EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Obama Did It For the Money
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Renowned Scientist Stephen Hawking Joins Academic Boycott of Israel
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats Have 60 Votes to Advance Health Bill
Two remaining Dem holdouts announce they will vote 'yes' to begin debate
WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders secured the last votes needed to move ahead on historic health care reform legislation, clearing the way for a Saturday night showdown on President Barack Obama's top domestic policy initiative.
In long-awaited speeches, two centrist Democratic senators said they would stand with their party and vote "yes" on the crucial test procedural vote despite deep reservations with parts of the 2,074-page bill to remake the U.S. health care system.
"The truth is this issue is very complex. There is no easy fix and it's imperative that we build on what's already working in health care in America," Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas told her Senate colleagues.
Earlier, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said she would vote "yes" on the procedural vote to determine whether debate can go forward on the Senate floor on Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care reform bill.
Democratic leaders were optimistic they now have the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to go forward. The Senate's 40 Republicans are unanimously opposed.
"I've decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done," Landrieu said, with the 8 p.m. EST (0100 GMT) vote looming.
But the two moderate Democrats both cautioned that while they have agreed to allow debate to continue, their vote Saturday does not commit them to supporting the final bill.
At a 10-year cost approaching $1 trillion, Reid's legislation is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny benefits to people with preexisting medical conditions, and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.
Almost everyone would be required to purchase insurance, and billions in new taxes would be levied on insurers and high-income Americans to help extend coverage.
During Saturday's debate on the bill, Democrats called a revamp of the nation's health care system long overdue. The U.S. is the only major developed country that does not provide comprehensive medical coverage for its people, and Obama campaigned on a promise to change that.
"The country suffers when there is a failure to act on serious challenges that millions of ordinary Americans face in their daily lives," Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said during the rare weekend session.
United in opposition, Republicans cast the bill as a costly government takeover of the health care system, built on budget gimmicks.
"Move over, Bernie Madoff. Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scam," said Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, referring to the mastermind of a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.
The action in the Senate comes two weeks after the House of Representatives approved a health overhaul bill of its own on a 220-215 vote. Major health care reform legislation has now advanced further through Congress than at any time since the 1960s when the government-run Medicare health insurance program for seniors was enacted.
After the vote Saturday night, senators will leave for a Thanksgiving holiday recess. Upon their return, assuming Democrats prevail on Saturday's vote, they will launch into weeks or more of unpredictable debate on the health care bill, with numerous amendments expected from both sides of the aisle and more 60-vote hurdles along the way.
Democratic centrists from conservative states are particularly wary of provisions to have a government-run plan compete with private insurers to drive down coverage costs. Efforts to insert stricter language to bar federal funds from being used to cover abortions has also become a divisive issue.
Senate leaders hope to pass their bill by the end of the year. If that happens, January would bring work to reconcile the House and Senate versions. If a compromise can be reached, it would then have to be approved by both chambers of Congress before a final package could land on Obama's desk to sign.
The House and Senate bills have many similarities, including the new requirements on insurers and the creation of new purchasing marketplaces called exchanges where self-employed individuals and small businesses could go to shop for and compare coverage plans. One option in the exchanges would be a new government-offered plan, something that's opposed by private insurers and business groups.
Differences include requirements for employers. The House bill would require medium and large businesses to cover their employees, while the Senate bill would not require them to offer coverage but would make them pay a fee if the government ends up subsidizing employees' coverage.
Another difference is in how they're paid for. The Senate bill includes a tax on high-value insurance policies that's not part of the House bill, while the House would levy a new income tax on upper-income Americans that's not in the Senate measure. The Senate measure also raises the Medicare payroll tax on income above $200,000 annually for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Both bills rely on more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
33 Comments so far
Show AllPerhaps CD got this entire piece from the Assimilated Press, but there's a typo in the headline.
Wealth is misspelled with an 'H'.
Gonna be a lot of the Democrats' base sitting out the 2010 election now that the Democrats have confirmed that they will criminalize the uninsured, raised taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 per year and turned health care reform into as big a corporate welfare program as the bank bailouts.
When the Republicans take control of Congress in 2010 Obama will no longer be lying when he blames the Republicans for fascist legislation and CD readers won't have as many opportunities to point out his lies.
Conservatives got us into these fine messes. Then they have the gall to tell us how to proceed?
By conservatives, do you mean politicians?
Both parties did this.
Yes, conservative Democrats exist.
"historic health care reform"
The elites started editing the history books before they even made the non-history. Their plan was to pretend to do something worthwhile, while actually making things worst, get paid for it, and write themselves a positive review in the media.
The elites are exploiting the people's hope, trust and loyalty, and manufacturing weapons from that to turn against the people. This is a particularly vicious form of oppression. The weapon of mandatory insurance premiums to a cartel of corporate crooks will persuade the people to shut up and continue paying twice for healthcare what people pay in other countries. The cartel has publicly threatened to raise the cost to five times that in a decade and the people have to be softened up for this slated surge of their enslavement. The elite faction in the Whitey House figures the more enslaved the people are the more the people will enjoy it.
If the people are looking for an alternate paradigm, consider breaking down into percentages what you are willing to pay for things. To figure what you should pay for healthcare, you consider that a national insurance pool makes the most sense, so we can talk about average costs, per capita. Now look at the average cost in the countries with the best value, Canada being a great example, and divide that by the average income in Canada, and with the average hours worked you can figure best value healthcare costs in percent of your time. It's not set in stone. You can look to see if for example Canadians happen to be workaholics to some extent and if so then their percent of time figure for healthcare and everything else is probably too high. So you can demand even greater value, and get it. Do this for all the stuff you need and always know what it costs to do things for yourself too. Show your figures to people and ask if they would like an opportunity to serve you at the specified rate. Write up a contract for long term business based on mutual satisfaction with the terms. Make sure the people you do busness with are involved in independent enterprises of ten man-powers or less, and local.
"new purchasing marketplaces called exchanges where self-employed individuals and small businesses could go to shop for and compare coverage plans."
This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. The elites are fully aware that the people could someday learn to think for themselves. So the elites call on the Bernays disciples to create a new facade which is the "exchange" described in the quote. It's freaky in its idiocy. We ALREADY HAVE a health insurance marketplace and it sucks, because the prices are fixed illegally at twice the cost in other countries. USans are so blinded by the light, they can't see through it. It's criminal for elites to continue cultivating/exploiting this human weakness.
You have the right idea there. Americans need to set some kind of a limit on what percentage of their income they will pay for health expenses (ALL of them COMBINED) if they wish to avoid bankruptcy every seven years and God only knows what kind of destitution in between those seven years. And if they wish to avoid slavery to health insurance executives, homelessness, and so forth. Whether your limit will be lower or higher than what the Democrats think your limit should be will depend on individual circumstances, but I can guarantee you that there will be a lot of people who would be wise to set a lower limit than what the right of center Democrats are setting for them. The Democrats, even after all of their at first glance nice sounding limits and regulations are factored in, are effectively setting annual health spending limits for many millions of Americans at well in excess of 20% of (last year's) income, topping out at, for the sick, as a rough estimate to be improved later, 35% of income. This is of course criminally insane.
You can't defy the laws of personal microeconomics in America or anywhere else. If you pay out 25% or 30% or 35% of your income to health insurance expenses, there are going to be serious consequences for the success or lack of success of your overall personal spending program. There is a lot more that needs expenditure than health care in any rational personal spending program. You have to avoid freezing to death for example.
It would also be nice if there was some money available for job creation outside of the health industry, especially since the banks have taken the economy hostage and are refusing to lend to small and medium sized businesses.
With a target date of the end of the year, I am producing an excel file that will clearly show reasonably good estimates of the real costs of health care in various countries across several disparate income levels, with easy to see comparisons to the far higher US costs. One of several important objectives will be to try to blast away some of the ignorance about premiums being the only or even the main health care expense in the US: as nasty as the premiums alone can be, there is a lot more than just premiums to worry about in the US.
The excel will also, eventually at least, include future year estimations, for 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. In short, it will be a clear and quick look at the extent to which Americans are being and will be fleeced. The differences between what Americans pay and what almost everyone else pays are so great, and are destined to grow even greater, that the word "fleeced" is fully justified.
Good weekend and holiday next week to all.
New Democratic Party-US, somebody, please / Prior Articles / Prior Comments
http://www.unity-progress.blogspot.com
Thanks, I am looking forward to the spreadsheet. I will check out your blog. Please notify us when it is ready.
Not that the Constitution any longer serves as a roadmap.
But just as an academic argument, is it constitutional to force citizens to buy products from private corporations?
Oh maybe the more expensive than private insurance, public option exists exactly to bypass the aforementioned Constitutional hurdle.
Is it constitutional to take citizen's money and buy products from private MIC corporations, like General Electric, Boeing and Northrop Grumman ?
Not at all, because nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the Air Force; the President is only Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.
And thank heavens we have *private insurers* working to keep health costs low, unlike Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration, which cost half as much as private healthcare.
Thank you glenn ford for questioning the constitutionality of this law. I have done so also in posts to this and other websites and in letters to my elected representatives at all levels. The federal system does not place the power in Washington DC to require purchase from private companies any service or commodity. Surely, the Washington DC government does have the power to impose a tax and provide a service such as single payer, Social Security, Medicare, etc., but not a private purchase.
State laws have some mandatory purchases such as auto insurance. However, driving is a privilege which a citizen may choose not to exercise. One could use public transit, largely an unrealistic option for the vast majority of us, but possible. This new law says if you are a legal resident of this country you must buy something to remain here. There is no option. The so-called public option being significantly more expensive than a host of high deductible, spotty coverage private options does not effectively relieve the pressure of the governmental mandate. This law should not survive a constitutional test. If it did, where will that slippery slope lead and to what other part of your personal finances?
You could argue the same about car insurance. But having a car is somewhat optional. And car insurance is much cheaper. Having a body is required. And health insurance can be a budget breaking burden for families.
Still, some lawyers could look into this.
Joe
I'm not yet convinced that this bill will do much to hold down health care costs. If all it does is require us to purchase insurance at even higher rates then it's a government/corporate scam. As a a part of this bill I want to see the monopoly status of the insurance companies removed and, medicare left alone so that our part B and supplemental policy premiums do not rise as a result of medicare cuts. Short of these things, it's time to throw the pies.
Landrieu and Lincoln: moderate Democrats? Not in my book. In the 70s they would have been considered Republicans, and probably could not have been elected as Democrats. Sad, how things do change along with the size of our legislators' pocketbooks.
I love Lincoln's comment about health insurance (certainly not healthCARE): "It's imperative to go with what already works." Might I suggest Medicare-for-All, Ms. Lincoln? To describe the present system, with insurance companies as unnecessary middle-men to sell policies and deceive the public into buying them, as an 'already working' entity is frank mis-information and -representation.
anti-abortion mandatory ins. co. profit bill almost passed
whoo hoo
whoo hoo
whoo hoo
i almost forgot about universal health care again, again
what does this mean
are they going to now have an up or down vote on the measure???
djp. 60 yea 39 nay to go ahead and debate the bill.After the Thanksgiving recess things will get really nasty. be well
The Democrats answer to Medicare part D the Republicans passed will be discussed ...
The enshrinement of insurance, pharma and hospital corporations into everlasting profitability.
The trial balloons are already being released. Mammogram cut backs, PAP test cut backs, prostate cancer cut backs ...
Any benefit to actual people is of course years away ...
This whole health care episode is testament to the complete corruption, ignorance, laziness and brokenness of our governance, the MSM and our entire population.
Big Deal!
Bill of Gimmicks ans Lies!!!
With the new healthcare bill, Twinkies and other goodies like Soda/Soft drinks may be seen as a health hazard to eat...You know those shopping cards at the Market? Those electronic tracking machines of what you buy at grocery stores could be used by Insurance companies in the future to deny or approve your health coverage.....
They have not told you all this, but mark my words people.....Technology can be abused....
Eat up all your Twinkies and drink those soft drinks Now!!!! Before the Insurance Company Gestapos have their way and you are forced to buy stuff you cannot afford now!!!
Forcing People to Buy Health Insurance is not:
1. a Public Option
2. Single Payer
Not Strenthening Medicare and Medicaid and Teaching Hospitals and Community Health Centers is:
1. Idiotic
2. Typical
3. Insane
I knew Obama would DISMANTLE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID FOR THE ELDERLY, POOR AND DISABLED....HE SAID HE WOULD IN THE CAMPAIGN BUT BRAIN DEAD "PROGRESSIVES-LIBERALS" WERE ASLEEP IN DROOLING ALL OVER HIM!!!!
Obama and his minions like Rahm Emanuel HATE THE POOR AND DISABLED!!!!
You Obama droolers ought to be ashamed of yourselves tonight!!! This BILL HARMS THE POOR AND DISABLED!!!!
This so-called health insurance reform which is the most accurate of term out of Obama's own mouth is not "healthcare reform". This so-called "health reform" bill is not only terrible, but, criminal and its only going to harm the poor and disbaled!!!!
You Obama and Democratic Party apologists should be ashamed of yourselves!!!
I am so proud to be in the Green Party and an actual avowed Socialist!!! You Obama and Democratic Party apologists are nothing but DLC-Corporatists and apologists who need to have more shame in your systems.
If you are an Obama and a Democrat don't ever and I mean ever say you are out to help the POOR or DISABLED!!!!
What an awful charade on the American people....cutting deals so the likes of Lieberman, Landrieu and Ben Nelson go along with it must tell ya something.....
This is truly a bad idea---"healthcare reform" my ass!
I would Vote No because this Bill Sucks!!!! And I don't give a rat's ass whether you agree with me either.
No Liberal should be "happy" today....And if I have to explain it to you well, then check how "liberal" you really are!!!
The disabled and poor people should be very, very concerned over this bill. They should be strenghtening Medicaid for the poor and disabled rather than helping to ruin it. I have seen what Rahm Emanuel has wanted to do with Medicaid and that is to destroy it more so. The disabled and poor have not been figured in here when they pay so much attention to the "needs" of the Insurance companies. This bill should not be so long and confusing either. Who do they think they are kidding? We should all know that long, long bills are dangerous and what they do not say in explicit terms and that long bills aid and abet the big money players. This is nothing BUT A GIFT TO THE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND IF THIS WAS NOT THE CASE, THE LIKES OF MAX BAUCUS, MARY LANDRIEU, BLANCHE LINCOLN, JOE LIEBERMAN, AND BEN NELSON WOULD NEVER HAVE AGREED TO THIS!!!!
The Democrats and Obama are HOSTILE TOWARDS THE POOR AND THE DISABLED!!! IT'S NOT IN THE DNA OF THE DLC-DEMOCRATS TO BE ON THE SIDE OF THE POOR AND DISABLED!!!!
It is easy to criticize this attempt to provide health coverage to more of the American people, as this attempt is not anywhere close to perfect. But unless a Dictatorship arises tomorrow (and that dictatorship would most likely turn out NOT to be a liberal one), it is plain that the 40 evil-Republican votes of the Senate are going to be against ANY CHANGE AT ALL, even if it WERE a Perfect plan, because they are not going to allow the tiniest bit of liberal progress, and certainly not allow any under the milquetoast-center-right-Clintonista Obama, whom the Republicans in their rabid-idiocy believe is 'too Commie' for the good ol' USA.
That means that the Dixiecrat Blue Dogs (or even Jumpin' Joe 'Party of One' Lieberman all by himself) can thwart Everything. And the Republicans have been thwarting everything, and Regressing this nation for the past three decades, both when they were totally in control, and even now when they can block everything with their 40 corpo-fascist, goose-stepping, money-worshipping, hard-right, neo-confederate Republican votes. And then blame it all on Obama, just as they have vilified the simple task of creating a national helath care plan as the curse word 'ObamaCare'.
This propagandizing and the entrenched political interests means that some really bad compromises must be made to get anything at all better than nothing. And nothing is not really better, as it truly will destroy all progress for at least a generation, whereas if a plan passes then better modifications and additions to it become possible.
Just like the case of the state of California, where the Will of the majority was hijacked by the anti-government right-wingers who jammed in rules about needing an undemocratic two-thirds 'yes' vote to change those nobody-likes-'em-anyway taxes (thus plunging the government of the richest state, California, into near-bankruptcy), in the case of the Senate, 60 votes are necessary to move bills forward procedurally... completely undemocratic, but there it is.
Those who criticize the current health bill must realize that, with way too many pointy-ditto-headed Murricans voting regressive-Republican, there is not a lot of room politically for much progress, and that ANY progress at all should be grabbed and treated as a Victory (a la the right-wing noise machine trumpeting any-and-all of their measly, mean-spirited 'successes' as triumphs.)
If there is not even a half-hearted plan passed, then there will be NO PROGRESS AT ALL NOW and EVEN LESS THAN NO PROGRESS IN THE FUTURE! (Refer to the failure of the Clinton Health Plan of -EIGHTEEN YEARS- ago.)
So please try and support a well-meaning health bill in Congress, weak as it is, as a step forward. And then work to build better plans from there. The purposefully-confused-and-befuddled American people and their lobbyist-bamboozled congresspeople cannot do any better, for now.
OR prepare for Republican, transnational-corpofascist, and ultra-right-wing Beck/Limbaugh/Palin JUBILATION at the plan's failure, and prepare to listen to all their Whoops of Victory in their War Against the Damned Liberals and Leftists, if even this weak plan fails.
And prepare for their chest-thumping assertion that the defeat of this health care plan PROVES 'the majority of the American people' are Against Liberals and Leftists and Progressives and Socialists and a real Peoples' Social Cooperative government of ANY kind, and that Americans are especially Against government health care (Medicare notwithstanding- but the party of Bush has plans for that, too), and that all 'Real' Americans are true-believer-followers of Rush, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, et alia
Get ready for it.
And the MSM will eat this story angle up from the Republican and rabid-rightwing spinmeisters, at the direction of the MSM rightwing editors/controllers/owners, and regurgitate this spin on the story to the great unwashed Murrican masses. Just as they have been doing a number on the health care plan all year. To the utter shame of the MSM. But the severe Damage will be done. As it has been done already, to the plan itself.
For an example of the corporatized MSM's right-wing bias, read THE BATTLE FOR THE STORY OF THE BATTLE OF SEATTLE, wherein the MSM is shown to have demonized the globalization protesters, and not focused at all on the reasons or arguments of the protest, to the MSM's everlasting shame, as usual, along with their everlasting shame of war-boostering for Bush/Cheney while disrespecting tens of millions of antiwar protesters in the streets, and their shame of elevating to over-importance the irrelevant brainwashed asinine townhall trolls/teabuggers, and their shame of the recent and totally unwarranted bloated coverage of the flash-in-the-pan, ignorant, repugnant, neo-conning, despicable, self-important, self-aggrandizing insta-Pol Palin, and on and on, disgustingly.
And by the way, so don't tell me, especially after this health care imbroglio, there is no difference between parties; unless you are lobotomized there is a difference between Kennedy and Imhofe, between Kucinich and Bohner, between Gore and Bush, between McKinney and Palin. Sure, there may be better people, and there have been, but work with the possible. Be Here Now. Or let the Republicans just take over.
Until critics deliver a more democratically VIABLE choice (and not, say, just the foolish hallucinations of 'everybody should just vote for Nader or Paul or...'- and it would take a lot more than just electing one of those people anyway), or unless critics establish By Force their Ideal Dictatorship, instead we must support Any Inch of progress, step by step, including the half-measure of this not-so-good-but-better health care plan. And if the health plan bill passes, then declare to all Americans, so all Americans will begin to believe in the coming success of the American Left, that the passage of this plan is a very imperfect but important Liberal Victory in the still-uncompleted, ongoing March Forward for Progressivism/Liberalism/Socialism, with Democracy, Peace, Freedom, Social Cooperation, and Caring for All, and for the world.
Actually, since the right is going to oppose everything and anything anyway, wouldn't it have made more sense for the democrats to push much bolder legislation through - like phased-in Medicare for all?
The existing bill isn't progress - it is further entrenchment of the private insurance system - under penalty of huge fines. Under what you call an "inch of progress" medical-expense bankruptcies and economic hardship will only increase, empowering the forces or right-wing reaction even more.
Please go back to the Huff-Po, the DLC, or wherever you came from.
Exactly!
The fact that regressive fascists, proto-fascists, dupes and shills will always act like what they are, is NO REASON for sane and decent people to back down from FIGHTING.
We do NOT need to support weak, stupid, and false "leadership". We need to RESIST such "leadership", and demand and fight for what we need, which includes honest leadership.
The fact is that decades of "compromise" by generations of weak, sometimes stupid, and generally FALSE "leadership" has led to continual movement toward the right.
We the People need to be NOT AFRAID to see the Democratic Party lose a vote in Congress, and NOT AFRAID to see the Democratic Party lose an election. What have Democratic "victories" accomplished under the false leadership? Continual creep toward the right. Such Democratic "failures," in Congress and in elections, need to be directly followed by organized push for what we REALLY need, such as simple, universal, single-payer health care paid for by progressive taxation.
If we do not believe in, and FIGHT FOR, what we believe in, what do we believe in? If we do not believe that we can fight and win on universal health care, what are we fighting for? If we believe we need to continue to "compromise" for some unspecified number of additional DECADES until we achieve anything, WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?
FVHorn, your inspiring clarion call for wishy-washy flip-flopping fear-based "compromise" is sure to rally millions to the barricades to resist corporate criminality... NOT.
We need honest decent leaders! And we need to FIGHT FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN, whatever our "leaders" tell us.
Excellent!
"it would take a lot more than just electing one of those people anyway"
Elect third party progressives, who uphold the people's principles, and the "lot more" will magically fall into place. I can hear it falling into place right now. The "lot more" is going to fall into place no matter who's elected, so we may as well elect the good guy, ehh? I can't think of a simpler way.
webwalk, ezeflyer, ca va? I humbly submit, Webwalk, that I find it fascinating to hear analyses so cogent, that cut so incisively, see perfectly and this my dear friends;
You seek, webwalk, solution IN THE BOX, and no amount of heart and soul, laced with no matter how much acumen wisdom capacity to see for miles and miles and miles WILL EVER FIND HOPE REALIZED VIA VOTING.
50 years ago, yes. But we are in the endgame; Check my friend, we The People have lost our queen, both rooks, knights and bishops, and our king is in Check.
What fools they. Game over? Marx nailed it.
Accepted.
Our lives, and our everyday actions, and our courageous risks, are where we need to fight.
Voting, and holding party "leaders" accountable, are ancillary.
What are the Democrats good for? NOTHING...NADA...ZERO..ZILCH.....
WHO RUNS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-DNC? THE LOSER NAMED TIM KAINE OF VIRGINIA!!!!!!
SINCE HOWARD DEAN DEPARTED AS THE CHAIR OF THE DNC, THE RNC HAS BEEN KICKING THE DEMOCRATS ASS IN FUNDRAISING......
THE LOSING DEMS ARE BACK TO THE DLC LOSER DAYS WITH THE LIKES OF TERRY MCAULIFFE, RAHM EMANUEL, HAROLD FORD AND TIM KAINE!!!!!!
THE DEMS ARE PATHETIC!!!!
JOIN A REAL LEFT-PROGRESSIVE PARTY---THE GREEN PARTY AND BE ETHICAL ABOUT YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS FOR ONCE AND STOP SUPPORTING THE CORRUPT AND CORPORATIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHICH SMELLS LIKE SKUNKS!!!
Views » August 8, 2009 » Web Only
POSTED BY "1davidl1" NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH MR. DAVID SIROTA
The Me-First, Screw-Everyone-Else Crowd
By David Sirota
With 22,000 of their fellow countrymen dying annually for lack of health insurance, this group is using the argot of fairness and morality to hide its real motive: selfish greed.Share Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine StumbleUpon Reddit TwitThis Furl Propeller I know I should be mortified by the lobbyist-organized mobs of angry Brooks Brothers mannequins who are now making headlines by shutting down congressional town hall meetings. I know I should be despondent during this, the Khaki Pants Offensive in the Great American Healthcare and Tax War. And yet, I’m euphorically repeating one word over and over again with a big grin on my face.
Finally.
Finally, there’s no pretense. Finally, the Me-First, Screw-Everyone-Else Crowd’s ugliest traits are there for all to behold.
The group’s core gripe is summarized in a letter I received that denounces a proposed surtax on the wealthy and corporations to pay for universal healthcare:
“Until recently, my family was in the top 3 percent of wage earners,” the affluent businessperson fumed in response to my July column on taxes. “We are in the group that pays close to 60 percent of this nation’s taxes … Think for a second how you would feel if you built a business and contributed more than your share to this country only to be treated like a pariah.”
This sob story about the persecuted rich fuels today’s “Tea Parties”—and I’m sure you’ve heard some version of it in your community.
I’m also fairly certain that when many of you run into the Me-First, Screw-Everyone-Else Crowd, you don’t feel like confronting the faux outrage. But on the off chance you do muster the masochistic impulse to engage, here’s a guide to navigating the conversation:
What They Will Scream: We can’t raise business taxes, because American businesses already pay excessively high taxes!
What You Should Say: Here’s the smallest violin in the world playing for the businesses. The Government Accountability Office reports that most U.S. corporations pay zero federal income tax. Additionally, as even the Bush Treasury Department admitted, America’s effective corporate tax rate is the third lowest in the industrialized world.
What They Will Scream: But the rich still “pay close to 60 percent of this nation’s taxes!”
What You Should Say: Such statistics refer only to the federal income tax. When considering all of “this nation’s taxes” including payroll, state and local levies, the top 5 percent pay just 38.5 percent of the taxes.
What They Will Scream: But 38.5 percent is disproportionately high! See? You’ve proved that the rich “contribute more than their share” of taxes!
What You Should Say: Actually, they are paying almost exactly “their share.” According to the data, the wealthiest 5 percent of America pays 38.5 percent of the total taxes precisely because they make just about that share—a whopping 36.5 percent!—of total national income. Asking these folks to pay slightly more in taxes—and still less than they did during the go-go 1990s—is hardly extreme.
Stripped of facts, your conversation partner will soon turn to unscientific terrain, claiming it is immoral to “steal” and “redistribute” income via taxes. Of course, he will be specifically railing on “stealing” for stuff like healthcare, which he insists gets “redistributed” only to the undeserving and the “lazy” (a classic codeword for “minorities”). But he will also say it’s OK that government sent trillions of dollars to Wall Streeters.
And that’s when you should stop wasting your breath.
What you’ve discovered is that the Me-First, Screw-Everyone-Else Crowd isn’t interested in fairness, empiricism or morality.
With 22,000 of their fellow countrymen dying annually for lack of health insurance and with Warren Buffett paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, the Me-First, Screw-Everyone-Else Crowd is merely using the argot of fairness, empiricism and morality to hide its real motive: selfish greed.
No argument, however rational, is going to cure these narcissists of that grotesque disease.
I do not know if mandating purchase of private health insurance is constitutional as glenn ford asks, but it will be oppressive for many.
The current bill is like making elementary education mandatory (good) but leaving the ownership and operation of the schools to private entrepreneurs and allowing them to charge whatever they want (not very good at all). It is an abstract improvement, but does not take into account the material realities facing families. It would deliver a captive customer base to the school owners with only the smallest control over cost and quality. And it would provide a very silly surfacey "marketplace" in which to compare and shop for what you cannot afford.
We still need an expanded single payer and an affordable public option to cover struggling middle class and working class families.
Nancy Pelosi and all may be sipping champagne over their hollowed out health care victory. But how could those millionaires in Congress really understand what it's like to be forced to spend thousands more a year out of take home pay in the face of a deteriorating job market, and higher costs for essentials?
We have to realize that the right will exploit the real disillusionment and distress of those who have to buy insurance at rates they cannot afford. They will occupy the abandoned populist territory with their misleading rhetoric. The right wing will use the opening to attack the idea of any government assisted health care at all. So our critique should always include acknowledgement of the distress and include suggestions for improving the health care picture, suggestions that squarely favor the general public over pharma, insurance and overcharging by doctors.
No tax cutoff for medicare and medical taxes. Tax income above 250,000 and tax it at a higher rate.
Protect Medicare. No cuts to this good but already confusing and restrictive system.
Expand Medicare to cover younger people.
Extend the public option to anyone who wants it with no income requirements.
Negotiate prices with pharma.
Open up a public pharmaceutical company.
Make deals with Canada.
Set up public health clinics and pay off medical school loans for doctors who work there.
It's not over.
Joe
"The truth is this issue is very complex. There is no easy fix and it's imperative that we build on what's already working in health care in America," Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas told her Senate colleagues.
Exactly. We should build on Medicare and make it stronger, period. See, Blanche, that's not that complicated, is it? You can get rid of Medicaid and get rid of the parasite middleman. It's not that complicated. It only gets complicated when you insist on keeping the status quo for the sake of your political favors.