Totalitarianism because the government might provide health care? You've got to be kidding. That would NOT be totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is when the government does things like monitor phone calls, emails and other data "just in case" we were going to talk about something we should be talking about.  It's when they put together massive lists of suspects like the "do not fly list" based on little more that rumor.  It's when governments tell us what we can't do and what we have to do - like when MA and Mitt Romney told all state residents that they MUST buy insurance (that really hasn't improved access to care in MA nor become any more affordable - both of which were promised to state residents) or face major penalties. If people want to fear something and bandy it about as a weapon and/or insult, they ought to at least know what it really is.

Danetta, that's exactly what people are afraid of. Somebody has Them convinced government will actually stick Their nose in and force Them to buy health insurance. it happened in the Peoples' Republic of Mass. They are not so sure it can't happen to Them. In Mass it has definitelt increased access by the way. Mass now has the highest percentage covered in the country. Until this can be challenged in the supreme court.

You've missed the point, Charlie.  You called it "socialism" that the people were afraid of.  That's NOT socialism that's taking place in Massachusetts.  What's taking place in MA is some variant of TOTALITARIANISM, FASCISM and/or AUTHORITARIANISM.  To tell people that they MUST do or buy something has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIALISM.  This is one place where the right wing and their fear-machine has their political science flat-out WRONG.  So I'll say it yet again, if you're going to bandy socialism about as an insult at least get right what socialism IS because it's NOT telling people what to do and buy.

Danetta, I never used the word "socialism", but since You bring it up the Mass. government does help people of modest means acquire health insurance. My daughter and Her family use the public option that supposedly doesn't exist here. I was only actually trying to defend people Who are protesting and attempting "tea parties" They  are concerned with what looks like rapidly growing government influence in Their lives in a lot more ways than just health care. Mr. Hnastl attack was not warranted. Although I will not be opting for public health care, I do support making sure the U.S. has that available. (but not mandated)

Mr. Hammond, oops!

"They  are concerned with what looks like rapidly growing government influence in Their lives in a lot more ways than just health care" - Charlie Reed

One of these days people are going to have to recognize the strength of the diversity of systems. Plurality or economic ideologies. We cannot deny that each system, be it capitalism, socialism... or whatever Ism you find has both strengths and weaknesses. We hail capitalism because it has brought on so much material wealth, yet a system driven by profit is inherently flawed.... we need more than profit in our lives, and we're starting to see more of that as time progresses.

That of course is not to say we throw it out the window. There are sectors where capitalism should be applied.

Likewise there are advantages and disadvantages of government control, or private, mission based, nonprofit control. 

Control of human and capital resources.

Imagine privatized fire rescue and how messy that would be. What about government controlled auto industry - we've already seen that that doesn't work in many countries. (Soviet Union?) There's a time and place for each strategy - they are interchangeable and compatible.

So when you say people are concerned with growing government involvement in their lives - I both agree and disagree with them.

That is the point I was trying to make with my first post. Yes, government control is growing. Is it bad? Is it good? Depends on where it's growing.

I find it sickening though, that the growth many people complain about is that which would benefit them and their neighbors the most and not the growth and influence that injures them, such as government bailouts of the auto industry and banks, militarization of youth in schools, removal of habeas corpus and other privacy measures through the patriot act and similar motions of congress.

I was also trying to suggest that we, as voting and buying citizens have a lot more control than we're leveraging and our lack of will power is a contributing factor - one that should not be ignored. It's easy to externalize the problems. And I'm just as guilty as the next guy.

My bad, Charlie.  You said "totalitarianism".  It's others who often bandy about socialism as if it's an insult.  There are parts of our lives and government where socialism would or at least could be the most appropriate response.  IMHO, health care is a great example because it would remove or strongly limit the rampant corporate greed that's making profit at the expense of human lives...

My silly, migraine addled head confused the two points.  Likely because I've seen them repeatedly confused elsewhere as if "totalitarianism" and "socialism" were interchangeable - which they're not. Actually, they're far from it.

Danetta and Jeremy, I agree pretty much with both of You. I believe America is a blend of socialism and capitalism. I think that works for Us with constant adjustment left and right. My defense of the tea partiers was that They are the very essence of America. Their counterparts on the left have been seen for years protesting every possible issue. These people are non-violently protesting something They fear. Whether it something We agree with is not relevant.

Danetta, I think Youhave brought up a good point. People do tend to use "socialism" and "totalarianism" synonyms. I think that has probably happened because so far it has always been the case, but it is still not correct. Theoretically a free country could be socialist. I think that has been the dream of socialists but somehow we wind up with The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, N. Korea, or Cuba. Still, Europe is moving torwards socialism somewhat democratically. Perhaps this time?

While the translation of the full name of the Nazi Party did include "socialist" the party was NOT at all socialist.  Might as well get this straight too if we're going to for accuracy.  The only thing the Nazis were was a mix of totalitarian and fascist.  This gets into a lengthy discussion of European and specifically German history and politics that's way off topic for this board.

Danetta, upon further introspection, I recognize that neither the right nor the left want to be associated with this horrible regime. I am afraid however, that both sides' philosophies were represented there. Rather than wallow in shame though it would better for both sides to guard fiercely against a recurrance.

Danetta, The nazi regime started out as socialist regime. Workers' rights, limited work shifts, health care, safe work conditions, workers sharing in the wealth, a car for every family. Along the way it was diluted and capitalism came out on top perhaps, but socialism was an integral part of the nazi party.