101 replies to this topic

[RavenHawk]

Corp, on 27 November 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Well in terms of geo-political terms we are somewhat aligned as a socialist democracy. Just like all of Europe and Oceania.

Yes, Socialism has crept into our system for over a century now and no one alive in this country knows what freedom really is.  Perhaps only our honored dead.  ”Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

Quote

Of course where the rub comes from is people like Raven who just don't understand what socialism means in a Western political context.

I think I do, I’ve expressed myself very well in this.  It’s you who hasn’t understood.  Socialism in a Western political context is still enslavement.

Quote

They hear socialism and they automatically think Soviet Union and become terrified.

That is incorrect.  Now I know you haven’t understood anything I’ve said here.  It’s far more insidious and covert.  Do you not understand what is meant by “benevolent”?  Do you consider the human condition represented in the movie Wall-E as freedom or enslavement?

Quote

Now of course the socialism that they're so scared of is practiced in countries that are every year ranked as the best places in the world to live in.

And that is a perk?  That’s like the opening ceremonies of the Games of the London Olympics.  Mankind struggled hundreds of thousands of years just to reach its ultimate existence and offer NHS.  If an alien race comes to Earth an asks what our greatest achievement is and we tell them that it is NHS, they would turn around and head back home and report that they found no intelligent life.

Check those ranking scores.  For the most part, what separates the top 30 or 40 nations is just decimal points.  The real question will be how much longer will those rankings be sustainable?  Austerity or collapse is coming and both signify the end to universal healthcare.

Quote

That people living in those countries love their nations and are just as free as Americans.

I would expect nothing less.  It is human nature to love one’s country, no matter how bad things get or how brainwashed one becomes.  And for the time being, no one else is freer than Americans.  But I admit that that point in history could happen in the next 4 years.  I believe in American Exceptionalism.  That tells me that Americans are better than everyone else, hands down.  But that’s not the end of the story.  I also believe that America is the Beacon of Freedom.  And those two things together should pull everyone up but I see that America is sliding back into the quagmire of primordial ooze.

Quote

But sadly little things like facts and reality don't make a dent in their worldview.

I wish you had actual facts in your worldview.  Or that you understood what the facts are.

Quote

After all they actually think Obama is a socialist.

Obama is a Socialist, or Marxist if you like.  If not that then how ‘bout Liberal or Progressive??  There is no difference and hiding behind your ignorance because you need the precise definition doesn’t save your position.  That’s an old tactic and it has no room here.  

Some may call Obama a Communist and then to distract from the point, you’ll say no he isn’t and point out one little thing that would question that statement.  So then someone else would say he’s a Marxist and again, you’d list out the clinical definition and show that he isn’t a Marxist.  Then another person will claim he is a Socialist, and you will yet again deny it, yet the bottom line is that he is still a despot wannabe.  But since you haven’t been able to comprehend my thread here, I doubt you understand that.  That has been clear for all to see.

Quote

Best you can do is shake your head and laugh.

Boy am I laughing.  I laugh very hard at the stupidity of others.  But it’s also so very sad.

[White Unicorn]

RavenHawk, on 28 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Let me tell you how lucky we are now under Obamacare.  We try to eat and live a healthy lifestyle, take preventative and maintenance steps.  But Western, clinical medicine is too ignorant to understand that alternative and Eastern medicine is the other half of "whole health" and for the most part are not considered "preventative medicine" in Obamacare.  Yet many doctors are beginning to understand the importance of these other forms.  Obamacare has no comprehension of these because they are not clinically quantitative.  Auto Immune diseases are on the increase and Obamacare is incapable of dealing with it.  You throw in things like GMOs and obesity and it doesn't take much to understand the Perfect Storm we are heading into.  

I would go see my doctor every 6mons to check my cholesterol etc., which was a $30 co-pay and $50 for lab work.  Now, what they do call preventative care under obamacare like annual physicals, etc are 100% covered however, lab work is now $1000.  I can't afford that.  And what good is going to the doctor without lab work for him to examine?  What kind of preventative medicine is that?  Why go at all and waste both our times?

Yes, my premium is down a little but my deductible has gone up 400% and my out of pocket limit has skyrocketed from $2,500 to $12,000 for me and my wife.  Under the old insurance she was able to get brand drugs cheaper because there was no generic equivalent.  Now she can't.  And the other drugs she takes are not approved by the FDA and so are not covered.  By the time we are eligible for any benefits, it'll be Nov or Dec of the year and then only at 65%.  That is rationing!  Now tell me how great that is for me?!


We won't have to get seriously sick before being endanger of losing our home.  Is that what Obama wants?  Instead of creating a building boom of new homes, just take my home and give it to a Taker?


Yeah, you must have had that tingle up your leg.  This is where Socialism does not understand the free market.  The purpose of insurance companies is to make money, not provide healthcare.  One should be harnessing the "Invisible Hand" instead of regulating it.  If the consumer was more educated and competition was open across state lines then the market would provide better care.  But Socialists don't understand that.  But it's also not just the insurance companies.  All businesses are looking for ways of not paying which includes dropping their workforce to under 50 and/or reducing worker's hours to under 30 hours.  The new norm will be that everyone will have at least two part time jobs and no healthcare.  Then there will be rationing that will occur from Obamacare, like it has already done with my wife's care.


Obamacare is the proof that everything should be privatized and get government out of things entirely!

What you don't see about the health care is it should be uniform and paid into by everyone from the time they are young. It should not be a profit industry. Insurance profit works just like the banks and most profit goes to higher management and have powerful lobbyists which drives all  health care costs up. Research funding is too related to drug companies that monopolize and control also and prevent the development of natural drugs because they don't  make profit from it and would rather us have side effects so they can treat them with another new expensice brand name. Some specialists I know actually  pay other doctors on their medical group commissions (in the form of tax free 401k profit sharing)  to refer unneeded surgery to increase their business!  Basically if you have the money you can get any treatment you want without the insurance being involved or just paying extra.

The thing that makes "Obama Care" not work is because there is not a uniform insurance to provide to everyone.  Small businesses get economically hurt because they have "union employees" who demand those great plans with small deductibles and cover most everything. Meanwhile you have a fortune 500 company like mine that has thousands of employees, when in management you have a different pension and 401k better than non exempt.  It's just now starting to change with new regulation. Likewise when you become non exempt lower pay you don't get the same matching that the upper levels get.  They offer dozens of choices in insurance throughout the corporation but if your older, have a preexisting  or are  non exempt THEY chose what you plans you pick from each year and some years you only have one choice!

Just like they have supplimental Medicare insurance health plans they should have something else available for all workers if their company provides insurance that doesn't meet their needs. Doctors don't share information and order duplicate tests etc so there's a lot of waste because of this. Specialists avoid other doctors findings under the so called "privacy act" but it's really a form of protection from law suits that they knew enough to be responsible for a malpractice suit. The lowly paid primary doctors are your real lifeline in being the coordinator of information if they can get it all in time.  It's a sad situation when you see what's going on from the inside of the insurance and medical industry.  The large companies choose what plans to offer by the " I will rub your back if you rub mine" mind set of business deals, just like pharmaceutical and research grants tend to do .

If insurance costs were uniform all people could afford it and know what they have when they need it. There's alot of conflict of interest and even outright fraud in the industry that should be dealt with enforcable regulation.

As for no generic I feel for you.  I had one of those with insurance it still was $600 a month! I learned, there are legal ways you can buy them from Canada or you can research the drug.  Talk to good pharmacists and general practioners about it. They can't officially say much because they work for the drug companies but you can find natural alternative methods with the same effects because the expensive drugs are really some "old Indian root type of thing or food " added with something else that has unknown side effects! Just like drugs you have to control the strength by using the same source to have a uniform dosage, but many of the natural alternatives do not have the really dangerous side effects.  

The name brand drugs still get written by doctors when there are other alternative treatment even if not the same drug. They do this because they get free samples from the drug companies if they get more people on the profit making drugs.  The doctors MUST  do that because they have needy patients who rely on the other free stuff the pharmaceuticals provide for free. Most the doctors are not bad but there is a nasty profit system in place that forces many to play the game to survive.  Also if you have an orphan disease or genetic anomoly you can become a NIH case study if your chosen. They will pay for your regular needed drugs to keep you alive at least  for the study LOL  

Only in America

Its a huge complicated mess just as the too big to fails, too many monopolies are in place with NO regulation or that can not be enforced because its so costly.  I view it as one of those things like when government had to take control of the postal service in order to provide universal services at same pricing to be more efficient. Once that's done it will lead back to private insurance that's more efficient but regulated properly to prevent the same disastrous monopoly effects.

PS I think hospitals need changed to be more like Cleveland Clinic. You have a whole team of doctors who share information with each other and you are cared for promptly not sent specialist to specialist doing the wrong tests.  Also I discovered chloestrol and blood pressure controled by the wrong drugs leads to one of our country's major problems- diabetes. I was shocked when I discovered that one. I'd like to think it was an accidently over prescribing but who knows without truly independent  research.

Edited by White Unicorn, 29 November 2012 - 01:18 AM.

[F3SS]

White Unicorn, on 29 November 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

What you don't see about the health care is it should be uniform and paid into by everyone from the time they are young. It should not be a profit industry.

I can't help but disagree with that because there are a never ending list of thing that are detrimental to good health and living. I could argue that a roof, four walls and heating are as important to your health as anything else, for most of the modern population at least. Tat brings the question of wether or not building contractors and HVAC specialists should be all tax paid government operations. What about all the tools they need? That goes for the people who invent and manufacture medical equipment too. Point is that profit is the driving force behind innovation. Maybe not at first, but ultimately it is. Example: I invented the hammer for myself now everyone wants one. Yes it'll greatly benefit society but I'm not going to make them for nothing or give the Feds my design and make everyone who doesn't need one pay for them.
Government has been innovative too but it's slow, expensive and takes years to reach the general public and if they're the only ones innovating in a particular market then they are also the only choice wether you like it or not. With all things free market you have choice. Even if you feel current healthcare and insurance options are too limited it is still a haystack of choices compared to the singe needle that is government.

One more thing...too many monopolies is an oxymoron.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 29 November 2012 - 02:46 AM.

[ninjadude]

RavenHawk, on 28 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

  But Western, clinical medicine is too ignorant to understand that alternative and Eastern medicine is the other half of "whole health" and for the most part are not considered "preventative medicine" in Obamacare.  Yet many doctors are beginning to understand the importance of these other forms.  Obamacare has no comprehension of these because they are not clinically quantitative.  Auto Immune diseases are on the increase and Obamacare is incapable of dealing with it.

Mostly because Obamacare is not healthcare. Surely if you're going to spit on something you really should learn something about it.

[ninjadude]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 November 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

I. Even if you feel current healthcare and insurance options are too limited it is still a haystack of choices compared to the singe needle that is government.

Obamacare is not a monopoly nor is it a single choice. It provides that insurance companies can offer a set of plans that must met certain minimum standards.

[Corp]

RavenHawk, on 28 November 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

*snip the foolishness*

[Mr Right Wing]

RavenHawk, on 26 November 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

It seems that some people get their noses bent out of shape when I use the term Socialism/Socialist.  I have spent many threads trying to explain how I use the term that even a five year old should be able to understand.  My guess is that those people haven't fully read everything I've said or are such an intellect that is far beyond what I have to say.  The whole genre is a complex mess and I simplify it and I guess it is that simplification that blows people's minds because it is so simplistic.  The simplicity is beautiful and legitimately black and white.  It's not rocket science.

All you have is basically Oligarchy or Republic; nothing else.  Oligarchy is the rule of one or of the few, or even by the many.  Republic is the rule of Law, not subject to human interpretation (even though there are times when that is appropriate).  Obamacare is a prime example of that.  That's why Pelosi said it had to be voted on before we could see what's in it.  And now, we are seeing what is in it because going from law to regulation requires human interpretation and that interpretation is nowhere near what the bill originally was.  Personally, my deductible has gone up 400% and my out of pocket limit is so astronomical that it just doesn't pay to be healthy.  It is cheaper to take the penalty tax.  Now I will refer back to Obamacare throughout this post, but because it is the best example of what is going wrong with this country, so you should just get use to it.

I use Socialism liberally (pardon the pun), when Oligarchy is the proper term.  I find that Socialism is appropriate in today's world.  There are many flavors of Oligarchy, which include Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Totalitarianism, Monarchy, Kings, Princes, Potentates, Dictators, and even Democracy.  The list is almost endless.  We could sit here and discuss the differences in each and every one of them and you would be missing the point.  For it isn't what makes them different, it is what makes them all the same.

All these forms imply government infringement on the lives of the subjects to some degree or another.  And the tendency of these is that over time, even the most benevolent forms will become more authoritarian.  Socialist Democracy is the most benevolent and Totalitarianism is the most malevolent.  And all Socialist Democracies will approach the Totalitarian as it takes more power from the people.  Monarchies gave way to Socialist Democracies.  Nothing really changed, just the source of power.  People were still not free as the government had final say over the Rights of the People just as the King did.

You won't find the word Democracy in the Constitution or even in the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights.  Our Founding Fathers knew the pit falls of Democracies.  The following are some of their thoughts:

"…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. And have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
James Madison  Essay #10, Federalist Papers

"We are a Republican Government, real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy."
Alexander Hamilton

"Democracy never lasts long.  It soon exhausts and murders itself."
Samuel Adams

Yes, Democracy plays an integral part in our form of government, but it is not the central principle of it.  Even though "Socialism" by name was not known then, that is what the Founding Fathers were talking about.  Democracy can and does morph into Socialism or Oligarchy or whatever you want to call it.  A rose by any other name…  Our Constitution was the only statement of purpose that didn't grant Rights by the government to the people but guaranteed protection of Inalienable Rights of the people by the government.  It is truly the only government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

President Obama has probably done the most (and he's not finished) in usurping that guarantee and half of the people are blind and the other half are standing idly by as this guarantee is being stripped from us.  And don't say it isn't, it is so blatantly obvious.  How Obamacare became law is the archetype of how we lost our liberty.  Our democracy has become the "Extremes of Democracy" as Hamilton said.  How Obamacare was crammed down how throats and how the Electoral College has been manipulated is what Hamilton was meaning by extreme.  This is how the Founding Fathers knew what Socialism was.

The following was offered by spartan max2 in another thread.  He paraphrases a well known and highly feared (by our government) segment of one of our most precious documents:

"In a free country, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When the people have very clearly withdrawn their consent for a law, the discussion should be over. If the Feds refuse to accept that and continue to run roughshod over the people, at what point do we acknowledge that that is not freedom anymore? At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government? And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free?"

He never made it clear but he really didn't have to as this clearly talks about Obamacare and Obama's Socialist agenda.  Obama is not Peter the Great and we are not the Russians being dragged, kicking and screaming into the modern age.  Socialism is the dinosaur; for even if this Country falls to Socialism, the light of freedom will not be extinguished.  It will just reemerge someplace else.  Perhaps we are seeing it in of-all-places, Egypt??  Perhaps the Muslim Spring is the reform in Islam that is needed and that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood do not represent it?  It is still way too early to be sure.

Oligarchy is the institution of slavery.  It can be malevolent or benevolent.  Malevolent is obviously Authoritarian, Totalitarianism, Police State, etc.  The prime example is Communism and the state of East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall.  People under this rule were definitely not free, but property of the state.  "Batteries" for the machine.  Benevolent in that it begins to nanny the people and give them everything they need.  President Gerald Ford said (re-quoted by President Ronald Reagan): "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have".  We see this in Europe.  Europeans have become too complacent because they get a regular fix of dole.  And you see what happens when austerity pops up into the equation.

But what happens when the tap shuts off?  In our national parks, you'll see signs that simply say "Please, don't feed the animals."  So the obvious question should be "why?"  If the animals get too use to taking food from the visitors then when times are hard, they won't be able to fend for themselves.  The animals will die off because they are waiting for food from humans.  They've lost the ability to hunt and scavenge.  And like animals, humans are creatures that do things for themselves.  That is where people have dignity and self reliance.  Without this, man does not thrive.  He just exists, or becomes a kept person (the humans in "Wall-E").  This is enslavement, a gilded cage.

All governments are transient.  They can never do their people justice.  A government should never put itself into a position to take from the people.  The government doesn't give the people anything, it can only take.  Our Constitution was established to prevent the government from taking from the people.  And this government is in danger of going off the cliff with welfare and Entitlements that it cannot sustain.

I prefer to do things myself.  Now, from time to time, I may need help and I would expect the government to be there to *help* out a little and I can then pay-it-forward later on, but what I do not need is cradle to grave care.  This is not the kind of government the Founding Fathers gave us.  And We the People need to insure that what they gave us stays.  We need to gain control now before we can't turn back.  The Socialist Ruling Elite is doing its best to divide and conquer, but people must understand that the Constitution is not only for old, white, rich guys.

Like what Mary Matthews (Katharine Hepburn) in "State of the Union" said: "You politicians have stayed professionals only because the voters have remained amateurs."  The best solution to an out of control government is an educated and informed voter.  If we just simply vote out every incumbent for the next few cycles, Socialism will die out and we will have our nation back.  But if we don't, then we will see riots in the streets like we have seen elsewhere.  There is a balance in nature and as slavery/Socialism is on the move, Freedom is struggling to keep that balance.

Far-Left is one who regulates everybody else - Dictatorship
Far-right is rule by everyone - True Democracy

People dont like dictatorship as they dont get a say and true democracy doesnt work as theres no rule of law. So we have Oligarchy or Republics instead.

Socialism tends to fit on the left to far-left because it attempts to regulate everyone into being equals when they arent. Conservatism tends to be on the right to far-right because it believes in minimum regulation of peoples lives.

Nazism was far-left and there wasnt that much difference between it and communism.

[Babe Ruth]

RavenHawk, on 28 November 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

No, not naïve.  Perhaps a bit romantic but it's more like a preferred goal.  And with goals, what steps do you need to take to get there?  Obama has been following the steps of Alinski to get us here.  What steps do we need to get out of this mess?  Repeating over and over that "voting them out" is a pipe dream (and I do tend to agree – perhaps that makes me more of a pragmatist?), then you can't believe that it is possible. But it must be possible. It has to be possible.  Our Founding Fathers gave us two ways to make change.  If we give up on the Ballot, then all that remains is the Gun.  Are the warnings of John Brown and the lament of Abraham Lincoln revisiting us?


That's the other half of my "naivety".  "Voting them out" is only part of it.  You also need to wake up the sheeple and make them aware.  Of course, that is easier said than done, but that is the goal.  If you do that then it doesn't matter on the rotation of terms.  As with the free market, the consumer drives it.  So with an educated electorate, they will drive better representatives.  It's time for the armature voter to become a professional in the matter of politics as the Founding Fathers had hoped for.  We do that and Socialism cannot taint the Great Experiment.  It is similar to Robert Heinlein's concept in the difference of "Citizen" and "Civilian".  It becomes the responsibility of the Citizen for the health of the body politic, the Civilian does not.  Now in our reality, it may not be feasible for every Citizen to be in the military to achieve this but in a healthy body politic, the divisiveness in political parties is reduced and the best interest of the nation is put forward.  This is not a pipe dream; it is explaining just one possibility.


Seriously, does it matter?  It's bad news either way and it robs our Freedoms and Liberties.

I agree very much with the sentiment of your post, however idealistic it might be.

Besides the ballot box, and way more effective in certain ways, is the jury box.  Jefferson saw it as the best way yet to keep a government anchored to the limitations of its constitution.  I agree completely.

As to Socialism v. Fascism, and I am a capitalist all the way, I would rather have socialism than the crony capitalism/fascism we have today in this country.

If socialism is spending tax dollars on society, and fascism is spending tax dollars on corporations, I would much prefer the former, in a land of "We The People."

[Cradle of Fish]

Mr Right Wing, on 29 November 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Far-Left is one who regulates everybody else - Dictatorship
Far-right is rule by everyone - True Democracy

Truth be told I wouldn't want to live under either. Sure a completely 'free' system would be good, for a few years, but given a completely free market monopolies arise, labor unions are crushed and we become slaves to the corporations. True democracy does not exist, and even if it did it would quickly descend into mob rule. That's why modern democracies have bicameral parliaments and courts.

Quote

People dont like dictatorship as they dont get a say and true democracy doesnt work as theres no rule of law. So we have Oligarchy or Republics instead.

People love dictatorships. Hitler and Mussolini would never have come to power if they didn't have a large support base. People only react unfavourably when the dictatorship turns on them.

Quote

Socialism tends to fit on the left to far-left because it attempts to regulate everyone into being equals when they arent. Conservatism tends to be on the right to far-right because it believes in minimum regulation of peoples lives.

Humbug. Conservatism in theory, yes, conservatism in action not so much. They talk a lot of freedom but seem to be devoted to pointless culture war crap. Why is there any opposition to gay marriage and legal weed when those are both quite blatant issues of freedom and would actually be good for the economy?

Quote

Nazism was far-left and there wasnt that much difference between it and communism.

That piece of tripe rears it's ugly head once again. The only thing left-wing about the Nazi's was their controlled economy. Socially they were extremely right wing. Authority, nationalism and religion were important in Nazi Germany. So was the role of women as child bearers and rearers. They wanted a homogenous culture, which is a very conservative ideal.

The point is moot anyway, you're attempting to sling mud and brand all things 'evil' as left wing so you don't feel responsible for it because you'd be put on the same side of a graph as them. I'm quite left wing by Australian standards, but I'm nowhere near a communist, socialist or anarchist. I detest communism in fact, I think Stalin and Mao are the two worst leaders of the 20th century. Just because I'd be on the left side of a very basic graph doesn't mean I'm anything like them.

[Cradle of Fish]

RavenHawk, on 28 November 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

You are obviously quite ignorant.  If you don’t like that response and have nothing better to say, then don’t say anything.

I'm not going to argue semantics, because you've shown time and time again that it isn't your strong suit. I think my point is highly relevant. You act like you're the most brilliant mind on the forum, and that any failure of the reader to comprehend your posts is their fault, not yours. In fact I'd go so far to say that you sound just like college socialists yourself.

You do raise good points from time to time, but you tend to go about it in a very undiplomatic manner. The Democrats are capitalists too, the fact that Obama continued with the bailouts and didn't allow the economy to crash is proof of that. Welfare is also a capitalist idea - that money gets spent, even if its on frivilous things like iPhones and Xboxes which stimulates the economy further.

[White Unicorn]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 November 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

Even if you feel current healthcare and insurance options are too limited it is still a haystack of choices compared to the singe needle that is government.

What choices do you have with preexistings or maxed out insurance?  It took Obamacare regulation to correct that.

One more thing...too many monopolies is an oxymoron.   I thought it was Poetic emphasis...

Edited by White Unicorn, 29 November 2012 - 11:55 PM.

[F3SS]

Raven, here's one for you.
Ravens Opposition: Ready, Set, Detract....

http://www.theblaze....hat-obama-does/
FRENCH SOCIALIST ON BUSINESS MOVE: WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? WE’RE JUST DOING WHAT OBAMA DOES
Arnaud Montebourg, France’s Industry Minister and a leader in the ruling Socialist party, made headlines last week when he said that the Indian steel company ArcelorMittal should leave the country after it said it would have to close down one of its factories.

Now he’s defending his government’s decision to nationalize said factory, noting that it’s just the sort of thing U.S. President Barack Obama would do:

“Barack Obama’s nationalized. The Germans are nationalizing. All countries are nationalizing. I’ve also noticed the British nationalized 6 banks,” Montebourg told CNBC.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 30 November 2012 - 08:09 PM.

[Corp]

What factories has Obama nationalized? Last I checked the auto companies were still privately owned.

[F3SS]

Don't ask me. Ask the French guy.

[Gromdor]

If you read the article, It is assuming that by "nationalizing" he means "bailing out".