Belt Auction

Isn't requiring competitive bidding for government contracts just Socialism in disguise?

Fro example, private insurance comapnies have troubled competing with inraunce from the V.A. cause the V.A. has too much power to negotiate lower rates. THAT"S SOCIALISM! Medicate thankfully doesn't have this problme.

Public Comments

1. No, it's avoidance of Blago Gate and Burris Gate.
2. why is socialism a big bad word? i dont understand. "ISNT THIS SOCIALISM?!!?!?!?!" maybe, why does that matter so much? we have a democrat in office, get used to socialistic ideas. and obviously, you know, competition is the exact opposite of socialism.
3. Sounds more like capitalism to me. (?)
4. Not really. Are you trying to be clever? If so, you have failed.
5. How on earth is using the marketplace (which is the complete opposite of Socialism) considered to be socialism, by you?
6. No, it's to avoid favoritism, pure and simple.
7. ummm.. competitive=capitalistic Are you serious?
8. No,Competition is what keeps America strong,and prices down.
9. No, I think that's the opposite....
10. How is competition considered socialism?
11. Of course not. The shenanigans will go on no matter which way they do it. Obama is master of squeezing money our of the USA. Chicago has the highest tax rates and lowest service in America. you think Americans would think about that.
12. No, Fascism is a stepping stone to socialism, and those two are both far left. Since when does socialism encourage or even allow anything competitive? Socialism is the economic system of Marxism and is necessary to implement the last phases of the Democrats' para-Marxist plutocratic empire. Anyrhing competitive is right wing. Left wing is decidedly anti-competitive. Socialism would seize the company it wanted and use its means to produce the goods or services desired. That is the end goal of left wing politics. Facism would go to the company and order it to produce a particular good or service. This is a stepping stone in the left-wing's power-building agenda.
13. You are in error, Sir. Every statement you make contradicts the other. Plus, what problem are you speaking/typing of when referring to Medicaid? Do you mean the fact that when the hospitals bill Medicaid, Medicaid then only approves a certain percentage of the bill and thereby pays only for nickles on the dimes of those bills? Is this what you infer by claiming no problem? Do you mean that Medicaid arbitrarily refuses to even consider "negotiating" with physicians for the services they provide, so the physicians necessarily must jack up their rates on their bills just to break even? Is this what you are implying in reference to no problems with Medicaid?