Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sue the Bastards: Why are Only Republican AGs Threatening to Go to Court to Fight Health Care 'Reform’?
Attorneys General from 13 states--all of them Republicans--are saying that they are going to sue to block the health insurance reform bill if, when it is finally passed, it still includes a measure giving Nebraska an extra $100 million in Medicaid funds. They charge that this "bribe" was used to get Nebraska's conservative Democratic Senator Ben Nelson to join fellow Democrats to get the Senate's version of the bill passed.
They're right to sue. Nebraska shouldn't get more funds than the rest of the country to finance hospital care for its poorest residents, and Nelson shouldn't be able to extort the Senate. But the question is why aren't Democratic attorneys general threatening to sue over this execrable bill?
Residents of states with higher-than-average health care costs--states like California, New York, Florida, and Connecticut, for example--will be hit hard if the bill passes, because it includes a heavy tax on health plans that cost employees and employers more than a combined $12,000 per year per person. In these and many other states, because of the higher charges by doctors and hospitals, many of which are teaching institutions or public institutions that provide more tertiary care and that treat much larger numbers of low-income patients, and all of which have much higher real-estate costs and wage rates for staff, insurance plans are inevitably also costlier. Yet the residents of those states and their employers will end up getting socked with taxes as high as 40% on those plans that are over the limit. The result, experts say, is that many employers in these states will simply reduce coverage to bring the plans in under the limit.
Also slammed by this tax will be unionized workers--most of them again concentrated heavily in relatively union-friendly states like California, New York and much of the northeastern US--who over long years and many bitterly fought contract battles--have negotiated better-than-average health insurance coverage. The fruits of their struggles, which often included tough strikes and lockouts, and deals that involved forgoing bigger pay increases in return for better health coverage, could be erased by this legislation if the bill is passed as written.
And what about the so-called "near poor"? Under the plan as it stands, everyone would be required to buy health insurance, or face a stiff fine of as much as $1200 from the IRS for a family. People earning less than 133% of the federal poverty level (that would currently be approximately $13,000 a year for individuals or $30,000 a year for a family of four, except in Hawaii and Alaska where the numbers are slightly higher), and less than four times the federal poverty level ($40,000 for an individual or $88,000 for a family of four), would be given a subsidy to help them buy that insurance. But they would be expected to pay as much as 12% of their income out of pocket for coverage, up to a limit of $5000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. (I'm just trying to imagine how that would hit a family earning $88,000 a year. First of all, it seems clear to me that many hard-pressed families will look at the costs, just decide can't afford it, and pay the IRS penalty.)
But the number of people who could lose insurance coverage under this legislation could be much greater.
The right has done a much better job of analyzing the health reform bills in House and Senate, with most of the left holding its collective nose and backing the measures, apparently thinking that things can be "fixed later." (We saw how well that idea worked when liberal Democrats went along with President Bill Clinton's and the GOP's trashing of welfare programs back in the early 1990s. "We'll fix it later" was the mantra, but it never got fixed, and millions families are suffering today because of that Democratic treachery.) But the reality is that because of the mandates and penalties in both versions, and the relatively limited penalties for not providing coverage, many employers will probably end up reducing, or worse, dropping health coverage for their employees and taking the penalties, leaving workers stuck with having to buy crummy coverage through the new "insurance exchanges" envisioned in the bills. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that some 10 million workers who currently have employer-provided health care will lose it, but other experts predict that the number could be much higher.
Democratic states whose residents stand to be hurt by this legislation should be preparing to sue to protect their residents. Unions (most of whom have been backing this legislation when they should have been marching on Washington in protest), should instead be threatening to sue if it passes.
Eventually, of course, they will. The courts will be tied up for years in challenges to the inequities and constitutional violations contained in this legislation. Meanwhile, though, Americans are going to get socked with higher tax bills, higher insurance premiums, higher medical bills, and poorer coverage.
What is maddening is that none of this had to happen.
We could have had health coverage for everyone, and at much lower cost than today, by simply expanding Medicare to cover everyone. The reason we don't have Medicare for all is because, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), John Conyers (D-MI) and a few other members of the House, and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the Senate, neither the ruling Democrats in Congress, nor President Obama, ever had the integrity and guts to point out that Medicare for All would be a net savings for almost everyone. Yes, expanding Medicare would mean higher taxes for everyone, but the net financial impact, after factoring in the elimination of many hugely expensive current federal, state, county and municipal health care programs such as Medicaid, veterans care, charity care, etc., an end to private insurance premiums paid by employers and individuals, and the end to workers compensation and embedded health costs such as medical coverage riders in car and home insurance policies, would be positive, not negative.
Nobody had the integrity and guts to point out that in countries that have a version of Medicare for all, like Canada, Taiwan or many of the European countries, total health care costs both as a percentage of GDP, and on a per-capita basis, are half as much or even a third as much as they are in the US.
Medicare is routinely trashed by the right, and by business lobbies, which claim it is going bust, and certainly as presently funded, it is underfunded, particularly with the Baby Boomer population about to be enrolled. But bear in mind that the heavy lifting of insuring everyone in the country has already been done. The one-in-seven Americans currently covered by Medicare are by far the costliest segment of the population. Within Medicare, the reality is that 10 percent of the recipients account for 90% of the costs of the program. More broadly, I suspect that the elderly account for half or more of the total health care costs of the entire population. That is, it would probably cost only twice as much to cover everyone with Medicare as it costs today to cover just those over 65. Since total Medicare costs were just under $500 billion in 2009 (representing about 80% of actual medical costs for care of the elderly), then that means the total cost of health care for the elderly that year was approximately $600 billion. Expanding the program to cover everyone, and to cover them in full, instead of just 80%, would thus be about $1.2 trillion a year. Given that the actual cost of medical care in the US in 2009 was about $2.5 trillion, this figure is probably accurate, because countries that have a version of Medicare for All have health care costs of roughly half what they are in the US.
That is to say, expanding Medicare both to cover everyone in the US, and to cover each person in full, instead of only in part, would result in a net savings to Americans of $1.2 trillion to $1.3 trillion a year!
How can this be, you might ask? Well first of all, remember that programs like Medicaid ($400 billion a year), veterans care ($100 billion a year), and charity care delivered by hospitals to the indigent ($400 billion a year) would be eliminated as redundant. So would premiums for mandated workers' compensation insurance paid by employers, and the hundreds of billions paid in premiums by workers and employers for private insurance coverage. Also, costs would be hammered as government set the rates for doctors, hospitals, and drugs.
Polls have consistently shown that half or more of Americans want Medicare extended to all. Despite all the propaganda on the right and from the corporate lobbies which trash Medicare as "socialism" and which make ludicrous predictions about its impending "bankruptcy," and despite all the propaganda and scare stories claiming that Canadians and Europeans hate their systems (a claim manifestly false, as proven by the fact that even conservative governments in those countries have been afraid to attempt to undo their public health systems for fear of voter wrath), most Americans are smart enough to understand that Medicare for All is what we need.
The problem is that the political system is broken. The Democrats elected to majorities in House and Senate, and the Democratic president elected a little over a year ago, don't see their role being to do what the public elected them to do. Rather they see their role as being to prevent the public from getting what it wants, in order to protect the interests of the very industries that are benefitting from the status quo--in this case the insurance companies, drug companies, physicians and hospital companies.
Until Americans rise up and start making politicians accountable to them, what we'll get instead of real reform or, in this case, real health care reform, will be rip-offs, screwjobs and flim-flam, which in the end, after months of sturm and drang is all the current health "reform" legislation really is.
72 Comments so far
Show AllIt makes me sick to have to agree with Senator (from my home state of KY alas) Mitch McConnell, but the Repubs are mostly right about the "reform" bill the Senate passed through strong-arm tactics and bribery. This is a turkey that attacks the middle class and will not help the uninsured working poor.
What a crock and yet the Democrats, including supposed progressives, are supporting it!
To repeat myself, bah humbug.
Gary
For 8 years I criticized the faith-based supporters of the Dubya Regime.
Ever since Obama morphed into Hillary after he beat her, and after Obama morphed into McCain after he beat him, I see widespread serial faith-based support for the Obama Regime by self styled liberals and neo liberals.
Until the faithful realize that Republicans and Democrats are competing for the same corporate contributions irrespective of the needs of the US and its citizens, the US will continue to devolve into a third world nation.
Due to the serial apathy demonstrated by the Obama faithful, the teabaggers have already bagged enough swing voters (the people who actually determine the outcome of elections) to assure that the Democrats lose control of Congress in November.
"The right has done a much better job of analyzing the health reform bills in House and Senate with most of the left holding its collective nose and backing the measures, apparently thinking that things can be "fixed later.""
Excuse me? Death panels? Comparing it to the Holocaust? Are you that fricking stupid?
Uhh, I don't think Lindorf was refering to the health care propaganda on the right.
He refered to analysis, which is a different beast.
The death panel argument became less far fetched when the "Cadillac plan" tax was solidified.
Many of the so-called "Cadillac plans" are expensive because of the high average age of employees in the "pool", not because the benefits are enhanced. This tax is age discrimination at best and could result in death sentences for some at worst.
One of the problems that drove the need for health care reform is the US system's excessive fragmentation which includes widely variable insurance costs due to average age of "pool". The corporate welfare program disguised as health care reform that is approaching the finish line creates additional fragmentation with the "Cadillac plan" tax being but one of many examples of fragmentation.
A single-payer plan would create one pool of over 300 million people thereby eliminating fragmentation, age discrimination and death panels.
Oh, the Death panels, Holocaust comparison, etc. That's the mainstream media scaring you. It's a major part of their job.
In reality, the majority of We the People want a strong health care bill that will cover all of us! The last poll I saw - I think it was CBS - indicated that 56% of Americans prefer a strong public option or single payer, and among Democratic Party voters it's over 85%! ?? Isn't it the Democratic Party who has majorities in both chambers of the House, plus the presidency? hmmmm. something to think about, eh? Hey, I have an idea, let's keep voting for them!
So this death panel business, teabaggers, etc. are only a tiny minority .... but your Democrats want you to think it's a powerful movement! Ha! Sure there are a few but they only represent around 3%. There was an article here on CD about that. It's just that the cameras are focused on them and not on the majorities who want real change.
Don't listen to this garbage coming out of the MSM. It's often just plain false. In this case, it gave Democrats some cover. Voters will blame the wrong people. It's Congress and Obama who want corporate mandated health insurance, not We the People.
No "healthcare reform" bill would've been far better than this present bill! The number of people who're gullible enough or willfully ignorant enough to believe that this present "healthcare reform" bill will be beneficial is just incredible!
Making them accountable would mean a credible threat to throw them out of office. Do you think that a reform movement within the Democratic party could do that? I don't. It's either a strong third party or a revolution. I don't know which I prefer.
A third party will never make it at the polls, therefore affect change in our political system (the system was designed that way). However, poles (with pitch forks and fire at their end) will quite realistically change our political system.
"poles (with pitch forks and fire at their end) will quite realistically change our political system."
Explain how that will change anything if you're still committed to voting for them! Ya think they're stupid?
For those of us that do not know what a Polecat is ; It's an animal in the skunk family and carry's the same aroma . The Senate health care bill has the same characteristics . By the time the corporate controlled Congress is finished with their demonstration of how to complete the crippling of our nation we will all be sorry we asked for insurance reform . Millions of struggling young Americans are going to be taxed heavyly in the same way automobile owners are taxed . With a tax that escalates annually at a rate greater than wages . And all we get for our money is a few sheets of paper saying what is not covered . Many of the members of Congress are involved and prospering from investments in corporations . Does it make sense for law makers to be involved in corporate business ? Is it legal ? The Boston tea party started because people were taxed by investors in the tea business . At least they had brains enough to know when they were being shafted .
Yep, piss on the pond scum.
With a Neocon president, let's call him Bush's mole, the Democrats are lost... Who would have suspected it? If Obama wanted to win the next election, he would have fought tirelessly for Medicare-for-all. Even the possibility of such a thing would have brought him millions of votes from Medicare hopefuls. But Obama somehow thinks the money he will get from the insurers and drug companies will pay for enough infomercials to sucker the public into voting for him again. I think not. So, the moral path, Medicare for all, would also have been the politically expedient one. No wonder Obama has sequestered every academic record going back to first grade. He was obviously an incompetent boob from the get-go. What a shame!
toldjaso, I don't think Obama is worried about losing the next election. With the Republican Party reduced to a far right nutcase minority, they will nominate some appalling candidate and the majority of voters will hold their noses and vote for Obama. But they may well yank back his filibuster proof majority. Which he never really had with all those Demo Blue Dogs, not that it would have changed his decisions, based on the appointments he made. Most of his health care disaster is scheduled to kick in after the 2012 election so voters won't find out they've been screwed in time to punish him. All according to plan. I suppose his next step will be Clintonesque. Afterwards, go out and make his $30 million.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Don't agree at all. Obama has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Clinton was misguided in many areas, I don't personally like him, but he did do some good. Obama is on a rampage; he's a Neocon who has staged a revolution from within. I give to the Clinton Foundation as well as many other orgs including Democracy Now, but I don't subscribe to conflating Clinton with Obama or with Bush. Clinton is not my hero but he runs a tight ship when it comes to the Clinton Foundation, raising close to 50 billion dollars, and the NY Times hates him. The critiques of him on this site are puerile nonsense, positively Naderesque. The cult of personality works both ways. Obama has his followers who have forsaken every ideal they ever supposedly had, and Clinton haters too have forsaken their ideals. One needs to cut through the personality scrim to see what is what. Even Chomsky has admitted that Clinton is the only president to offer the Palestinian's the vague resemblance of a fair shake.
Here's the foundations rating:
Organizational Efficiency
Program Expenses 94.7%
Administrative Expenses 2.6%
Fundraising Expenses 2.6%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.02
Rest assured, Obama will be making billions but not for something like this.
Oh yes, let's remember the wonderful things Clinton did regarding free trade that helped make the economy so robust today. Yep, we were gonna send away the 'bad' jobs and replace them with the 'good' ones. What a crock that turned out to be. If being 'Naderesque' is puerile nonsense to you, then I don't really understand your beef with Obama.
And don't forget the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children on Clinton's soul...
A good number of Serbians too...
And his hang-en high draconian criminal justice bill which made the US the nation with by far the greatest prison population in the world - far greater than authoritarian China - with more than four times the US population!
Bill Clinton was/is vile filth.
Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children on Clinton's soul... Are you kidding? That's the sort of myopic narcissistic tripe that got us into the mess with Obama or got people like you to vote for the master narcissist Nader over Gore. Look at the facts: revenue to Saddam increased under Clinton over pre Gulf War I levels. No, that was Saddam who did that. If you want to implicate Clinton there are plenty of ways to do it, focus on Operation Desert Fox with Clinton allowing the CIA to use the inspectors to attempt to assassinate Saddam, or welfare reform. The Serbs? less than 500 civilians killed by Clinton's bombs. Better to focus on the radioactive warheads he was using. Most people were disappointed in Clinton as if he were their daddy, that's why they were so upset about Monica. The inverse of why Talking Points Memo and numerous other so called Left supported Neocon Obama. But when you put it all together don't forget the 50 billion he's raised...
"- This seems to say (for example) that individuals earning less than $13,000 a year AND less than $40,000 a year, will be given subsidies. Which is it? Putting it that way makes no sense!" -- RichM
I noted the same discrepancy, unless I misunderstood! Thanks for the post.
I was confused on the same point. Lindorff needs to clarify.
People earning less than 133% of the poverty level qualify for Medicaid, and so, under the current bills, would not receive a subsidy, because they would not be required to buy insurance. Of course, Medicaid sucks, most, in fact nearly all doctors refuse to accept it, and it basically forces poor people to use emergency rooms as their family doctor.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
RichM, I think what he meant was that those earning less than 133% would be fully subsidized, and those earning less than 400% would be partially subsidized - I believe the latter is on a sliding scale. At least, that's how I understood the bill, although I hear the House and Senate bills are slightly different. Also, the no insurance penalties are different. It's expected that most of the resolutions in the conference committee will look like the Senate version.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Sioux Rose
RICH M: Thanks for addressing that "gray" area. I didn't understand what the sentence was stating, either. I wonder if our assets (like homes) can be garnished if we make low incomes but own our own property and refuse to pay this extortionist racket cum government plan?
On a different note, it's stated that unions largely went along with this bill and I feel strongly the reason why is that the language is so complex that the public doesn't actually know what the bill is logistically specifying, not to mention what it's laying the legal framework to enforce. Furthermore, when supposedly liberal pundits like Paul Krugman frame the bill as a VICTORY for everyday people, the entire interpretation of what is at stake gets as muddled as viewing a film behind smoke and mirrors. Of course, it's that allusion that mostly fits what's been the M.O. of "DC lately."
Medicare spends more money than it takes in by tens of billions. This is unsustainable.
Costs are high because the medical monopoly prefers to treat symptoms rather than causes, which plugs "sick" people into monthly medical payments forever.
Be radical--go to the root of the problem to fix it. This worship of the great gods of medicine is counterproductive, not to mention masochistic and stupid.
It SHOULD go without saying that you can not have Medicare for all in a strictly "for profit" system. All that happens is the providers fatten their coffers by giving unwarranted treatments and raising fees.
The for profit modelers and their supporters up here in Canada (Like the Fraser institute) like to use the number of MRI machines per capita in the US as compared to Canada to prove the for profit model superior.
The fact is MRIS are overutilized in the USA.
When the focus is generating profits, health CARE suffers. You can not generate profits to the extent they are generated with a healthy population.
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: You always see the big picture and share insights accordingly. How about this analogy: medical procedure costs (along with their dental parallel) rose in accord with the housing bubble and its inflated prices. Housing has come down in price (leaving so many homeless or with slim to no equity), while the medical balloon remains inflated! In the metropolis near my home, my dentist went from a modest office to some kind of marble-floored temple. Now her rates reflect this rise in status. As my income and assets have been directly reduced by the new Wall St "derivatives = wealth" paradigm, I resent that her costs reflect the maintenance fees of her little shrine, rather than anything remotely relevant to the falling wages most of us are coping with. There is no protocol for roping in the costs of medicine or dental at present. So long as insurers and the MDeity get their cuts, with government supposedly there as a safety net for those who can't play this pricing game, there is no onus on either to keep costs down.
"You can't have Medicare for all in a strictly "for profit" system. That is my point. If you don't deal with the monopoly, nothing will rein in costs and any kind of single payer plan will be raped then left to die.
And of course MRIs are overused. Again, that's part of the point. Also agree that a healthy population can't generate profit.
These are the barriers to a decent health care system. And as far as I can tell, they are trying to get their mitts on the Canadian system.
We spend a fortune on needless tests, procedures and treatments designed to keep us connected to the system rather than to get us well. To subsidize that system is madness.
Lindorff: "The problem is that the political system is broken. The Democrats elected to majorities in House and Senate, and the Democratic president elected a little over a year ago, don't see their role being to do what the public elected them to do."
As has occurred in other nations where the ruling elite lost touch with the proletariat (France, Russia, Cuba and for that matter the US in the late 18th century), a violent revolution ensued. I wonder how far away the second great American revolution is?
Until the left wing in Amerikkka become as radicalized as the right wing, things will only get worse.
"Nebraska shouldn't get more funds than the rest of the country to finance hospital care for its poorest residents, and Nelson shouldn't be able to extort the Senate." -- Dave Lindorff
I agree! I used to live in Nebraska, for quite a few years, and it was one thing to have to live with the conservative policies when I actually was a resident of the state, and it's quite another thing, to have to live with those same conservative policies now that I live in NYC.
Nebraska has a total population of about 2 million people. Recently, I read an article that evinced unemployment numbers in NYC at the 1.5 million mark.
It is ridiculous that Ben Nelson, in a state that is comparatively small, can hold us hostage, and wield so much power at the national level!
BTW, I have friends in Nebraska who consistently call Nelson's office (Johanns -- as well) to complain about his votes on numerous issues, registering their anger and disapproval.
What a bunch of maroons We The People are.
The 'health care system reform' bill was NEVER designed to become law. EVER. Doesn't anyone understand politics anymore besides me?
Same bait+switch as always - big show that allows for Ds + Rs to blame each other for the bill's 'failure.'
"But we tried! Really, we did. So vote for US."
DL continues to write from the POV that Frankly, They DON'T own the place, as if the truth weren't out there. "The American people have to do this and the 'leaders' have to do that" as if any of it matters when They own The Place.
Here, it's simple: no more f**king bribes. Period. Then, once They no longer own The Place, we can talk about what WTP can and should do to evolve our alleged Democracy...
The political system is indeed totally broken, as this debacle clearly demonstrates. The contradiction we're often faced with is demanding that a broken system step in and correct itself. That wholesale corruption and dysfunction somehow transform itself into integrity, honesty and efficiency. This is the trap we're in when we demand that our "elected representatives" (paid for by corporate interests and nominally elected by virtue of lying propaganda eagerly disseminated by corporate media) come to our rescue and save us from . . . these very same (mis)representatives! It's a feedback loop and isn't going to get us anywhere but back at Square One every fucking day. We must get off this mindless treadmill of expecting the criminals to police themselves and deliver us a fair and equitable society. Their sole business is insuring that the exact opposite of what we need and demand is what we'll get. Obama got precisely the "health care" bill he wanted from the beginning: the one that showers even more untold wealth on insurance and drug companies. What happens to "the people" is the least of his concerns. He is capitalism's wet dream come true.
You're right it is broken. Organize. I am working with a group of people to do just that. We are starting a grassroots populist party. We hope to build alliances with other grassroots movements.
But what we are not going to do is make the mistake of trying to be more progressive or more liberal than the Democrats. The old dichotomy of left versus right just feeds into the divide and rule strategies that have been used by the few to control the many since the beginning of history. We need to make common cause with conservatives and independents. Working people from all sides agree on many basic principles. The teaparty movement demonstrates just how disillusioned many conservatives are today.
If we can unify the American people around a very basic populist platform with the primary goal of getting corporate money out of our political system we stand a chance of building a critical mass of people who will not continue to support a broken system.
Corporate money is the linchpin. No significant progress on any major issue is possible until we win this fight.
How are you intending to fight infiltration by well-funded corporate elements whose objective will be to destroy any movement that threatens them?
CommonSenseParty, I like your concept. I had the same idea with a Main Street Party, although your name appeals to me as well. My idea was no social issues, they only divide people, and a populist party representing working people and small businesses. Does that pretty much describe your party?
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Recall back in the Clinton years, we had several attempts at forming economic-populist parties. I was a supporter of the New Party, and later the Labor Party. There was also the Working Families party. The New Part managed to do fairly well at the local government level in a number of places. It, and the Labor Party are essentially defunct.
Tax the motherf***kers into submission I say! Tax them to death!
How?
Uh... Don't know... Any realistic suggestions how to uncode the Tax Code that favors the wealthy and corporations?
Gary
Well stated.
This is why I've characterized the depraved pragmatism-of-expedience that drives our professional politicians as the process of figuring out how many wrongs it will take to make a right.
· Yr Obd't Servant
And cut 'em off at the BILL$! : Y'all got your economic/class warfare RIGHT here! US "boomers" have
voluntarily saved and are debt-free. We have much other elective
"insurance". We can cancel those policies, take the cash "value"
and invest it instead for SELF INSURANCE (or NOT!): Maybe just
stick it in a mattress or safe (since the Wall Street-walking
Bernanksters are neither lending nor paying sufficient interest,
in any case)! Going down? And O, (Won't) See you, come November!
Sell THAT to your BC/BS bank-rollers!! THEY LOSE!!!
I don't know what "boomers" you know, but I don't know any who are "debt free". In fact, most surveys show that this group is reaching retirement with the lowest level of savings and assets of any group since the '50s--no real pensions, crushed IRAs, and massive loans used to pay for kids going to college at highly inflated tuition rates.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
The Republicans are waiting with baited breath for this thing to pass so they can begin screaming from every rooftop about the encroaching big government mandating citizens purchase something from private companies.
This bill has been a big x-mas gift from the republicrats to the GOP. I'm thinking what's at play here are all those people who rarely or never vote because their lives never change no matter which party is in power. All those people the GOP couldn't suck under their "big tent" with the God, gays and guns demagoguery will finally have a reason to go to the polls. I suspect a lot of them will find themselves forced to buy this private for profit insurance or pay a fine (if this abomination passes). Talk about life-changing. And guess who voted against this (even tho it was probably their favorite part of the bill)? Whether it passes or not, the GOP is gonna have a field day with it come election time. Even if progressives work really hard and get good people on the ballots the next couple election cycles those people will have a "D" by their names while the "R"s can rightly claim they voted against this corporate give-away and the bailouts and, and, and. Whew, I'm ready to vote GOP and I know better!
And that is exactly why we need to start organizing a new party(s) at the grassroots level right now. We build locally and ally nationally the most effective organizations get to take the lead. The American people know darned well the fix is in, they just don't have any other choice. And I'm not talking about some long-haired dissident third party project. I'm talking about a populist movement based on the things that we Americans can all agree on.
Such as the following:
We need to do whatever is necessary to protect American jobs and manufacturing capacity. Manufacturing creates wealth, converting raw materials into useful objects creates wealth. Profit is the only reason big corporations choose to create wealth in China rather than here. But every good job that leaves this country represents money not spent in the US economy. That money is gone from the economy of businesses on Main St. That money does not send a child to college. That money can’t buy a new car or a new bass-boat. That money no longer pays for a mortgage or for health insurance. And who benefits? Not us hard working folks here in America.
How many more jobs do we need to lose before a cascading effect begins? More and more businesses will lay off employees, less money will be spent, more businesses will close, more jobs lost...
This is the reality that we face in America today. Working Americans are acutely conscious of these facts because they live the real world consequences. Washington DC seems satisfied that Wall St. has recovered. Do these people live in the same country that we do?
And to add insult to injury, what we have is a domestic economy that is suffering as a result of millions of jobs being off-shored to the world’s largest totalitarian communist state. You mean to tell me that hard-working Americans are losing their jobs, these jobs are being sent to China, and our government isn’t doing anything about it? Hell, they’re not even willing to go so far as to acknowledge that there is a problem here.
CommonSenseParty, the answer to your (rhetorical) question is no, these people do not live in the same country that we do. And that is the problem. They don't even know what our lives are like, and they are so full of their own self importance that our experience is insignificant to them. They are as disconnected from our existence as they are from the Afghani and Pakistani villagers they are blowing up. All their attention is focused on kissing corporate ass, how much they will be paid to do so, and being allowed to hobnob with the elite. Not realizing that the elite despise them while using them.
Dan Rather confessed on BBC that he was ashamed of what he had become, but could not stop doing it. I don't think it was just the money, but the crowd he was being allowed to run with. A sad end to a promising career. He could have been a Walter Cronkite instead of a corporate lackey.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
treasonous...
>>How many more jobs do we need to lose before a cascading effect begins? More and more businesses will lay off employees, less money will be spent, more businesses will close, more jobs lost...<< Once again stupidity in action. As for unfair competition of out-sourcers, ever hear of tariffs and trade restrictions (Japan uses them)? America is the biggest market in the world, so why is it held hostage by the slave-laborers?
Gary
The tanning industry learned an expensive lesson. Unless you have a strong lobby in DC looking out for your interests, you will become the goat when they need a new tax base.
I notice the cosmetic surgery people have great lobbiests!
Bring America Back !!!!
****The answer to Lindorff's question WHY, is that when
Demmy Party Chairman- Doctor Howard Dean screamed:
"Kill the bill"=healthcare; he did not have enough Democratic clout to keep Team Obama from getting their
60 lockstep majority votes.
****Also, The Prez played the ol' trick known as:..if you
don't vote my way, your X-mas Vacation will be spent in
your Senate chambers. This is perhaps the most powerful
ploy in Politics, and it worked very well. It always works.
****King George Bush became very adept at these inside
game winners, especially his infamous so-called
"recess appointments". Wait until Congress goes home on
holiday, then since there is no quorum, make your unpopular
or divisive appointments==such as Bolton for UN Ambassador.
Bolton would've never made it thru open hearings to get the
appointment. !!!! Bolton is now the UN expert consultant for FOX TV==the war cheerleaders.
****Also, another WHY would be that perhaps the same or similar coalition of Repubby states Attorneys General issued an Open Letter sanctioning Israels' actions at GAZA !!
It was just fine with them that 300 to 400 innocent children, among the 1500 GAZA dead, were massacred, The Genocide at Gaza is just great with them , and since Prez Bush, Prez Obama and Sec State Clinton whispered not one word of protest--it is just fine with them also !!!!
One such honkey dorey AG is Robt McCallum of Florida, the leading Repubby candidate for Governor of Florida.
He signed the Zion Sanctions !
****Similarly, it is just fine with all those Repubby Attorneys General that 47 million Americans receive no
Healthcare at all; that is just fine with them.
Perhaps the Demmy Attorneys General just do not want to
join this Wall of Shame at this time.
The focus in the healthcare debate has been mostly on the corrupt private medical insurance system, but for profit med-business is also a big problem. The US ranks 37th in medical outcomes while spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as France, which ranks first in outcomes. Of course France has universal medical coverage which eliminates the 25% wasted on insurance company overhead. But insurance overhead does not fully explain why US medicine costs twice as much, while leaving 40 million people uncovered. Other negative factors that drive up US costs include excessive medical specialists, big pharma, and greedy for profit med-business. These same negative factors also help explain the low 37th rank of US medical care. In regions that have the most medical specialists, the costs are highest, and the outcomes are lowest. Excessive prescribing of big pharma drugs is clearly another reason the US ranks 37th in outcomes. For example, Norway found the best way to prevent hospital infection is to greatly reduce the use of antibiotics. Dangerous drugs from Big Pharma kill thousands of people in the US each year, and sicken a great many more, driving up total health care expenses. Doctors themselves drive up fees and medical costs by creating as many separate billable events as possible, when everything could be done in just one visit or procedure. US medical care costs twice as much compared to other nations because it is focused on maximum profit first and foremost. But clearly, the US medical system does not deserve any profit, much less high pay rates when it ranks 37th in outcomes, leaves 40 millions of people out, and allows 44,000 to die each year for lack of health care!
Sioux Rose
PURE DEMOCRACY: Excellent post. What you describe in the way of rewarding failure is also seen in how the bankers who caused the financial collapse have been rewarded with an embarassment of riches; and it's also seen in the same generals who ran amok in Iraq now being handed the reigns to head off into the great Afghani debacle. It's hard to believe that this much folly and depraved indifference can be christened with so many temporal rewards, but then our times are those when up is down, fair is foul, and wrong has been deemed right. When Arsenio had the late night talk show and it was hip to say, "That's bad!" to indicate a positive endorsement, the beginning of the upside world of American dissolution sounded its own eerie call.
"Until Americans rise up and start making politicians accountable to them, what we'll get instead of real reform or, in this case, real health care reform, will be rip-offs, screwjobs and flim-flam,"
This is so true, Dave Lindorff! But "making politicians accountable" means more than begging, complaining, or calling them up on the phone. It means withholding your vote if they refuse to actually represent you. It means educating the public, going against the mainstream - not for sissies! It means ruining some careers. It may take an election or two but if we stay true to the truth, they'll get it eventually and we may actually get some power back.
Why don't progressives have more respect for Ralph Nader, an expert in recognizing the dangers inherent in jumping on a bandwagon with obvious, faulty wheels? Ralph did his best to lay out the reasons why progressives should stand firm. but no, Nader was thoroughly marginalized by Democrats and many - most? - progressives joined in the bashing. I haven't heard many apologies either.
The progressive movement is 20 years too late. The powers that be are stronger than ever and have had ample time to iron out the bugs in their grand scheme - voting fraud, media, money.