Well, I mean.... for one thing I don’t think a lot of people really understand what “socialist” or “communist” are. A “bail out” to a private enterprise is not “socialist” because it doesn’t 1. Foster the destruction of class distinction- it enhances it. And 2. The government doesn’t take any stake in ownership of the company- in socialist economics the government or the people control industry and production but do not necessarily own it as is the case in communism. But a “bailout” does not give the people or the government any control or ownership of the company they didn’t already have.
The concepts of “socialism” and “communism” are all about nuance- but by default an action which is made for the primary benefit of a privately owned entity- wether or not that action is taken with the intent of benefiting the public, but where the discretion and “ownership” of the process and means by which the public benefit is to be done are out of control of the public- that’s not socialism. That’s a perverse form of capitalism or crony capitalism.
The healthcare debate is about socialism/socializing the medical industry, more specifically the insurance industry, the objective is to remove private insurance for the individual and provide a government one in it's place.
The dem candidates take different stances on how far to take this but in essence they are debating how involved then government should be in healthcare.
Thank you metalman. I post above about how people often misunderstand socialism and this is a wonderful example. The debate doesn’t always boil down to “I want people to be happy” or “I like big companies” or even to “socialism is a boogie man!!!” A major component is a question of how much influence a government should have over controlling private commerce. Can the government tell you how much you must sell your house for, or tell you that you make too much at your job and cut your pay? It’s a two way street. Finding a balancing point between regulating a market and controlling it, and a larger question of who should pay how much of these things and why.
The dem candidates take different stances on how far to take this but in essence they are debating how involved then government should be in healthcare.