HealthCare bill passes

[RGacky3]

Its a bunch of shit, Americans that voted for change just got buttraped by Obama and the Corporatist democrats.

No Public Option
No Medicare Buyin

But still a mandate,

So pretty much all its doing is funneling money to the insurance companies, its not universal coverage if your forcing people to buy without an option.

The republicans (small government) would not support any public option, but they would support subsidies for people to handover to the insurance companies???

Obama did'nt fight for the public option at all, I was actually hopefull for this, and its a big dissapointment.

To the Social-Democrats and progressive democrats out there, this is what happens when you leave it up to the ballot boxes by themselves, you get shafted.

This is a joke and a handover to the insurance companies, healthcare reform was a farce.

[IcarusAngel]

It is, in fact, market tyranny, where the government forces you to buy a product. (Market tyranny can also refer to the fact that free-markets inevitably lead to 'private dictatorships,' that do not provide people with their needs.)

The Republicans actually voted against the bill, and in this case I actually would have sided with the Republicans.

It seems the Republicans may be able to obstruct the Democrats' corporate/fascist agenda; I think even Noam Chomsky says he has 'voted republican' since there isn't much difference between the two parties and since sometimes the repugs can stand in the way of bad reform. This is one of those times.

[IcarusAngel]

On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/arts-culture/mass-media/newspapers/chicago-tribune-ORCRP003016799.topic) published an exhaustive front-page analysis by Northwestern University (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/education/colleges-universities/northwestern-university-OREDU0000132.topic)'s Medill News Service and the Center for Responsive Politics of how it was done. The main culprit: "a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/economy-business-finance/companies-corporations-04016046.topic) with a stake in health care legislation."
The study found that 13 former congressmen and 166 congressional staffers were actively engaged in lobbying their former colleagues on the bill. The companies they were working for -- some 338 of them -- spent $635 million on lobbying. It was money extremely well spent -- delivering a bill that, by forcing people to buy a shoddy product in a market with no real competition, enshrines into law the public subsidy of private profit.
As we approach the end of Obama's first year in office, this public subsidizing of private profit is becoming something of a habit. It is, after all, exactly what the White House did with the banks. Just as he did with insurance companies, Obama talked tough to the bankers in public, but, when push came to shove, he ended up shoving public money onto their privately held balance sheets.
This is not just bad policy, it's bad politics.

[Kayser_Soso]

Don't worry though, all the progressives will be getting out the vote to reelect Obama, because we all know the next republican candidate might, you know, expand the war, or perhaps enact a private-sector friendly initiative.

[IcarusAngel]

Maybe we should vote for a Stalinist party, and they would fix everything by running the country into the ground.

[Axle]

Maybe we should vote for a Stalinist party, and they would fix everything by running the country into the ground.

Man, I bet its totally necessary to start a tendency war in this thread.

[Kayser_Soso]

Maybe we should vote for a Stalinist party, and they would fix everything by running the country into the ground.

Butthurt much? Let me guess, Chomsky says we should vote democrat right? All hail the prophet!!!

[Robert]

So pretty much all its doing is funneling money to the insurance companies, its not universal coverage if your forcing people to buy without an option.It's doing that, yes, and the insurance companies' stocks have increased (http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Lieberman_Statement_Sends_Health_Insurance_Stocks_ Up_91216) rather dramatically in the last few weeks, but that's not "all it's doing."

The bill also mandates that states provide Medicaid coverage to 15 million more people. States would receive full federal funding for the expansion for the first three years and after that would receive around 80 percent of the funding from the government.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/68933-crapo-read-the-senate-health-bill-yourself

Now, "15 million people" is about half the current uninsured, if you exclude undocumented aliens (who already receive loads of free care anyway under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act), signed by Reagan, mind you, in 1986). The Senate assumes that many among the remaining American uninsured will be able to buy -- will be required to buy, as I understand it -- through viable, non-profit co-ops that will supposedly be created. (Don't hold your breath.)

There are states that simply cannot handle the additional medicaid burden the bill threatens to impose. New York and California are broke already. Nobody gives a damn.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

To the Social-Democrats and progressive democrats out there, this is what happens when you leave it up to the ballot boxes by themselves, you get shafted.

Eh no it's not, this is what happens when you live in the US.

[Havet]

Now, "15 million people" is about half the current uninsured, if you exclude undocumented aliens (who already receive loads of free care anyway under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act), signed by Reagan, mind you, in 1986).

Psst! You're not supposed to show how Reagan did not always protect corporate interests!!:ohmy:

[Robert]

duplicate

[Robert]

Well, to be fair to Reagan's detractors, that law was passed in the course of a budget reconciliiation, i.e., a compromise.

[Sleeper]

It is, in fact, market tyranny, where the government forces you to buy a product. (Market tyranny can also refer to the fact that free-markets inevitably lead to 'private dictatorships,' that do not provide people with their needs.)

The Republicans actually voted against the bill, and in this case I actually would have sided with the Republicans.



To your first sentence, that is what sent health companies (inclduing health insurance companies) stocks soaring. Some of the Democrats were bought and paid for to pass this thing. The Catholic Hospitals Association is now backing that abortion be covered by the insurance, by the way, that beg$ the que$tion, whatever could have changed their opinion on that?

To the second sentence, that is a strategic move by the Republicans with an eye towards 2010. They're hoping that this Bill will disenfranchise some Independents as well as some Moderate-Democrats and result in landslide victories for them come the next round of Congressional elections.

[RGacky3]

The Republicans actually voted against the bill, and in this case I actually would have sided with the Republicans.

It seems the Republicans may be able to obstruct the Democrats' corporate/fascist agenda; I think even Noam Chomsky says he has 'voted republican' since there isn't much difference between the two parties and since sometimes the repugs can stand in the way of bad reform. This is one of those times.

THere are sometimes when republicans have it less wrong than democrats.

But the republicans never supported the public option, or any of that, they arn't voting for it because they know it wont work, but they never wanted it to work, its political, in 4 years when it does'nt work they'll say "oh we did'nt vote for it" even though the opposed what does work.

[IcarusAngel]

Yep. They voted against it solely for their own selfish interests, not because they have real problems with corporatism or anything. In fact, Republicans have been giving billions to the banks and big agriculture for years now.

They may not also like to admit that the market, which they favor as a privatized dictatorship to control citizens through the politics of wealth, has failed again, and don't like to admit that socialized medicine outcompetes free-market medicine.