industry short of staffing every position by federal employees. It's a difference of degrees and a strawman argument.

There is no accepted definition of the amount of "degrees" before government regulation becomes government nationalization. That was my point. You are of course free to cite where the argument has been settled on this, though, as certainly healthcare cannot possibly be considered nationalized based on the traditional definition economists and public policy analysts use. That's just a fact.

werepossum and others have made the claim with the latest round of "Regulations" by the ACA has basically nationalized the insurance industry in all by totality of staffing it from top to bottom.

Insurance has little sway in how it accepts applicants now as it can't deny anyone. Less wiggle room for pricing as it must pass certain price checks. And customers have only the apparent "choice" of what they want as long as what they want is insurance from one of a few "tiers" of available services.

The plans are defined. The pricing is defined. The people are forced. Again, short of staffing every position with federal employees the industry as a whole is almost completely regulated in every thing they can do by the federal government.

This is a far bit different that a regulation controlling how telecoms handle customer privacy (or not as the case maybe) and how telecoms do business overall.

Except having actual government employees is exactly the type of reality that probably most precisely characterizes nationalization. You've (inadvertently I imagine) dismissed the single most defining characteristic of nationalized industries.

And telecoms are regulated to the hilt, are you kidding?

 

[First]

Hair splitting and a pointless argument. Some people don't think something is nationalized until every employee is either a federal employee or all the employees have to ask some federal employee for permission to fart.

Others basically look at what an "industry" does for business. And if it looks like the majority of business practices, rules, and procedures are constrained by a federal regulation... it's pretty much nationalized.

Uh, huh? How is asking someone who qualifies their point with "to the point of" mean that I'm "hair splitting" when hair splitting is exactly what werepossum's statement regarding regulating an industry "to the point of" is all about?

Your comment is odd and poorly thought out.