Ok, I Thought of Something

As I've stated in a previous post, I rarely do research in regards to what I write. With that in mind, I'm going to discuss some of the corporate buyouts/bailouts that the Federal Government has been taking part in.

I can see why these large lenders had to be saved. AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have a huge chunk of this debt market that we've all helped create. I would hate to think how much farther our economy would slip if these giants were allowed to go under. I've read an article here and there discussing the reasons for these expenditures of the gov'ment, and I understood most of it.

Now, my question is, isn't this close to a Socialist approach to these matters? The government now has a large stake invested in this market. They bought out Fannie and Freddie and then "loaned" a large amount of money to AIG. From a shareholder perspective, to look at it from a business perspective, don't they have majority holding and thus a large say in the workings of these companies? It's a bit of a stretch to say that for AIG, but the Feds now control the "Big F's" - that's what I'm going to call them from now on since they failed so miserably. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like a Socialist system to me.

So, my big question for the day is: Why is it so scary to allow this Socialist change happen to the health care market? Many of us have to pay our debts to the "Man," and I'm guessing that a good chunk of that debt sprouts from high-priced medical expenses that are being covered by extra mortgages and loans. Wouldn't a Socialist system of health care make some of the initial medical expenses smaller, hence a smaller debt to be repaid?

No comments: