Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Unbearable Lightness of Reform
That wickedly satirical Ambrose Bierce described politics as "the conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
Bierce vanished to Mexico nearly a hundred years ago -- to the relief
of the American political class of his day, one assumes -- but in an
eerie way he was forecasting America's political culture today. It
seems like most efforts to reform a system that's gone awry -- to clean
house and make a fresh start -- end up benefiting the very people who
wrecked it in the first place.
Which is why Bierce, in his classic little book, The Devil's Dictionary, defined reform as "a thing that mostly satisfies reformers opposed to reformation."
So we got health care reform this week -- but it's a far cry from reformation. You can't blame President Obama for celebrating what he did get -- he and the Democrats needed some political points on the scoreboard. And imagine the mood in the White House if the vote had gone the other way; they would have been cutting wrists instead of cake.
Give the victors their due: the bill Obama signed expands coverage to many more people, stops some very ugly and immoral practices by the health insurance industry that should have been stopped long ago, and offers a framework for more change down the road, if there's any heart or will left to fight for it.
But reformation? Hardly. For all their screaming and gnashing of teeth, the insurance companies still make out like bandits. Millions of new customers, under penalty of law, will be required to buy the companies' policies, feeding the insatiable greed of their CEO's and filling the campaign coffers of the politicians they wine and dine. Profits are secure; they don't have to worry about competition from a public alternative to their cartel, and they can continue to scam us without fear of antitrust action.
The big drug companies bought their protection before the fight even began, when the White House agreed that if they supported Obama's brand of health care reform -- not reformation -- they could hold onto their monopoly. No imports of cheaper drugs from abroad, no prescriptions filled at a lower price by our friendly Canadian neighbors to the north.
And let's not forget another, gigantic health care winner: a new report from the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity says the battle for reform has been "a bonanza" for the lobbying industry. According to the Center's analysis, "About 1,750 businesses and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists, total -- eight for each member of Congress -- and spent at least $1.2 billion to influence health care bills and other issues."
But while we're at it, a cheer for the federal student loan overhaul -- Democrats managed to pass that reform with an end run around powerful lobbyists, cleverly nestling it in the health care reconciliation package.
Nonetheless, under pressure from the lending industry, it, too, was watered down from its original intent. The three Democratic senators who voted against -- Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor -- have all received campaign contributions from Nelnet, the student loan company based in Nelson's home state of Nebraska, or its lobbyists.
(And would you be amazed to learn that one of the student loan industry's lobbyists used to be Blanche Lincoln's chief of staff? The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call described Kelly Bingel as Lincoln's "alter ego," and cited a former colleague saying Bingel was "first on the list of the Senator's callbacks," words that would sound like heaven to any Washington lobbyist's ears.)
Another case of reform gone off track: this week, a year and a half after Wall Street brought us so close to fiscal hell we could smell the brimstone, a crippled little financial regulation bill seems to be hobbling out of the wreckage, but still faces an array of well-armed forces gunning for it.
No wonder. In the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, members of the Senate Banking Committee -- which sent the bill to Congress this week -- received more than $39 million from Wall Street and the banks; members of the House Financial Services Committee raked in more than $21 million -- so far. Just how serious do you think they're going to be about true reform?
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut has sounded like a champion of reform ever since he announced he will not run for reelection. It's about time. Since 2005, his top ten campaign contributors have included Citigroup, AIG, Merrill Lynch and the now deceased Bear Stearns, all front-line players in bringing on the financial calamity.
Then there are the Republicans, shamelessly hawking their favors en masse to the highest bidder. The website Politico.com reports that the reelection campaign of Tennessee Senator Bob Corker -- who's one of the key negotiators on financial reform -- sent an e-mail to Wall Street lobbyists and others soliciting contributions of up to $10,000 for a chance to meet or grab a meal with the senator.
Informed of the e-mail, Corker was shocked -- shocked! -- saying the e-mail was "grotesque and inappropriate." But did House Republican leader John Boehner think it was inappropriate last week when he advised the American Bankers Association to fight back against the proposed rules and regulations?
This is, of course, the same John Boehner who in the summer of 1995 walked around the floor of the House of Representatives handing out checks to his fellow Republicans -- checks from a tobacco company. And the same John Boehner who was the grateful recipient of campaign contributions from the four Native American tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, the corrupt lobbyist currently cooling his heels in a Federal corrections facility.
So wouldn't it have been fascinating to have been a fly on the wall earlier this year when Boehner sat down for drinks with Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase? Reportedly, he invited Dimon and the rest of the financial community to pony up the cash and see what good things follow.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Republicans already were receiving an increasing share of campaign contributions from the Street. In the game of reform, it's the political version of loading the dice.
We can't know for sure what Ambrose Bierce would have made of all this; what The Devil's Dictionary author would say about the current DC scams. But he might have agreed that the only answer to organized money is organized people. That would be one hell of a reformation.
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...
176 Comments so far
Show AllHow wonderful for the 'poor' to be given a subsidy to purchase mandated coverage they cannot afford in the first place. I intend to vote Green, like I have in the last 4 presidential elections - (and by the way, I lived in Florida in 2000.)
You might want to consider the consequences of your vote which has rendered void habeus corpus, TARP (no CEO Left Behind), FISA and the destruction of personal liberty, 24 of 26 Mountain Top removal permits to accomodate BIG Coal lobby, the advance of a fantasy called "Clean Coal," the escalation of war in Afghanistan, Cheney's assasination General McChrystal now running covert war on non combatants in Pakistan and Afghanistan, a corporate model Health Bill void a public option which might have actually created competition instead of perpetuate a monopoly on behalf of Obama's corporate handlers; or furthermore, the appointments by Obama of right-of-center corporate insiders like, Rahm, Geithner, Summers, Volker, Sunstien, et al, torture via proxy states, renditions, black ops, and contracts still flowing to Blackwater mercs, covert air strikes in Pakistan in violation of the war powers act, nuclear energy renewal, despite no solution to spent nuclear fuel storage problem, of course these new plants Obama supports will be funded with tax payer money but then run for profit and provide a legal exclusion if an accident happens much like Three Mile Island. The plants are often built near poor neighberhoods and rest assured no plant will be built near Obama's house in Chicago to insure his little darlings won't be subjected to radiation sickness.
Wake up.
The "lesser evil" crowd IS awake and getting an early start for the next "two-party" electoral cycle.
The issues are always about whether you want your vote to result in something worse; never about wanting something better.
I can't justify Obama's actions. I only know if McCain and Sarah got in, things would be worse, a lot worse. No healthcare reform. Renewal of Bush tax cuts. Privatization of SS. Likely war with Iran. Another conservative supreme court justice, defunding of the EPA, end of the Dept. of Education, expansion of "faith-based" (read, Evangelical Christian) programs, no movement on nuclear proliferation, a budget freeze (to balance the budget)--thereby putting everything--even unemployment benefits in jeopardy, not even recognition of global warming, let alone communicating its importance to the American people, mandated touch-screen voting, thereby insuring voter fraud, further relaxation of gun control laws, and other stuff you can only imagine. For every problem Obama creates, I can always one-up you. The difference is--these Repubs mean business: they will cheat to maintain power; they will mislead, they will imprison their enemies, they will commit illegal acts as they did in 2000 and 2004. Your voting Green did exactly nothing in stopping us from hurtling off a cliff. Why don't you do what the right-wing nutcases did--take over a major political party? That might work.
drosera
I admire your honesty in admitting you can't justify this man's actions. It puts you ahead of ideologues that will defend his mistakes to the end.
"I only know if McCain and Sarah got in, things would be worse"
Are you sure? Frankly, I no longer know that. Palins a lightweight and would have mattered little and McCains pretty much a liberal in most things. I am no longer sure.
There is no real HC reform in this that I can find. I know they must have a real reason for doing this, but so far I can't see it.
These democrats mean business too, they are cheating, lying, bullying and using any piece of dishonesty to pass their agenda no matter if it causes more unemployment or pain, no matter how much it costs the people that can't afford it.
Remember, so far they have done not one thing to correct the economy or restart job growth.
Once again my respects, honesty is the most important thing in discussing anything.
drosera 1:12 pm
We didn't get "healthcare reform" under Obama!
Nor has Obama addressed the "Bush tax cuts," and it's not likely they will be allowed to expire.
"Privatization of Social Security?" Obama is far more likely than McCain, or any other potential president, to privatize Social Security. He just did it to health insurance for God's sake!!! He said his "friends and neighbors" in the insurance business were more important than a single-payer system (even though two-thirds of Americans want it). Don't you think Obama has friends and neighbors on Wall Street too?
War with Iran? Obama escalated the war with Afghanistan and attacked Pakistan. Even George W. Bush wasn't that reckless. Obama has INCREASED military spending, above what Bush spent.
A "conservative Supreme Court Justice?" Obama didn't give us a liberal with his first pick, and isn't likely to give us one on his next pick.
EPA? Obama's environmental record is abysmal.
"Faith-based" education is alive and well under Obama.
McCain would have done at least as much as Obama on nuclear proliferation.
"Budget freeze?" Republican presidents are the biggest deficit spenders. Obama's fiscal policies are little different than Bush's.
"Recognition of global warming?" Obama uses it as a ploy to push a corporate-socialized version of nuclear power.
Election fraud? McCain gave us McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. Obama ignored and eviscerated that law with his 2008 campaign.
McCain would have relaxed gun control laws? Not true. http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/john_mccain_gun_control.htm
"Republicans will cheat, mislead, imprison their enemies, commit illegal acts..." Obama: check, check, check, check. One difference: McCain would have ended official U.S. torture. Obama continues it.
What are we left with? A slightly bigger stimulus bill?
Obama is the final proof that Nader was right when he said there's not a dime's worth of difference.
Speaking of the next Supreme Court justice pick, here's to Obama giving Constitution lawyers a bad name:
http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/144423
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us
/politics/26court.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
Edit: I forgot to read yesterday's article by GG. Silly me.
drosera 11:50 am
Your "facts" are just wrong.
Obama Deform doesn't "offer subsidies to the working poor to buy insurance," it REQUIRES them to buy insurance. Even with the subsidy, many will still not be able to afford or buy it. And, even if they can manage to buy it, many will not be able to afford the actual health CARE, due to unaffordable co-pays and deductibles. (In Massachusetts, one in six who pay for the mandatory insurance can not afford to see a doctor—those would be the poorest of the working poor.) And, on top of all of that, the insurance is still a defective product, since the insurance companies can still delay, deny and hope you die.
Obama Deform may "end annual and lifetime caps in payouts," but that just means you are forced to buy more expensive insurance. Again, there is no cap on premiums, and nothing to stop the insurance pirates from denying needed care.
As to least-worst voting, we already did that and we already have a fascist politician: Obama. If you think Obama is protecting the environment, you are completely misinformed. Under Obama, the environment is for sale and is being sold.
The "end of Social Security," meaning privatization which will subject the fund to the same Wall St. collapses and scams that devastated the economy in 2008, is more likely under Obama than anyone else on the political horizon. It took a Nixon to go to China, and it will take an Obama to privatize Social Security.
If you think "a little reform is better than nothing," you send me $100 and I'll send you $10 back. That will be "a little reform" for you.
Sorry to hear of your animus for people not of your race, but that sounds like a personal problem.
The pre-existing condition component of the legislation helps my family directly: Insurance companies will have to pay when my family member shows evidence of the disease. I believe some subsidies are offered families of four making 88,000. I do not know if there is a cap on percentage of a person's income that goes to pay insurance premiums--there might be. There is a cap an insurance company can pay in administrative costs. And the new plan does tax those making over 200,000 a year more, something you should not be complaining about. And companies will not be writing off as much of employee healthcare benefits on their taxes, a savings to us all. Your assertion that Medicaid can or will be shorted by the Feds may be true, but is irrelevant. It's another issue--the proper funding of Medicaid. If your Medicare-for-all plan got adopted, the same problem of proper funding would exist. And yes, premiums will go up and presently there is not a good check written in to prevent that. But who is to say it couldn't be written in at a later time? Look, the bill is not perfect. It is not even particularly good. But it is better than the mishmash we had before.
"Your assertion that Medicaid can or will be shorted by the Feds may be true, but is irrelevant."
Tell that to the seniors who are up in arms about it. Former Governor Matt Blunt got into trouble and now Governor Jay Nixon is facing the same trouble for even thinking of cutting into Medicaid.
"If your Medicare-for-all plan got adopted, the same problem of proper funding would exist."
Totally false. Even a few moderate conservatives I talked to admitted that Medicare for all would actually save the taxpayers billions.
"Look, the bill is not perfect. It is not even particularly good. But it is better than the mishmash we had before."
"And yes, premiums will go up and presently there is not a good check written in to prevent that. But who is to say it couldn't be written in at a later time?"
That kind of an attitude would never have made Social Security possible. According to drosera, keep postponing health care reform and give us thousands of pages of regressive scam and call it "progress". What's next? Make women and minorities purchase discrimination insurance or else their voting rights get taken away or make them slaves? I suppose you'll call that "progress" as well.
Had drosera actually read the bill, he/she would have found out that there are few rules for Big Insurance to follow and even then the rules are toothless and there are no penalties for violating them. So far, your thinking sounds "faith based" in nature. Drosera, please read the bill and give us quotes from the bill to prove your points.
Subsidy does not mean free, nor affordable.
"The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can’t afford to use. A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income—out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible."
Do the math!
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/03/mythfactshcr-2.pdf
Then there's the elephant in the room which you refuse to acknowledge: coverage is not care! The insurance pirates are free to delay, deny and hope you die. Just as always. Two-thirds of medically-related bankruptcies in the U.S. are declared by people who HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. Profit-driven health insurance is the problem, and more of the same is more of the same.
I am happy to do the math for you from someone who actually buys private insurance out of his own pocket. For 25 years I have purchased private health insurance. While many people hate the mandate (I understand why), there is currently a de facto mandate to buy insurance if you can afford it. My guess is there are few families who voluntarily go bare, so the status quo really mandates that we buy insurance, or face going broke, or being denied care if we become ill. Is someone really willing to do that to their child? Even though people hate the mandate, it is not because they want to avoid being covered, they just hate the idea of enriching private insurers--understood loud and clear.
But most of us already enrich private insurers. Under the current system, my family policy for 4 has jumped 100% during the past 7 years, and 18% last year with BCBS of NC. I pay over $12,000 a year with $2,500/7,500 deductibles and $2,500 co-pays. I am told I have the best rating possible, so most pay more. I can easily pay over $20,000 in one year if things go wrong. I fully expect that with or without the current bill, my premiums would escalate to over $16,000, or more, annually by 2014 because I will move into an older age bracket.
This is the status quo that so many posters believe is so much better than the current bill. And what do I get for my premium dollar-- no assurance that either of my children will be able to purchase insurance when they are forced off of my policy. A guarantee that if I am priced out of BCBS of NC, there will be no other insurance company I can go with. No guarantee that if I move to another state I will be able to purchase any insurance. A guarantee that each year my premiums will increase over 15%, but really could go hirer because there are no caps. I am also guaranteed a lifetime cap on payments should we face huge medical bills. That is the status quo for millions of us.
Do the math--The per capita income in NC is about $50,000 for a family of 4, so the status quo is currently unsustainable. We are not talking about being forced to pay $5,243 per year, but over $16,000 plus deductibles in 2014. How is that a better deal for the millions of us who don't have employer provided insurance, or government funded insurance. And I also pay taxes that help cover those who don't have insurance either voluntarily, or because of pre-existing conditions. And my taxes currently help pay for the 60% of government financed healthcare our Country currently pays.
I too would love a single payer system. My guess is I have called my rep. and Senators office (Burr is out) more times during the past year than most people on this site. I have explained to them how the current system is completely unsustainable and if I made the average income in NC I would be priced out now. This is the status quo and if the bill had not passed it would have left millions without coverage of any kind--as it does now.
The math you provide in your post and I do in mine is why we will have a public option of some kind by 2014 for those required to buy insurance on my own. I suppose my premium may increase at a faster rate with the current bill, but at least I know my children won't have to go bare, and I can move without losing my care.
I am sure you can cite me many folks who will be worse off under the new bill, but the example you cite above is not one of them. If a family of 4 can actually get insurance at the rate you cite above, even with co-pays, they will be paying much, much less than the status quo, and in reality will actually have insurance when under the status quo they would not.
To those who are giving up the fight for single payer because you hate the current bill so much, you are doing EXACTLY what private insurers, big pharma, corporate medical, etc., want you to.
In the example provided by FDL, the $66,370/year family of four would pay a $5,243/year in health insurance premiums. After taxes and "basic necessities" they have $8,307/year in "discretionary income." If they paid the $5,882 maximum in co-pays and deductibles, they would have $2,425/year left over. That's $202/month to cover "clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, etc" for their family of four.
To compare your family of four, if your income is the same $66,370/year and "basic necessities" cost you the same as the FDL family, after taxes, "basic necessities" and your $12,000/year health insurance premium, you have $1,550/year in "discretionary income." If you pay $5,000/year in co-pays and deductibles you are in the hole $3,450/year. If you pay $10,000/year in co-pays and deductibles you are in the hole $8,450/year. That's between $287/month and $704/month you have to borrow to pay for health care, plus "clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, etc" for your family of four.
This leads me to conclude that either your income is a lot more than $66,370/year or your circumstances are impossible. In either case, the FDL family's reality is dire, and more than that, not sustainable. It's just not realistic for them.
Still more, they are being required to buy a pig in a poke. Having private health insurance is no guarantee of receiving needed health care when tragedy strikes. You apparently choose to buy that pig in a poke.
So do you think the status quo provides a better chance for a family of 4 to purchase an insurance policy? They both are too expensive for the average family, but you will go broke much faster under the status quo. In fact, forget about even trying to buy a policy--you can never afford it. You have to address this issue, and not just harp on the current bill. Does anyone actually buy their own insurance policy, or do you all get policies subsidized by your employer or the government? And if you have employer provided health insurance the taxpayers are subsidizing your insurance coverage by way of corporate tax deductions.
You give me futzed numbers, and when they don't add up you offer no explanation? You want to change the subject? You'd like to distract me with straw man arguments and random, nonsensical talking points? What a load!
"The average family ... will go broke" under Obama's deform bill, but it will take longer? There's a winning argument!
HOW do we get the media out of corporate hands? The results could be incalculable!
Drosera:
As others have pointed out, your assessment and understanding of the health insurance legislation as "better than nothing" is inchoate and your commentary in support of remaining faithful to the democratic party to avoid a "real fascist" from destroying the environment and dismantling Social Security demonstrates fatuous servility to the dysfunctional and corrupt two-party system that exists in our 'managed' democracy.
I highly recommend you read the articles cited below. Perhaps they will help you gain better understanding--at least with regard to this dreadful health insurance legislation.
Obama’s health care agenda and the case for a socialist alternative:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/pers-f27.shtml
US Congress poised to pass Obama’s cost-cutting health plan:
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/heal-m20.shtml
Obama health bill sets the stage for assault on Medicare and Social Security: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/pers-m24.shtml
In the aftermath of the health care vote:
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/pers-m27.shtml
New York Times fashions “egalitarian” defense of Obama health plan:
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/hlny-m25.shtml
The New York Times and the Obama health care plan:
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/heal-m23.shtml
An attack on health care in the guise of reform:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/pers-m22.shtml
I'm hoping Ralph will challenge Obama for the democratic nomination.
That's a fight I could get behind.
...the bill Obama signed expands coverage..." But, in the very next paragraph they say the insurance companies "can continue to scam us.."
What good is "expanded coverage" (mandate-to-buy insurance)...
The bill expands Medicaid up include everyone up to 133% of the poverty, and provides a substantial subsidy for families up to 400% of the poverty line.
But the criticism of the rest of the bill is well-taken.
But I long ago gave up on getting anyone commenting in CD to care about the poor. This web site is run by comfortable liberals for comfortable liberals.
"This web site is run by comfortable liberals for comfortable liberals."
What makes you say this site is run by comfortable liberals? And what makes you think most of us here are comfortable liberals? I'm not a comfortable liberal and I'm very angry that our president made asses out of us but you can keep laughing about it !
The bill doesn't help the poor. Medicaid reimbursement rates are so bad that many doctors just don't accept it. And, why would you wish third-rate care on anyone?
As to the working-poor, even with the subsidies they (we) won't be able to afford it. People making up to 400% of poverty will pay about 25% of their after tax income for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Where will they get that kind of money?
As I posted earlier (from FireDogLake),
"The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can’t afford to use. A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income—out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket
medical expenses for which families will be responsible."
That works out to $202/month left over after paying for basic necessities and health insurance. And this family's income, at $66,370/year, is about $12,000/year MORE than the median family income in the U.S. People making the median income will be even worse off.
And, beyond the question of paying for insurance lies the reality that insurance is a pig in a poke. Many insured people die because their insurance companies deny their care. "Delay, deny and hope you die" is SOP. The bill does nothing to change that. Only the premiums are mandatory; the benefits are still paid at the discretion of the insurance pirates.
By the way, I don't know who runs CD but I know there are working-poor people posting here.
Why do they call it "Clever" for embedding the student loan bill within the Health care bill?
Its only clever if it is something you agree with. Is it clever when they embed extra military spending for making more weapons into the bills they put out?
We understand the criminality of what is going on in washington. What people need is solutions; before the solutions the corporate power class has in mind are forced on us.
What do people actually expect when they have a centralized system, which is becoming more and more totalitarian? In order for the system to keep plowing through it has to make sure none of us THINK we have viable solutions that work for the society as a whole instead of the few only.
Most politicians don't have the dignity and integrity of sewer rats. At least they are capable of expressing fellow-feeling for their suffering kin. Besides, sewer rats are a lot cleaner and brighter than the corrupt politicians we have in the White HOuse and Congress.
I won't settle for a few crumbs thrown my way by Obama's poison-pill bill. I want full and universal health care coverage. Medicare-For-All.
Come every November from now on, I'm voting for ANY third-party candidate. Green, Socialist, Communist, Independent, Animal Rights, Human Rights, whatever -- as long as it ain't another Big-Party Brand-Name Corporate Candidate.
Naturally has it about right. "The "logic" in this article is dumbfounding"
Its time to start a Gullibility index when usually intelligent people are fooled into believeing what they are told rather than reading whats actually in the bill.
I'm told...you can now keep your kids on your HC plan till 26! Whoopee! In my state we can keep them on it till 25 anyway.
If this is so good, how come people excluded themselves from it?
Whats your plan if you go to the Doctor and he says, great insurance! However I don't accept it. Next please!
What do you do when you lose your job because the economy went down under the staggering cost of this bill?
The social democrats have just taken you folks to the cleaners.
Hold up there! Call them Democrats, or corporate Democrats, or corporatists. You can even say they are practicing "corporate socialism."
But, don't call them "social democrats"—as that could easily be confused with Social Democratic parties in many European countries (a progressive force for good). Let's not muddy the waters. We could use a Social Democratic party in the U.S.!
Good point: most US folks don't have a clue what socialism is; it is a huge body of thought and literature that encompasses different theories, concepts and world-views (ontologies). Besides the socialist and social-democratic parties, the Greens and in particular, the Green Left (Groenlinks) in the Netherlands is one of my favorite: they combine socialist, green and anarchist ideas that are natural allies.
Shame on me! That was an unintended compliment. Chastisement readily accepted!!
fixcongressfirst.org
Campaign finance reform is the medicine for what ails us: public financing of all elections.
No, its not a permanent fix: corporate cash would then focus on seducing the rest of us instead of 'our' legislators; and use corporate mouthpieces like Faux News to do the seducing. But, its an important start. Get the money out of politics, as much as we can.
Moyers: "[Ambrose Bierce] might have agreed that the only answer to organized money is organized people." I believe fixcongressfirst.org is the issue about which we should be organizing. This is what must be done before all the others.
Most of you probably know the idea for mandates came from the Heritage Foundation. It's like a cosmic joke on all of us, as the Repubs condemn a law they should love while the Democrats gloat over passing a neocon law.
And I thought the 60's were weird...
Phone Calls to Wall Street:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOZTldbo2Fw
Independent Voters Resource Page:
http://www.facebook.com/Independent.Voters
Please note you do NOT have to be a Facebook user to read the posts
or the discussions there, watch the videos, etc. If you DO want to
add to the conversation all you have to do is set up a Facebook ID
for yourself, even if you use it for nothing else, and it is very
easy to do and you will see a link for that at the top of the page
above if you don't have one.
What we are doing on this new page is creating a hub, where people
can come together and talk about what we can do to break free of the vicious cycle of swapping mean-spirited Republicans for cowardly Democrats back and forth in what has now become a vain and fruitless charade. The plan is that once this first page hits 10,000 fans (and there are nearly 1,000 already), we will start breaking out into mobilizing pages state by state and congressional district by district.
Good start and Facebook itself seems like a very popular milieu with at least some amount of organizational potential. Hope the idea takes hold.
?
And for this we are suppose to praise Obama and the Democrats? Surely you jest!
By the way Mr. President, we are all still waiting to see our dividend checks from the bank and Wall St. bail outs. Just a reminder.
"In periods of frenzied haste toward wealth, of feverish speculation and of crisis, of the sudden downfall of great industries and the ephemeral expansion of other branches of production, of scandalous fortunes amassed in a few years and dissipated as quickly, it becomes evident that the economic institutions which control production and exchange are far from giving to society the prosperity which they are supposed to guarantee; they produce precisely the opposite result. Instead of order they bring forth chaos; instead of prosperity, poverty and insecurity; instead of reconciled interests, war; a perpetual war of the exploiter against the worker, of exploiters and of workers among themselves. Human society is seen to be splitting more and more into two hostile camps, and at the same time to be subdividing into thousands of small groups waging merciless war against each other. Weary of these wars, weary of the miseries which they cause, society rushes to seek a new organization; it clamors loudly for a complete remodeling of the system of property ownership, of production, of exchange and all economic relations which spring from it.
The machinery of government, entrusted with the maintenance of the existing order, continues to function, but at every turn of its deteriorated gears it slips and stops. Its working becomes more and more difficult, and the dissatisfaction caused by its defects grows continuously. Every day gives rise to a new demand. "Reform this," "reform that," is heard from all sides. "War, finance, taxes, courts. police, everything must be remodeled, reorganized, established on a new basis," say the reformers. And yet all know that it is impossible to make things over, to remodel anything at all because everything is interrelated; everything would have to be remade at once; and how can society be remodeled when it is divided into two openly hostile camps? To satisfy the discontented would be only to create new malcontents.
Incapable of undertaking reforms, since this would mean paving the way for revolution, and at the same time too impotent to be frankly reactionary, the governing bodies apply themselves to halfmeasures which can satisfy nobody, and only cause new dissatisfaction. The mediocrities who, in such transition periods, undertake to steer the ship of State, think of but one thing: to enrich themselves against the coming débâcle. Attacked from all sides they defend themselves awkwardly, they evade, they commit blunder upon blunder, and they soon succeed in cutting the last rope of salvation; they drown the prestige of the government in ridicule, caused by their own incapacity." --Peter Kroptkin
The above is true, unless perhaps, you know how to do the "two shoe". Abraham Lincoln could do the "two shoe" or was he just "doubleminded"? Oh yeah take "doubleminded" and add rythym and you get "two shoe".
To the Author:
"But reformation? Hardly. For all their screaming and gnashing of teeth, the insurance companies still make out like bandits. Millions of new customers, under penalty of law, will be required to buy the companies' policies, feeding the insatiable greed of their CEO's and filling the campaign coffers of the politicians they wine and dine".
So, Let us now abandon capitalism? This great engine of prosperity and individual expression? Bill Moyers is a Journalist of high and justified regard. Does he now advocate revolution? The President's own words. "This is not radical change, it is Major reform.
Mr. Obama does something in politics which in the vernacular is called the "two shoe". I believe the choice to be wise for the Country. We are too violent a people for radical change that affects the historical corpus of America.
The justifications offered for this regressive bill just keep getting weaker and weaker.
I thought I was prepared for the hue and cry attending the passage of this abominable insurance corporation bailout, but I admit that my nerves are far more raw than I'd like-- not to say "shot".
Still, it's faintly amusing to read the strained and disingenous arguments purporting to conclusively reject or triumph over nay-sayers with a magic bullet-point. Or maybe a magic scattershot shotgun blast is more accurate.
One can almost see the wheels turning: hmmm, what if I throw out the suggestion that opponents of the bill are actually SUPPORTING, if not RESPONSIBLE for, ALL of the evils in the status quo addressed-- however, um, imperfectly-- by the legislation? Hey, that's pretty good. Almost Olbermann-like: In rejecting this legislation, YOU, Sir or Madam, STAND WITH the insurance companies in DENYING coverage to those with pre-existing conditions! There's simply no way around it!
It's also very reminiscent of the infamous and thoroughly bogus "ticking time-bomb" scenario used to defend righteous torture. Or the shrill election-year arguments that if YOU let Candidate X get elected, the Blood of countless innocents will be on your hands! You have to address THAT if you're opposing Candidate Y! (Candidate Z? That's wasting your vote!)
Such rhetorical hyperbole doesn't just beg the question, it loads it like a crooked gambler loads dice. Resorting to rank manipulation is usually a sign that one is seeking to reinforce one's own conviction that one is in the right-- doing right and feeling good about doing it. Pointing a finger, like thumping one's chest, is sometimes just a very roundabout way of patting oneself on the back.
"Honey? I helped to save thousands-- no, MILLIONS, of lives today by holding my nose and supporting my Elected Misrepresentatives in their quest to finally get something constructive accomplished. And I gotta tell ya-- I'm feelin' pretty damn good about myself right now. How 'bout a hug?"
It's clearly rationalizing backwards from an overall settled conclusion that the bill is worthy of passage in an attempt to find one overriding superior rationale that nullifies its abundant fatal flaws. "John Yoo" logic.
Obedient Servant
Beautifully stated!
Don't forget that those advocating for the bill's defeat support the private insurance industry's position of denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. They support the private insurance industry's denial of coverage to those who failed to fill out the initial application correctly. On these issues, a No vote was pro-private insurance and is exactly what the lobbyists wanted. And you can't counter that the bill should have included the good parts of reform and not the bad, since that is not what happened. We are dealing with real people's lives here who have pre-existing conditions, not some theoretical discussion of what is good and bad about this bill--and I understand there is lots of bad in it.
Most posters argue the healthcare bill is regressive and worse than the status quo. For those of you with health coverage, were you willing to give up that coverage if the bill was defeated? If your rep. came up to you and said you can continue your health insurance if the bill passes, but it will be terminated if the bill fails, would you demand that your rep. vote against the bill so your health insurance would be cut off? How would you feel about this if you or a member of your family has an illness that needs treatment?
It is callous to demand that people with pre-existing conditions be denied health coverage. The story posted yesterday about the baby who was denied coverage because of the pre-existing condition justifiably drew much outrage because the current bill does not provide coverage for children until September. Does anyone really believe that the preferable alternative is to deny health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions? Keep that in mind when you tick off the 20 things you hate about this bill. You have to address the fact that a No vote meant that millions of people would be denied coverage for decades to come.
Scott -- The problem with your take on it is that any of the elements of the bill that might be beneficial to individuals could have been legislated individually.
Instead we get a monstrous bill that further institutionalizes the corporate hold on our society at the very time when it looks like it is slipping beyond any chance of recovering it for ourselves.
It's like organized crime telling you, "We'll take care of you, maybe buy you a turkey for Christmas dinner and help pay your kid's medical expenses, as long as you pay up and don't make trouble for us."
Do you have a suspicion that things aren't quite right? Is it worth it?
You are absolutely correct that the bill could have been much better--single payer for all, Medicare buy-in for the mandate folks, etc. It could have included the best part. The unfortunate reality and I truly mean unfortunate is the bill contains what it does and not what we wish it did. So we were presented with the bill, or the status quo. If you believe the status quo is better for all than the current bill, scroll down to my post concerning my family's purchase of private insurance. I am like tens of millions of other folks, and our ranks will only being growing during the next 4 years as people lose their jobs, and employers abandon healthcare benefits. The bottom line is the status quo is unsustainable and millions more will be uninsured. Let's hope that Congress gets the message and improves the bill before full implementation in 2014. Cheers.
ScottW
Thats incorrect. There was a clear alternative to this bill. The democrats simply didn't want to reform health care, so they ignored it. In fact there were many alternatives to this bill.
A statement of "So we were presented with the bill, or the status quo" is a very large straw man argument.
In case you haven't looked, this bill guarantees less coverage, fewer jobs, more folks losing their jobs and higher cost.
Of course their are alternatives to this bill--it is called single payer, following the healthcare systems constructed by 27 or so other Nations. And the reason we are stuck with the system we have is due solely to the electorate who vote in Republicans, southern conservative democrats and right to lifers. Look around your State for a day or so. You are going after the wrong folks and Karl Rove could not have constructed a better strategy of getting rid of moderate/liberal Dems had he put his mind to it. Or maybe he did.
ScottW
A. Single Payer was never an option thanks to these fools.
B. The reason we are stuck with the disaster wee now have are the democrats, not the republicans.
C. I go after the folk who tell you they just gave you something and didn't. the liars that occupy the Presidency and Congress.
You are wrong on point B. If there were no Republicans in Congress we would have single payer. You accept the Republicans as a given--but they were elected. Ultimately, it is the electorate that has failed us since they put the Republicans in office. Do you really believe if we had 219 reps. like Dennis Kucinich single payer would fail? I can't understand why there are so many Republican apologists on CD? Is it because criticizing the Republicans is some how letting the Democrats off the hook?
Even a practical liberal like me knows better than that. The Democrats had a super majority and even in the Senate, it doesn't take 60 votes to get a simple thing passed. The way Democrats acted on health care already proves that both chambers could be 100% Democrat and we would still get this same pile of crap. At 253 Democrats vs 178 Republicans in the House while in the Senate 59 Democrats (including Sanders and Lieberman caucusesing with the Democrats despite being "Independent") vs 41 Republicans, the Democrats had plenty of chances to get things done right. Don't even think about bringing up the filibuster excuse. Go back and read the archives and then come back and tell us how proud you are of the infamous Democrats who forced single payer advocates out of their Senate meetings and even had some of them arrested while at the same time doing everything they could to give in to the insurance and drug companies who perpetrated this health care mess to begin with ! 2007-2008 may have looked fine for the Democrats to blame the Republicans but not this session. How do you like it when great doctors like Dr. Flowers fighting for single payer get arrested and the Democrats refuse to listen to her but at the same time listening to big insurance and drug lobbyists such as Billy Tauzin? I read the archives here and on Alternet and I think it's becoming obvious why we are rightfully disgusted with this. Read the archives and weep !!
This is where labels fail in analyzing our Country's inability to pass single payer. Unlike the Republicans who vote in unity on most issue, Democrats are made up of a spectrum of ideologies. As you know, being a Democrat does not equate with supporting single payer. Being a Republican does equate with opposing it. As I stated in a prior post, there are too many conservative Democrats, right to lifers, etc., to pass single payer in the House. You cannot blame all of the Democrats for the shortcomings of a minority, however, you can blame the electorate who put them in office. The real reason we don't have single payer is too many citizens elect Republicans and conservative/right to life Democrats. That is the bottom line. If you only target Kucinich, Grayson, et. al. as the culprits, you will insure that the opposition to single payer will thrive, since Republicans and conservative Democrats will never support single payer. There are too many people on CD who would listen to someone's views on political issues, agree with them, and after finding out he or she is a Democrat throw him or her under the bus.
When even supposed progressives like Kucinich and Grayson concede in cowardice and then drum up support for the wrong side, that is a message that Democrats cannot be trusted at all. If Democrats can't get together on anything other than selling out for party's sake as you implicitly admitted, then it tells us that we need a new party that won't exclude progressive and liberal ideas at the critical moments.
Yes ScottW. Let's keep cheering "YAY" without reading the bill and let's just lie to ourselves and sing "Kumbaya" while the corporate hooligans continue to rob us. Oh and you better work really hard to keep your job because the unemployed still have to buy shoddy insurance even if they can't afford it.
duplicate post. sorry.