The interpretation, or spin, is what makes your observations erroneous. There is no intention or attempt to nationalize any of the industries you've cited above.
What's wrong with limiting bonuses to execs of failing companies that accepted bail-out money? How is that a threat to freedom? No one said the bail out was no-strings-attached. It should be an offense to every taxpayer that these fat cats think that they still have a license to proceed with the good-old-boy business as usual after driving their financial empires into failure. I think recent events have proven that unregulated free market capitalism is unworkable. That doesn't make regulation the first step down the slippery slope to fascism as you imply.
No one has proposed nationalizing the health industry, i.e. making doctors and nurses US Gov't Employees and hospitals US Gov't property.
The points you've challenged us to refute are all red herrings.
Good -- we're getting to specifics. I'll address health care. Help me understand where my logic is wrong:
The government is already the largest purchaser of health care with Medicare and Medicaid, which is contributing to the bankruptcy of the federal (and state) government. It already represents approximately 50% of all health care purchased, with this number anticipated to increase regardless of future health care committments.
Medicare and Medicaid set their own rates and terms of service to providers -- and their rates are notoriously lower than other forms of private insurance. While there are appeal processes, DHHS is the ultimate decision-making authority unless specifically over-ridden by the legislative process. The only check and balance in the system are the increasing number of doctors who refuse or limit Medicare/Medicaid patients.
The bill that passed the House of Representatives included a "Public Option" that put the government in the business of insurance. Much like Medicare and Medicaid, this entitlement had no requirement to remain solvent or otherwise compete fairly with private insurance (the bill repeatedly called for "whatever sums are necessary" and yes, I read huge chunks of the bill myself). A similar provision was included in the original Senate bill, but was removed solely due to the efforts of Joe Lieberman. One vote across over 500 members of congress is all that stood in the way.
Many Democratic leaders, including the President, have stated that the public option was a transitional vehicle to move us toward a single payer system. While some overtly sought to eliminate private insurance, the introduction of an unrestricted government entitlement with no solvency requirements would have most likely led to a single-payer system regardless of intent. If you question the use of "most likely", I'd like to cite Medicare/Medicaid's history of fiscal irresponsibility and lack of cost control. It is impossible to compete against a company that has absolutely no obligation to remain solvent and also has virtually unlimited access to capital.
So with the government as effectively the entire market for health care, they become the entire market maker. They can then define all terms of service and all reimbursement rates. They also control certificates of need, the issuance of DME/HME numbers as well as approval of HHC services. So without your medicare provider number, you have no business (which is becoming increasingly true today regardless in some market segments).
So again, help me understand the flaw in my logic. If you control every aspect of a market including its price and terms of service (including defining who can and cannot participate), how have you not nationalized it?
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
