Judge florida: health care bill unconstitutional

[PhoenixAsh]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/31/federal-judge-says-key-parts-of-health-care-reform-unconstitutional/?iref=allsearch

[KurtFF8]

Oh dear.

The new FL government (more right wing) is also planning on an SB1070 type bill here as well as major austerity measures against mainly state workers.

The right wing attacks on this modest HC bill put the Left in an annoying position: we don't want to support this bill that is pretty much a hand-out to the health insurance industry, yet we have to oppose the far-right attacks on it.

[thesadmafioso]

Yeah, those lawsuits are going to go no where. I believe this is the second state judge to make such a ruling, and the two cases will probably be dealt with by SCOTUS at some point or another. And once they get to the supreme, I would find it highly unlikely for such a political case to be ruled on favorably by a majority of the judges.

[Delirium]

Judge Roger Vinson, in a 78-page ruling, dismissed the key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - the so-called "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or facestiff penalties.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.' "


I agree, the US government should not be forcing individuals to purchace insurance. It already pisses me off that i have to buy auto insurance, it's like betting against yourself.

Sucks though, if it is declared void i will be uninsured again. :rolleyes:

[Lucretia]

It's a positive development that the forced transfer of wealth to blood-sucking, rip-off health insurance monopolies has been ruled illegal. If this keeps up maybe we can maintain the bill's few good provisions and work on setting up a not-for-profit system.

[KurtFF8]

It's a positive development that the forced transfer of wealth to blood-sucking, rip-off health insurance monopolies has been ruled illegal. If this keeps up maybe we can maintain the bill's few good provisions and work on setting up a not-for-profit system.

But this effort is coming from the Right whose argument seems to actually be "don't mess with our awesome current system."

It's true that the reforms that we saw recently were essentially a handout to insurance companies, but the framework of the debate is not going to move towards the potential of getting a Single-Payer system with developments like this.

[Lucretia]

But this effort is coming from the Right whose argument seems to actually be "don't mess with our awesome current system."

I don't understand this tribal kind of reasoning at all. If it's a positive development, who cares whether The Bad People are doing it?


It's true that the reforms that we saw recently were essentially a handout to insurance companies,Yes, which is why it's good that the part mandating people give their money to insurance monopolies is a positive development.


but the framework of the debate is not going to move towards the potential of getting a Single-Payer system with developments like this.I wasn't praising the "framework" of the debate, which can only be changed by people not bending over for the Democratic party in the name of "not letting the perfect be the evil of the good" or stopping The Bad People from accomplishing anything, even when their agenda partially aligns with our own.

[thesadmafioso]

It's a positive development that the forced transfer of wealth to blood-sucking, rip-off health insurance monopolies has been ruled illegal. If this keeps up maybe we can maintain the bill's few good provisions and work on setting up a not-for-profit system.

It hasn't been ruled illegal, it was just once ruling by one federal judge. Since you seem to be quite out of the loop here, I will remind you that two federal judges have also ruled in favor of the bill and against the lawsuits brought force by the states in question here. The law still stands unless it is either repealed or ruled against by the supreme court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/roger-vinson-florida-judg_1_n_816784.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48527.html

In short, I would suggest opening a middle school grade text on US government.

[~Spectre]

I can't for the life of me comprehend why anyone on the left would defend this piece of legislation. It's quite literally baffling.

[~Spectre]

It hasn't been ruled illegal, it was just once ruling by one federal judge. Since you seem to be quite out of the loop here, I will remind you that two federal judges have also ruled in favor of the bill and against the lawsuits brought force by the states in question here. The law still stands unless it is either repealed or ruled against by the supreme court.

In short, I would suggest opening a middle school grade text on US government.

Why isn't this troll^ banned yet?

[Lucretia]

It hasn't been ruled illegal, it was just once ruling by one federal judge.

Really? And what does the ruling stipulate regarding the legality of the law? If I'm not mistaken, the ruling was the law was unconstitutional and therefore against the supreme law of the land. The fact that this ruling, like the others you mentioned, will be appealed to a higher court does not alter the ruling.

[Princess Luna]

Why isn't this troll^ banned yet?
how is he a troll?? :confused:

[NGNM85]

It's a positive development that the forced transfer of wealth to blood-sucking, rip-off health insurance monopolies has been ruled illegal. If this keeps up maybe we can maintain the bill's few good provisions and work on setting up a not-for-profit system.

It hasn't, and, most likely, it never will be. Even if the Supreme Court takes the case, this is based on a very shaky legal argument. He's not only challenging part of the healthcare bill, he's arguing that the stated provision is an intrinsic, inseperable componant of the bill, and thus, the whole thing must go. This is bogus because it goes against standard operating policies, and, even the ultraconservative jackass Justice John Roberts has argued against doing just this sort of thing. What is interesting is that his argument is actually imported from a brief filed by the ultra-right, ultra-homophobic Family Research Council, which is listed, by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as a hate group. Details and background from ThinkProgress;
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/

[Lucretia]

how is he a troll?? :confused:
He's a liberal who hangs out on revolutionary left forums for the purpose of starting arguments by making blatantly false statements.

[thesadmafioso]

Really? And what does the ruling stipulate regarding the legality of the law? If I'm not mistaken, the ruling was the law was unconstitutional and therefore against the supreme law of the land. The fact that this ruling, like the others you mentioned, will be appealed to a higher court does not alter the ruling.

Yes, but that fact that the ruling says that does not make it so. The bill has been defended in court on just as many occasions and it is still being implemented, one ruling does not invalidate its legality.

Once more, I would strongly suggest reading up a bit more on the US legal system.

[Lucretia]

It hasn't, and, most likely, it never will be. Even if the Supreme Court takes the case, this is based on a very shaky legal argument. He's not only challenging part of the healthcare bill, he's arguing that the stated prtovision is an intrinsic, inseperable componant of the bill, and thus, the whole thing must go. This is bogus because it goes against standard operating policies, and, even the ultraconservative jackass Justice John Roberts has argued against doing just this sort of thing. What is interesting is that his argument is actually imported from a brief filed by the ultra-right, ultra-homophobic Family Research Council, which is listed, by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as a hate group. Details and background from ThinkProgress;
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/


I would rather have the whole health care bill as currently written be annulled than to have the whole bill as currently written remain law. There are good provisions to the law, but these are outweighed by the mandate, whereby people will be forced to pay for policies with deductibles and copays so high that they won't actually help people get health care.

[thesadmafioso]

Why isn't this troll^ banned yet?

How exactly does an adequate understanding of some basic aspects of the US legal system make me a troll? What is next, am I to be shot for wearing glasses? This is simply ridiculous.

[Lucretia]

Yes, but that fact that the ruling says that does not make it so.

You stated that the law was not ruled to be illegal, when in fact the law was indeed ruled to be illegal. Check any of the 5,000,000 news stories reporting on this. Nobody said the ruling will not be appealed or maybe even overturned. But the ruling as it stands now, coming from the FL court, is that the law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

[~Spectre]

Details and background from ThinkProgress;
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/


The strength of the argument won't matter. As most lawyers concede with the SC, what matters is that the argument can simply be made, which it can be. From their, Justices can pick and choose.

The Democrat's schill sites are obviously upset about this, but whether it gets struck down or not, the fact that it CAN happen is a good thing for the working class.

[thesadmafioso]

You stated that the law was not ruled to be illegal. The bill was ruled to be illegal. It's that simple. Nobody said the ruling will not be appealed or maybe even overturned. But the ruling as it stands now, coming from the FL court, is that the law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

And the law has been upheld in courts of an equal level in two other states, meaning that it certainly has not been ruled illegal in any sense beyond the Florida and Virginian court systems. One federal ruling does not make a law illegal in this sort of legal situation, and as I have noted many states are still carrying out the reforms of the law in a perfectly legal fashion. Your original remark was worded in a very blunt and broad manner, which clearly implies that you thought it to be more sweeping and effective than its legal weight would merit.

[Lucretia]

And the law has been upheld in courts of an equal level in two other states, meaning that it certainly has not been ruled illegal in any sense beyond the Florida and Virginian court systems.

Everybody here is aware that there are multiple rulings from different state courts where the law has been challenged. This thread, in case you failed to notice, is about the Florida ruling. The Florida court ruled the law to be illegal. You claimed that it wasn't ruled to be illegal in this context.

[thesadmafioso]

Everybody here is aware that there are multiple rulings from different state courts where the law has been challenged. This thread, in case you failed to notice, is about the Florida ruling. The Florida court ruled the law to be illegal. You claimed that it wasn't ruled to be illegal in this context.

I was referring to the purely symbolic nature of the ruling, as that the only value which it holds. There is simply no legal force behind such a politically motivated ruling, and it will have no larger effect outside of the American political environment.

I presume you didn't actually read this article as well.

"All told, each of the 26 states that are party to the federal lawsuit in Florida against health reform have received some level of funding to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Observers on both sides of the aisle expect implementation to move forward largely despite Monday’s ruling."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48527.html#ixzz1CldJhWkg

[Lucretia]

I was referring to the purely symbolic nature of the ruling, as that the only value which it holds. There is simply no legal force behind such a politically motivated ruling, and it will have no larger effect outside of the American political environment.

Do you just make stuff up as you go along? An eleventh circuit federal court just ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. If it was a merely symbolic gesture that would not have real consequences, then the Obama administration would not be appealing. The reason it is appealing is to prevent real consequences from taking effect.\


"All told, each of the 26 states that are party to the federal lawsuit in Florida against health reform have received some level of funding to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Observers on both sides of the aisle expect implementation to move forward largely despite Monday’s ruling."Actually, that confirms exactly what I have been saying. The ruling stipulated the law to be unconstitutional, which means that the law would be overturned if the Obama administration chose not to appeal. Because everybody knows this is going to be appealed up to the Supreme Court, the actual consequences of these judicial rulings is being postponed.

[thesadmafioso]

Do you just make stuff up as you go along? An eleventh circuit federal court just ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. If it was a merely symbolic gesture that would not have real consequences, then the Obama administration would not be appealing. The reason it is appealing is to prevent real consequences from taking effect.

Still haven't read that article, have you? Its appeal is more for political purposes, as it looks terrible when a Republican judge rules a law your administration passed to be unconstitutional on a horribly flawed argument.

[Lucretia]

Still haven't read that article, have you? Its appeal is more for political purposes, as it looks terrible when a Republican judge rules a law your administration passed to be unconstitutional on a horribly flawed argument.

I have read the article. It mentions how steps are continuing to be taken to implement the law because the law has not been overturned. It has been ruled unconstitutional in two courts, but those rulings have been appealed. The law will continue to be implemented unless these appeals are resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.

Your statement that "It's appeal is more for political purposes, as it looks terrible when a Republican judge rules a law your administration passed to be unconstitutional" cannot be found anywhere in the article you linked to, and is purely the product of your wishful, pro-Obama liberal thinking.

[NGNM85]

I would rather have the whole health care bill as currently written be annulled than to have the whole bill as currently written remain law. There are good provisions to the law, but these are outweighed by the mandate, whereby people will be forced to pay for policies with deductibles and copays so high that they won't actually help people get health care.

I think it would be a considerably better idea to expand or improve the existing legislation, than to scrap it and hope you can pass something even more expansive.


You stated that the law was not ruled to be illegal, when in fact the law was indeed ruled to be illegal. Check any of the 5,000,000 news stories reporting on this. Nobody said the ruling will not be appealed or maybe even overturned. But the ruling as it stands now, coming from the FL court, is that the law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Yes, but there are other rulings that say otherwise. So far, nothing has changed. This is just grandstanding by some Tea Party jackass.

[Lucretia]

I think it would be a considerably better idea to expand or improve the existing legislation, than to scrap it and hope you can pass something even more expansive.

What makes you think there's a realistic chance that this law can now be improved in a way that hurts the business community when (a) a more explicitly pro-business congress has recently been elected, and (b) the efforts at making the law less pro-business will come up against health care companies which, thanks to the mandate, will have even more money to bribe politicians into not pursuing progressive reforms? Let's face. The time to do battle to make this bill better was before it was passed, but too many Obamabots were shilling for it in the name of "getting something passed" so that Obama would look like an effective leader, instead of asking themselves whether the bill did more harm than good.


Yes, but there are other rulings that say otherwise. So far, nothing has changed. This is just grandstanding by some Tea Party jackass. Right and wrong. Nothing has changed at this point because the anti-Obamacare rulings are being appealed. If and when these rulings are appealed to the highest court, and found to be unconstitutional, they will have the force of law. This is far from some bumpkin standing on a turnip crate screaming about big government.

[thesadmafioso]

I have read the article. It mentions how steps are continuing to be taken to implement the law because the law has not been overturned. It has been ruled unconstitutional in two courts, but those rulings have been appealed. The law will continue to be implemented unless these appeals are resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.

Your statement that "It's appeal is more for political purposes, as it looks terrible when a Republican judge rules a law your administration passed to be unconstitutional" cannot be found anywhere in the article you linked to, and is purely the product of your wishful, pro-Obama liberal thinking.

Well, a law is overturned if it is ruled as unconstitutional, that is one of the two routes which can be taken to overturn a federal law. You originally stated that the Health Care law was ruled as illegal, when that was not the case. This issue had already been ruled on by other judges of the same level, which essentially means that their is no solid legal precedent on the matter and that nothing was ruled as illegal in any meaningful way. Your original post seemed to imply that the effects of this case were far beyond its actual impact on the legality of the law, when such is not true.

Yes, I don't engage in plagiarism. Your point? Of course a source like politico isn't going to say something that inflammatory on the matter of a legal ruling like this, I was using the source to prove the ineffectualness of this ruling.

[Lucretia]

Well, a law is overturned if it is ruled as unconstitutional, that is one of the two routes which can be taken to overturn a federal law.

A law is not overturned until a ruling takes effect. No anti-Obamacare ruling has taken effect so far because they have all been appealed. For the obvious reason that they are not symbolic rulings, but actual legal rulings by federal courts which, if not appealed, would have the full force of law.


You originally stated that the Health Care law was ruled as illegal, when that was not the case.The health care law has been ruled to be illegal twice, just as it has been upheld in two separate cases.


This issue had already been ruled on by other judges of the same level, which essentially means that their is no solid legal precedent on the matter and that nothing was ruled as illegal in any meaningful way. Your original post seemed to imply that the effects of this case were far beyond its actual impact on the legality of the law, when such is not true.My original post did not imply anything besides the fact that this ruling makes it possible for a higher court to review the case and possibly agree with the lower court's ruling that the mandate is indeed unconstitutional (and therefore that part of the bill, illegal). If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, the mandate will be struck down and instantly be struck from the federal code of laws. It doesn't matter how many circuit courts rule the law to be constitutional. As long as at least one court rules it, or parts of it, to be unconstitutional, legal challenges against it can proceed. These legal challenges still have the potential to have the full force of law if they are upheld by higher courts, regardless of what the numerous other lower courts ruled. That's the whole point behind the legal strategy of filing law suits in numerous jurisdictions.


Yes, I don't engage in plagiarism. Your point? Of course a source like politico isn't going to say something that inflammatory on the matter of a legal ruling like this, I was using the source to prove the ineffectualness of this ruling.My point is that you faulted me for not reading an article because I didn't arrive at a conclusion which is in no way implied or stated in the article. Quite illogical.

[~Spectre]

I think it would be a considerably better idea to expand or improve the existing legislation, than to scrap it and hope you can pass something even more expansive.




:rolleyes:

[thesadmafioso]

A law is not overturned until a ruling takes effect. No anti-Obamacare ruling has taken effect so far because they have all been appealed. For the obvious reason that they are not symbolic rulings, but actual legal rulings by federal courts.



The health care law has been ruled to be illegal twice, just as it has been upheld in two separate cases.



My original post did not imply anything besides the fact that this ruling makes it possible for a higher court to review the case and possibly agree with the lower court's ruling that the mandate is indeed unconstitutional (and therefore that part of the bill, illegal). If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, the mandate will be struck down and instantly be struck from the federal code of laws.

Yes, I don't engage in plagiarism. Your point? Of course a source like politico isn't going to say something that inflammatory on the matter of a legal ruling like this, I was using the source to prove the ineffectualness of this ruling.[/QUOTE]

I suppose I should elaborate on my last post, you said that the bill was illegal in the context of Florida. As I have proven, it is still being put into effect and it has had rulings put forth in its defense, meaning that it is perfectly legal. The fact that one ruling here has proposed the law to be unconstitutional on an incredibly extreme interpretation of the constitution means absolutely nothing and to say that it does is to simply ignore the reality of the matter. An argument was presented by a Reagan appointee that it is unconstitutional to force people into being given affordable health care, how is that in any way something which any leftist it their right mind would be willing to support?

As for your skewered interpretation of your own words, let's take a moment to review the content of them.

"It's a positive development that the forced transfer of wealth to blood-sucking, rip-off health insurance monopolies has been ruled illegal. If this keeps up maybe we can maintain the bill's few good provisions and work on setting up a not-for-profit system."

You essentially treat the case as if it were some groundbreaking ruling that defeated the entire law. It seems to be necessary that you be reminded that ruling something to be unconstitutional and a federal law being made illegal are two entirely different concepts. Declaring something to be unconstitutional does not automatically make it illegal, like you seem to of believed in your original statement.

[Lucretia]

I suppose I should elaborate on my last post, you said that the bill was illegal in the context of Florida. As I have proven, it is still being put into effect and it has had rulings put forth in its defense, meaning that it is perfectly legal.You are failing to make a basic logical distinction. The court ruled the law was illegal. Because the ruling was appealed, it cannot take effect until the ruling is upheld in a higher court. That is why the law is continuing to be implemented. Nobody here is arguing that any of these court rulings has been resolved such that their legal ramifications have taken effect.


The fact that one ruling has proposed the law to be unconstitutional on an incredibly extreme interpretation of the constitution means absolutely nothingIt does mean something. It means that, whatever your personal view of the ruling is, a federal court has found a key provision to the Obamacare law to be unconstitutional.


and to say that it does is to simply ignore the reality of the matter.And what reality is this? That courts have no power?


An argument was presented by a Reagan appointee that it is unconstitutional to force people into being given affordable health care, how is that in any way something which any leftist it their right mind would be willing to support?How can any leftist support forcing people to pay money to monopolistic health insurance companies for insurance policies with such high deductibles and copays that they will not allow people access actual health care? Like so many Obamabots during the debate over this law, you seem to mistake health insurance coverage with actual access to health care.


You essentially treat the case as if it were some groundbreaking ruling that defeated the entire law. It seems to be necessary that you be reminded that ruling something to be unconstitutional and a federal law being declared illegal are two entirely different concepts. Declaring something to be unconstitutional does not automatically make it illegal, like you seem to of believed in your original statement.Right. A ruling does not automatically take effect because it can appealed, which is what the Obama administration has done. The fact that these rulings leave open the possibility that a higher court, and ultimately the highest court, might strike down the mandate makes me extremely happy. You seem to have this bizarre idea that federal court rulings have no force of law. If they didn't, Obama wouldn't be appealing.

[NGNM85]

What makes you think there's a realistic chance that this law can now be improved in a way that hurts the business community when (a) a more explicitly pro-business congress has recently been elected, ..

It is unfortunate that the Republicans took the House, the House was working, and, in fact, passed a more expansive version of the bill. The Senate is the clusterfuck, although, the Republicans might take the Senate back, too, and really fuck things up.
However, I have to ask, do you even vote?


and (b) the efforts at making the law less pro-business will come up against health care companies which, thanks to the mandate, will have even more money to bribe politicians into not pursuing progressive reforms? Let's face. The time to do battle to make this bill better was before it was passed, but too many Obamabots were shilling for it in the name of "getting something passed" so that Obama would look like an effective leader, instead of asking themselves whether the bill did more harm than good.

That’s saying that it , indeed, does do more harm than good, which I don’t find convincing. I think this is a marginal improvement, but it doesn’t make things worse. People can no longer be randomly stripped of the healthcare coverage or denied the ability to get coverage, under the aegis of a ‘preexisting condition.’ The bill also ends lifetime coverage limits, allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans longer, they closed the Medicare ‘donut hole’, an expansion of Medicaid criteria to cover more people, etc., there are some good things in this bill. In the scheme of things it’s a very moderate improvement.

The argument about health insurance companies having more money is bogus, they have enough money to throw into politics that there’s virtually nothing that can be bought that they can’t already buy.

I also reiterate my original point that it would be easier to expand or modify existing legislation than to have to begin from scratch with an even more expansive bill.


Right and wrong. Nothing has changed at this point because the anti-Obamacare rulings are being appealed. If and when these rulings are appealed to the highest court, and found to be unconstitutional, they will have the force of law. This is far from some bumpkin standing on a turnip crate screaming about big government.

He is, in fact, a Tea Party Jackass. Also, again, even if the Supreme Court decides to hear this thing, odds are it won’t succeed.

[thesadmafioso]

You are failing to make a basic logical distinction. The court ruled the law was illegal. Because the ruling was appealed, it cannot take effect until the ruling is upheld in a higher court. That is why the law is continuing to be implemented. Nobody here is arguing that any of these court rulings has been resolved such that their legal ramifications have taken effect.

It does mean something. It means that, whatever your personal view of the ruling is, a federal court has found a key provision to the Obamacare law to be unconstitutional.

And what reality is this? That courts have no power?

How can any leftist support forcing people to pay money to monopolistic health insurance companies for insurance policies with such high deductibles and copays that they will not allow people access actual health care? Like so many Obamabots during the debate over this law, you seem to mistake health insurance coverage with actual access to health care.

Right. A ruling does not automatically take effect because it can appealed, which is what the Obama administration has done. The fact that these rulings leave open the possibility that a higher court, and ultimately the highest court, might strike down the mandate makes me extremely happy. You seem to have this bizarre idea that federal court rulings have no force of law. If they didn't, Obama wouldn't be appealing.

Obamacare? Really? When did this become the Glenn Beck fan club?

But anyway I digress, at this point you are just backing up from your original remark in a pathetic attempt to try and work your comments into a state which makes them factual in at least some limited sense of the term. You and I both know that you have essentially admitted that the original language of your first comment was wrong, and that was the purpose of my response to your remarks. You have stated that it was not made illegal, and that it was only ruled as unconstitutional in a legally irrelevant case. I see no purpose to continue on with this discussion.

[Lucretia]

It is unfortunate that the Republicans took the House, the House was working, and, in fact, passed a more expansive version of the bill. The Senate is the clusterfuck, although, the Republicans might take the Senate back, too, and really fuck things up.

Because the democratic base, people who are apparently to your left, stayed home out of disgust with things like this corporate-give-away of a health care bill, among other things. Anyhow, I note you're not disputing my central contention here, which is that making "improvements" on the bill has no realistic chance of occurring. The bill must therefore be judged on its own merits, not the merits it might have if some imaginary improvements were made some time in the distant future.


That’s saying that it , indeed, does do more harm than good, which I don’t find convincing. I think this is a marginal improvement, but it doesn’t make things worse. People can no longer be randomly stripped of the healthcare coverage or denied the ability to get coverage, under the aegis of a ‘preexisting condition.’ The bill also ends lifetime coverage limits, allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans longer, they closed the Medicare ‘donut hole’, an expansion of Medicaid criteria to cover more people, etc., there are some good things in this bill. In the scheme of things it’s a very moderate improvement.

You mention a few good things in the bill then conclude that the bill therefore represents a "moderate improvement." But at no point in this analysis do you try to come to terms with the significance of the government forcing Americans to become the customers of wasteful, for-profit health care corporations.


The argument about health insurance companies having more money is bogus, they have enough money to throw into politics that there’s virtually nothing that can be bought that they can’t already buy.Your second point does not follow from the first. While it might be true that the health insurance companies are very, very powerful to the point of basically getting what they want (like the Obamacare bill), this does not mean that they cannot grow still more powerful by accruing even more financial leverage. They can, and the mandate makes this a reality by forcing people to buy products for which very little health care will be rendered in return. What this means is that attempts to roll back this measure through legislative channels will be even more difficult than attempts to stop it, because the health insurance companies will have that much more money to throw at congresspeople.


I also reiterate my original point that it would be easier to expand or modify existing legislation than to have to begin from scratch with an even more expansive bill.It will be easier to start from scratch than to try to amend this one because, if this bill ever does take full effect, efforts at checking the insurance companies will be even more difficult thanks to the millions of new mandated customer premiums those companies will have at their disposal. The companies are less powerful right now than they will be once this bill takes effect, even if they are still powerful enough to get virtually everything they want.

[Lucretia]

Obamacare? Really? When did this become the Glenn Beck fan club?

But anyway I digress, at this point you are just backing up from your original remark in a pathetic attempt to try and work your comments into a state which makes them factual in at least some limited sense of the term. You and I both know that you have essentially admitted that the original language of your first comment was wrong, and that was the purpose of my response to your remarks. You have stated that it was not made illegal, and that it was only ruled as unconstitutional in a legally irrelevant case. I see no purpose to continue on with this discussion.

My original comment was that the law was ruled to be illegal because it contradicts the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land. My original comment was correct. All you've managed to do is to chime in that the effects of the ruling have been postponed pending an appeal. But this doesn't alter the veracity of my original statement.

[thesadmafioso]

Because the democratic base, people who are apparently to your left, stayed home out of disgust with things like this corporate-give-away of a health care bill, among other things. Anyhow, I note you're not disputing my central contention here, which is that making "improvements" on the bill has no realistic chance of occurring. The bill must therefore be judged on its own merits, not the merits it might have if some imaginary improvements were made some time in the distant future.
[/FONT][/COLOR]


You mention a few good things in the bill then conclude that the bill therefore represents a "moderate improvement." But at no point in this analysis do you try to come to terms with the significance of the government forcing Americans to become the customers of wasteful, for-profit health care corporations.
[/FONT][/COLOR]


Your second point does not follow from the first. While it might be true that the health insurance companies are very, very powerful to the point of basically getting what they want (like the Obamacare bill), this does not mean that they cannot grow still more powerful by accruing even more financial leverage. They can, and the mandate makes this a reality by forcing people to buy products for which very little health care will be rendered in return. What this means is that attempts to roll back this measure through legislative channels will be even more difficult than attempts to stop it, because the health insurance companies will be that much more money to throw at congresspeople.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

It will be easier to start from scratch than to try to amend this one because, if this bill ever does take full effect, efforts at checking the insurance companies will be even more difficult thanks to the millions of new mandated customer premiums those companies will have at their disposal. The companies are less powerful right now, even if they are still powerful enough to get virtually everything they want.

It isn't a bill, it is federal law. A bill is legislation which has yet to be passed into law. This is really just grade school government at this point. Why are we even debating the finer aspects of health care policy with you? It would seem that you have a base of knowledge which is comparable to a grade schooler in regards to matters of US government, and I mean that in a very literal manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

Maybe that will help, presuming it isn't too advanced or anything along those lines.

[thesadmafioso]

My original comment was that the law was ruled to be illegal because it contradicts the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land. My original comment was correct. All you've managed to do is to chime in that the effects of the ruling have been postponed pending an appeal. But this doesn't alter the veracity of my original statement.

Yes, but the case did not have any legal impact, meaning that it is purely symbolic for the time being.

This is what I imagine it is like to debate matters of government with a grade schooler.

[KurtFF8]

I don't understand this tribal kind of reasoning at all. If it's a positive development, who cares whether The Bad People are doing it?

How is it a "positive development"? The state of the health care (well health insurance) system in the United States before the law was pretty awful as well as after this "reform."

Moves like this are simply an effort to return to (or maintain before the law mandates major changes to) the status quo of HC in the US. It's certainly not going to push the conversation or legislation towards a universal system, and if you think that Right wing movements in the US striking down this law will somehow push it that way, you must be confused about American politics.


Yes, which is why it's good that the part mandating people give their money to insurance monopolies is a positive development.

I agree that the mandate to force folks into buying insurance is one of the most absurd parts of the legislation. But let's not forget that the Left opposition to the legislation has been pretty much silent or politically unable to move forward since the original debate took place.


I wasn't praising the "framework" of the debate, which can only be changed by people not bending over for the Democratic party in the name of "not letting the perfect be the evil of the good" or stopping The Bad People from accomplishing anything, even when their agenda partially aligns with our own.

Of course just joining with the Democrats is a bad idea, but you know what's a worse idea? Siding with the GOP in their attack on legislation like this.

I'm not saying we should support this legislation, but we should oppose efforts from the Right when they attack it. It's a middle class movement serving the interests of Health Insurance capital to maintain the system they have in place. Praising this ruling doesn't make much sense for the Left to me. It's equally "picking sides in the battle between the GOP and the Dems" as siding with the Dems in support of the legislation would be.

[Lucretia]

It isn't a bill, it is federal law. A bill is legislation which has yet to be passed into law. This is really just grade school government at this point. Why are we even debating the finer aspects of health care policy with you? It would seem that you have a base of knowledge which is comparable to a grade schooler in regards to matters of US government, and I mean that in a very literal manner.

You're right that the Obamacare bill is now law, which is why the judiciary now has a say in whether that law is Constitutional. Fortunately for us leftists, a federal court has ruled that a central provision of the law is unconstitutional. :)

[KurtFF8]

You're right that the Obamacare bill is now law, which is why the judiciary now has a say in whether that law is Constitutional. Fortunately for us leftists, a federal court has ruled that a central provision of the law is unconstitutional. :)

When would "us Leftists" be cheering the Republican Party's efforts and adopting their language of "Obamacare" be appropriate?

[thesadmafioso]

You're right that the Obamacare bill is now law, which is why the judiciary now has a say in whether that law is Constitutional. Fortunately for us leftists, a federal court has ruled that a central provision of the law is unconstitutional. :)

Fortunately for us leftists and any other rational American, it will almost certainly be overturned when the case inevitably reaches SCOTUS and none of this will even matter. Though I know you have issues with the basics of American politics and government, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to predict how the supreme will go in a situation like this. I mean, you're still working on that whole bill to law bit, lets not get ahead of ourselves and start dealing with the scary and confusing court system quite yet.

Again with the Obamacare too, I can't help but mix your talking points up with those of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang over at FOX.

[Lucretia]

How is it a "positive development"?

Overturning a law that will force people to donate money to health insurance companies is a positive thing. Do you disagree?


Moves like this are simply an effort to return to (or maintain before the law mandates major changes to) the status quo of HC in the US.The status quo was better than the system provided for by the Obamacare law. That is why I opposed this bill. Hell, even many progressive democrats in congress opposed the bill. A few them, like Dennis Kucinich, voted for the bill anyway not because they thought the bill was a positive development, but because they did not want to inflict a "political defeat" on Obama. It's good to know that on the merits of the law, you are - a "revolutionary leftist" - are to the right of some congressional democrats.


It's certainly not going to push the conversation or legislation towards a universal system,Having the mandate struck down by a court does not make a single-payer, not-for-profit system more likely. But then neither does maintaining the mandate, which locks into place a quasi-univeral for profit system in which there's an incentive to deny people care for the sake of increasing profit.


and if you think that Right wing movements in the US striking down this law will somehow push it that way, you must be confused about American politics.Excuse me? "Right wing movements" aren't striking anything down. We're talking about a ruling, not a "conversation." Nobody's mind about the desirability of single-payer not-for-profit health care is being changed in this country as a result of a for-profit mandate being struck down. The very idea that they might is totally absurd.


I agree that the mandate to force folks into buying insurance is one of the most absurd parts of the legislation. But let's not forget that the Left opposition to the legislation has been pretty much silent or politically unable to move forward since the original debate took place.You're right. The left has been silent. People aren't using this ruling as a way to emphasize the need to move to a universal not-for-profit system.

But according to you, why even bother trying to make that case? The ruling is obviously just a victory for right-wingers, right?


Of course just joining with the Democrats is a bad idea, but you know what's a worse idea? Siding with the GOP in their attack on legislation like this.Here you go again with more tribalistic thinking. So now we can't support the potential invalidation of what you call "the most absurd portion of the health care bill" because to do so means we would have to "side with Republicans"? Nobody here is arguing that we should vote for Republicans because we want them to repeal Obamacare. We're talking about the merit of a particular judicial decision, and the consequences that decision might have.


I'm not saying we should support this legislation, but we should oppose efforts from the Right when they attack it.I think the mandate is a terrible law. I will support any campaign to repeal the mandate, even if that means I have to (*shudder*) stand alongside people of another tribe. You're in fact making the same kind of calculation that people like Kucinich made when they acknowledged that the bill does more harm than good, but then said in the next breath that they were going to vote for it anyway. The calculation is: the merit of the bill, or the policy, is unimportant compared to whether I am on the right "side" by opposing those evil Republicans.

[Lucretia]

When would "us Leftists" be cheering the Republican Party's efforts and adopting their language of "Obamacare" be appropriate?

Because we leftists are thoughtful enough to know that a deed is not automatically undesirable on the basis of who is performing the deed, right? Or are we overestimating ourselves?

[PhoenixAsh]

S6Sjp7wmIWo


are they serious????

[KurtFF8]

Overturning a law that will force people to donate money to health insurance companies is a positive thing. Do you disagree?
Of course I disagree. This simply returns it to the status quo, which by the standards of the rest of the West was pretty awful.

The status quo was better than the system provided for by the Obamacare law. That is why I opposed this bill. Hell, even many progressive democrats in congress opposed the bill. A few them, like Dennis Kucinich, voted for the bill anyway not because they thought the bill was a positive development, but because they did not want to inflict a "political defeat" on Obama. It's good to know that on the merits of the law, you are - a "revolutionary leftist" - are to the right of some congressional democrats. How was it "better"? Do you not remember the statistic of how many thousands of folks died a year just from lack of insurance? The bill had more in it than the provision that we're talking about here if you'll remember: eliminating pre-existing conditions, allowing folks to remain on their parents insurance up to age 26, etc. I'm not saying that this reform is anywhere near as good as Single-Payer would have been, but to say that a return to the status quo and join with the GOP's attacks (and even use their language of "Obamacare") is just absurd from a Leftist standpoint.
Having the mandate struck down by a court does not make a single-payer, not-for-profit system more likely. But then neither does maintaining the mandate, which locks into place a quasi-univeral for profit system in which there's an incentive to deny people care for the sake of increasing profit. Then why support the Right-wing's attack on it if you even admit that it isn't going to help get towards a Single-Payer system?
Excuse me? "Right wing movements" aren't striking anything down. We're talking about a ruling, not a "conversation." Nobody's mind about the desirability of single-payer not-for-profit health care is being changed in this country as a result of a for-profit mandate being struck down. The very idea that they might is totally absurd. What do you mean right wing movements aren't striking it down? Opposition to the health care reform law is what started the Tea Party. It was their original Raison d'être.
You're right. The left has been silent. People aren't using this ruling as a way to emphasize the need to move to a universal not-for-profit system. It hasn't been silent, it's just weak in the United States.
But according to you, why even bother trying to make that case? The ruling is obviously just a victory for right-wingers, right? If you don't see the ruling as a victory for the Right, then you simply need to learn more about American politics.

Here you go again with more tribalistic thinking. So now we can't support the potential invalidation of what you call "the most absurd portion of the health care bill" because to do so means we would have to "side with Republicans"? Nobody here is arguing that we should vote for Republicans because we want them to repeal Obamacare. We're talking about the merit of a particular judicial decision, and the consequences that decision might have. What do you mean here by "tribalistic thinking" exactly? What you're not seeing is that you are siding with the Republicans in their main effort over the last few years. You're even using the term "Obamacare" which is exclusively a Republican catch-phrase about this very issue!

I think the mandate is a terrible law. I will support any campaign to repeal the mandate, even if that means I have to (*shudder*) stand alongside people of another tribe. You're in fact making the same kind of calculation that people like Kucinich made when they acknowledged that the bill does more harm than good, but then said in the next breath that they were going to vote for it anyway. The calculation is: the merit of the bill, or the policy, is unimportant compared to whether I am on the right "side" by opposing those evil Republicans.
Right, it's not an excellent law and isn't something the Left touts, that's why there wasn't much support amongst even the Left-liberal base of the Democrats at the time of the debate. It seems that you're just simply willing to side with the GOP on it's attack on the bill in favor of insurance companies. Let's not forget that the entire opposition to it (as expressed clearest in the Tea Party Movement) was actually started by the Health Insurance industry
Because we leftists are thoughtful enough to know that a deed is not automatically undesirable on the basis of who is performing the deed, right? Or are we overestimating ourselves? We're also supposed to be thoughtful enough to try to investigate why something like the GOP's efforts to stop what you call "Obamacare" are happening. This seems to be something you're unwilling to do here.

[Amphictyonis]

I for one am happy the mandate to buy private insurance is being attacked. Rahm Emanuel, Bruce reed and the rest of the right wing Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) have been in bed with the insurance companies from day one. What I don't understand is why republicans are attacking this bill- (all I can think of is it's for show and in the end no matter what it will be law). I think that because the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations will make out like bandits if this ObamaCare actually happens. We all know Republicans are in their corner (as are democrats). Is the entire representative political process in America just a show? I'm beginning to think so. Th illusion of democarcy. Too many "liberals" and "conservatives" keep falling for it. A fucking carnival side show.

[thesadmafioso]

Has anyone actually provided an explanation for the rightist rhetoric being used in this topic yet? Something about 'leftists' thoughtlessly throwing about the corporate financed talking points of the Republican Party strikes me as somewhat odd.

[Amphictyonis]

Fortunately for us leftists and any other rational American, it will almost certainly be overturned when the case inevitably reaches SCOTUS and none of this will even matter. Though I know you have issues with the basics of American politics and government, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to predict how the supreme will go in a situation like this. I mean, you're still working on that whole bill to law bit, lets not get ahead of ourselves and start dealing with the scary and confusing court system quite yet.

Again with the Obamacare too, I can't help but mix your talking points up with those of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang over at FOX.

If I were a mod I'd restrict you :) Luckily I don't wield a hammer. You're not a socialist. Sorry. Probably a well meaning person but a revolutionary socialist you are not.

[Amphictyonis]

Has anyone actually provided an explanation for the rightist rhetoric being used in this topic yet? Something about 'leftists' thoughtlessly throwing about the corporate financed talking points of the Republican Party strikes me as somewhat odd.

I'm not throwing any right wing talking points. The mandate is a mandate to BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE. I can't afford rent right now. Workers jobs, hours, wages and MEDICAL BENEFITS are being cut and now we'll have another bill we can't afford. They're cutting HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in Medicare/Medicaid. You're a middle class liberal. Obvious. What this bill amounts to is a step towards total privatization of healthcare. The exact opposite direction we want to go.

[thesadmafioso]

I'm not throwing any right wing talking points. The mandate is a mandate to BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE. I can't afford rent right now. Workers jobs, hours, wages and MEDICAL BENEFITS are being cut and now we'll have another bill we can't afford. They're cutting HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in Medicare/Medicaid. You're a middle class liberal. Obvious. What this bill amounts to is a step towards total privatization of healthcare. The exact opposite direction we want to go.

You to? I already went over this earlier on in the topic too. A bill is a piece of legislation which has not been passed into law. The health care law has been passed into federal law, meaning that it is no longer a bill. Some of its provisions have even been put into effect already, how out of the loop on this are you? I don't know if it is even worth getting into the provisions which allow for affordable outlets to purchase health or how the fee for not signing up for health care is quite minimal, as you seem to be having issues with some more basic aspects of this issue.

As for the bill v law bit, perhaps this might help?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[Amphictyonis]

I was referring to the purely symbolic nature of the ruling, as that the only value which it holds. There is simply no legal force behind such a politically motivated ruling, and it will have no larger effect outside of the American political environment.



Bingo! It's all for show. Now get your head out of your ass. Republicans actually love this bill because the people who finance their campaigns love this bill. You criticizing people for being ignorant as to how our political system works is laughable.

[Amphictyonis]

You to? I already went over this earlier on in the topic too. A bill is a piece of legislation which has not been passed into law. The health care law has been passed into federal law, meaning that it is no longer a bill. Some of its provisions have even been put into effect already, how out of the loop on this are you? I don't know if it is even worth getting into the provisions which allow for affordable outlets to purchase health or how the fee for not signing up for health care is quite minimal, as you seem to be having issues with some more basic aspects of this issue.

As for the bill v law bit, perhaps this might help?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

When I posted "perhaps it's all for show" I was making the statement to to spark critical thinking (obviously not something you're capable of). I've known from day one Republican opposition to this bill was for show. I've known since I read Rahm Emanuel's book "The Plan; Big Ideas For America" (2004) this was a conservatives wet dream. You're out of your league trying to patronize me kid. I'm also aware how the legislative, executive and judicial branch of government works (or is said to work). You're not aware of how it actually works.

[thesadmafioso]

Bingo! It's all for show. Now get your head out of your ass. Republicans actually love this bill because the people who finance their campaigns love this bill. You criticizing people for being ignorant as to how our political system works is laughable.

Yeah, that explains why they fought against it in every conceivable way for months. That explains why they destroyed it during the Clinton administration too.

Your criticism of my criticism still doesn't get us past the point of your apparent issue in understanding grade school government.

[Amphictyonis]

Yeah, that explains why they fought against it in every conceivable way for months. That explains why they destroyed it during the Clinton administration too.

Your criticism of my criticism still doesn't get us past the point of your apparent issue in understanding grade school government.

You fucking idiot:

http://www.wbur.org/npr/123670612/republicans-spurn-once-favored-health-mandate

[thesadmafioso]

You fucking idiot:

http://www.wbur.org/npr/123670612/republicans-spurn-once-favored-health-mandate

Yes, I am aware of that idea once being a Republican proposal. Some concessions were obviously going to be necessary for it to actually be passed into law. And that still shows complete disregard over the fact that they were quick to abandon it when talk of it actually being put into practice, as for the differences between the original Republican proposal and the final law.

But since you seem to think that your poorly formulated responses put you in a position to levy such insult against me, can I call you a fucking idiot for getting a bill confused with a law? Of course I can. You are a fucking idiot. This is productive, isn't it?

[PhoenixAsh]

I have followed the debate with some interest. I have not participated because I know very little about the situation and am really not sufficiently familiar with the relevant texts ans laws.

What I do know that in Holland we used to have a dual system. You were all insured through your employer of through your social benefits. There was also an option to buy private insurance...which did offer some added benefits but was above your social mandatory insurance which was automatic through your pay check.

Now we have a privatised system. There is no government insurance anymore....we all have to buy insurance from private companies. Our paychecks did get a bit higher and that was meant to absolve the financial pain of having to pay for your insurance.

The price of the insurance however has gone up and up and up...and cover less and less and less. What is more these private insurance companies get to tell you where you can have treatment and where you can't. Which medicines you need to take for which illness and are now also owners of the hospitals and medical institutions.

I am pretty sure this in the future will evolve into them having you pay more based on your life style.,...if that isn't the case already.

Be very, very aware of such systems.

[Amphictyonis]

Yes, I am aware of that idea once being a Republican proposal. Some concessions were obviously going to be necessary for it to actually be passed into law. And that still shows complete disregard over the fact that they were quick to abandon it when talk of it actually being put into practice, as for the differences between the original Republican proposal and the final law.

But since you seem to think that your poorly formulated responses put you in a position to levy such insult against me, can I call you a fucking idiot for getting a bill confused with a law? Of course I can. You are a fucking idiot. This is productive, isn't it?

Yes the republicans 'killed' the mandate (1990's) they actually supported? Some one is confused. Why do you think actual socialists oppose the new health care law? Why did we oppose it when it was being pushed by Democrats? Why do actual socialists oppose it now? Just because some Republican stooges are publicly posturing doesn't make the law acceptable. You're way too caught up in the Democrat/Republican game. Yes I insulted you for not knowing how the system actually works.

Look here, Obama criticizing McCain (2007) saying his health care plan would cut billions from medicare/medicaid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7493871

Look here, Obama's plan to privatize health care cuts billions from medicare/medicaid:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/13/news/economy/Obama_health_Care.reut/index.htm

This is the privatization of healthcare right smack dab in the middle of a recession. It's just part of the attack on the working class- cuts in education, cuts in social programs, cuts in wages, job lay offs etc and people like you are celebrating it? Why? At the end of the day this is simply a transfer of wealth from working people to capitalists. I'll say it again you're no type of socialist I want to rub elbows with. My point is quite simple now matter how you choose to dance around it with 'pragmatism'.

[thesadmafioso]

Yes the republicans 'killed' the mandate 91990's) they actually supported? Some one is confused. Why do you think actual socialists oppose the new health care law? Why did we oppose it when it was being pushed by Democrats? Why do actual socialists oppose it now? Just because some Republican stooges are publicly posturing doesn't make the law acceptable. You're way too caught up in the Democrat/Republican game. Yes I insulted you for not knowing how the system actually works.

Look here, Obama criticizing McCain (2007) saying his health care plan would cut billions from medicare/medicaid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7493871

Look here, Obama's plan to privatize health care cuts billions from medicare/medicaid:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/13/news/economy/Obama_health_Care.reut/index.htm

This is the privatization of healthcare right smack dab in the middle of a recession. It's just part of the attack on the working class- cuts in education, cuts in social programs, cuts in wages, job lay offs etc and people like you are celebrating it? Why? At the end of the day this is simply a transfer of wealth from working people to capitalists. I'll say it again you're no type of socialist I want to rub elbows with. My point is quite simple now matter how you choose to dance around it with 'pragmatism'.

Oh the irony of being accused of political ignorance by someone who is incapable of differentiating a bill from a law and who willingly laps up the line of the Republican Party on this issue.

We are really just getting back to the argument of political reality versus ideological purity though. Yes, the modern political environment's of the west often change and demand the occasional concession in order to actually get anything done. Change under the conditions of capitalistic democracy are naturally going to come at a rather slow pace and in increments, it is simply the nature of the system. The issue here is that you seem to be ignoring the solidification of this system though, and your idealistic desire to stay above its fray is nice in theory, but the reality here is not as clean cut.

[apawllo]

Oh the irony of being accused of political ignorance by someone who is incapable of differentiating a bill from a law and who willingly laps up the line of the Republican Party on this issue.

We are really just getting back to the argument of political reality versus ideological purity though. Yes, the modern political environment's of the west often change and demand the occasional concession in order to actually get anything done. Change under the conditions of capitalistic democracy are naturally going to come at a rather slow pace and in increments, it is simply the nature of the system. The issue here is that you seem to be ignoring the solidification of this system though, and your idealistic desire to stay above its fray is nice in theory, but the reality here is not as clean cut.

did you make the same argument of progress for all citizens when the surpreme court ruled in favor of corporate personhood and unlimited corporate election spending?

[Amphictyonis]

Oh the irony of being accused of political ignorance by someone who is incapable of differentiating a bill from a law and who willingly laps up the line of the Republican Party on this issue.
I don't know the difference between a law and bill. Ya sure. Anything else in your grab bag of "I AM BRAINWASHED BY IDENTITY POLITICS"?



We are really just getting back to the argument of political reality versus ideological purity though. Yes, the modern political environment's of the west often change and demand the occasional concession in order to actually get anything done. Change under the conditions of capitalistic democracy are naturally going to come at a rather slow pace and in increments, it is simply the nature of the system. The issue here is that you seem to be ignoring the solidification of this system though, and your idealistic desire to stay above its fray is nice in theory, but the reality here is not as clean cut.

You know what the definition of sycophant is? It's not the politicians or democrat party that make any difference it's the actual people when we demand things. NO ONE DEMANDED THIS TOTAL PRIVATIZATION OF HEALTH CARE. Will all caps work on your inability to see reality?

You said:




Change under the conditions of capitalistic democracy are naturally going to come at a rather slow pace and in increments, it is simply the nature of the system.

Explain to me how cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare/Medicaid while forcing everyone to buy private insurance is "CHANGE" we want? Fuck. In the middle of the worst recession in our lifetime at that. You even use his catch phrases- change. A sycophant you are and the fact you even used the term democracy to describe our current system highlights the need for you to educate yourself. And yes I understand you're a reformist who doesn't understand capitalism.

[KurtFF8]

This thread makes my head hurt. The idea that anyone on the "Left" would support the GOP's efforts in fighting "Obamacare" is quite beyond me. Such a position comes from that bizarre political makeup. It reminds me of when, in working with organizations within my town, libertarians try to come work with Leftists on issues claiming that "We all want the same thing!" while going of against socialism (for them of course they actually just mean Welfare Capitalism).

[Amphictyonis]

This thread makes my head hurt. The idea that anyone on the "Left" would support the GOP's efforts in fighting "Obamacare" is quite beyond me. .

I don't support the GOP's efforts to do anything. I said it's all show and pointed out how they actually proposed/supported the idea of a mandate to buy private insurance when Clinton was in office. What I don't understand is how any self described socialist can support what is essentially the foundations of the total privatization of healthcare. I understand it and it comes from a naive support of the Dem/Rep game and being a "leftist" you take the side of democrats. This is a HUGE problem we have. Socialism's Achilles’ heel.

[DaringMehring]

I don't support the GOP's efforts to do anything. I said it's all show and pointed out how they actually proposed/supported the idea of a mandate to buy private insurance when Clinton was in office. What I don't understand is how any self described socialist can support what is essentially the foundations of the total privatization of healthcare. I understand it and it comes from a naive support of the Dem/Rep game and being a "leftist" you take the side of democrats. This is a HUGE problem we have. Socialism's Achilles’ heel.

You're playing along with the bourgeois game too.

[Amphictyonis]

You're playing along with the bourgeois game too.

Ya totally. I support massive cuts to public healthcare while forcing everyone to buy private insurance in the middle of the worst economic crisis in our lifetime- In the middle of some of the worse 'austerity measures' or structural adjustments being facilitated in our lifetime. Ya sure.


People who apologize for Democrats simply can't see the new health care law is part of the ongoing austerity program to shift wealth from workers to capitalists. Next you people will be celebrating Obama's attempts to privatize education and attack/blame teachers for failing students.

http://www.suite101.com/content/education-reform-under-obama-is-bushs-nclb-recycled-a269159

[Amphictyonis]

Hell we may as well go as far as to condone the wars in the middle east since we're 'liberating' Afghan women and it would be 'irresponsible' to just pull out now anyways. While we're at it why don't we hold our noses and support Democrats as they capitulate every last single campaign promise in the name of "pragmatism" or "compromise". What the fuck are you people doing on a revolutionary socialist forum?

[apawllo]

You're playing along with the bourgeois game too.

i think most can agree that some form of health care reform was better than none, but the fact that some of us are rolling over and accepting this as a win for socialists and workers when the people voted in a hugely democratic congress in 08 and president that vocally supported a public option, then took that off the table before discussion began is a pretty good look at the left in the u.s.

[Amphictyonis]

Liberal said:

But supporting democrats at the state and local level makes a difference too more so than supporting democrats for the executive branchhttp://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=2449

http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=16872



http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/01/gov-browns-budget-promises-major-cutbacks

[KurtFF8]

I don't support the GOP's efforts to do anything. I said it's all show and pointed out how they actually proposed/supported the idea of a mandate to buy private insurance when Clinton was in office. What I don't understand is how any self described socialist can support what is essentially the foundations of the total privatization of healthcare. I understand it and it comes from a naive support of the Dem/Rep game and being a "leftist" you take the side of democrats. This is a HUGE problem we have. Socialism's Achilles’ heel.

What Leftist is supporting the bill here? There's a difference between refusing to join the GOPs efforts in attacking it and developing a critique from the Left. The ruling that the OP is talking about is the former of those two. And yes, if we are to look at the debate going on in bourgeois politics and one side wants to push privatized care even further, we should oppose it. That doesn't mean uncritical support for the law, it is obvious quite far from what the Left wants. But just because it's far from what the Left wants doesn't mean that the Republican's critique of it is correct. Just like how the Libertarian wing of Right wing politics is also opposed to the current wars, but for radically different reasons: we are not their allies in that struggle.

[Amphictyonis]

What Leftist is supporting the bill here? There's a difference between refusing to join the GOPs efforts in attacking it and developing a critique from the Left. The ruling that the OP is talking about is the former of those two. And yes, if we are to look at the debate going on in bourgeois politics and one side wants to push privatized care even further, we should oppose it. That doesn't mean uncritical support for the law, it is obvious quite far from what the Left wants. But just because it's far from what the Left wants doesn't mean that the Republican's critique of it is correct. Just like how the Libertarian wing of Right wing politics is also opposed to the current wars, but for radically different reasons: we are not their allies in that struggle.

Oh jesus. Privatize health care even further? It's just show kid. The law is set in stone. Even if they succeeded they're saying the mandate is illegal which would actually roll back the billions cut from Medicare/Medicaid and no one would be required to buy private insurance as the whole law would fall apart without the mandate. It doesn't get much further to the right than "ObamaCare". The law was mostly written by the health insurance and pharma corporations starting as far back as 2004 with the planning of Clinton's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Republicans were even working on the same mandate bill/legislation in the 1990's. It's a coin with heads on both sides. Why can't you people see this? This is frustrating.

[KurtFF8]

Oh jesus. Privatize health care even further? It's just show kid. The law is set in stone. Even if they succeeded they're saying the mandate is illegal which would actually roll back the billions cut from Medicare/Medicaid and no one would be required to buy private insurance as the whole law would fall apart without the mandate. It doesn't get much further to the right than "ObamaCare". The law was mostly written by the health insurance and pharma corporations starting as far back as 2004 with the planning of Clinton's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Republicans were even working on the same mandate bill/legislation in the 1990's. It's a coin with heads on both sides. Why can't you people see this? This is frustrating.

Why are you telling me this as if you're telling me something I didn't know? I'm quite well aware of the nature of this law. Why I'm confused about is why users like Lucretia are praising the GOPs efforts and even adopting their language of "Obamacare" while pretending that they're taking an appropriate Leftist line here.

Maybe you just aren't really reading the posts you're replying to? Because I didn't write anything that would hint at support for the bill. As a matter of fact, the post you quoted before you replied started with me saying "What Leftist is supporting the bill here" Yet you ignored that and went ahead with a strawman argument.

[Lucretia]

i think most can agree that some form of health care reform was better than none,

Who made this rule? Not all laws relating to health care are good laws.

[Lucretia]

Why are you telling me this as if you're telling me something I didn't know? I'm quite well aware of the nature of this law. Why I'm confused about is why users like Lucretia are praising the GOPs efforts and even adopting their language of "Obamacare" while pretending that they're taking an appropriate Leftist line here.

Maybe you just aren't really reading the posts you're replying to? Because I didn't write anything that would hint at support for the bill. As a matter of fact, the post you quoted before you replied started with me saying "What Leftist is supporting the bill here" Yet you ignored that and went ahead with a strawman argument.

I think he's telling you this bit of history to let you know your offense at people supposedly adopting the GOP's language should pale in comparison to the offense you should take at supporting a health care law that was on the GOP agenda just in the last 15 years. Guess who that person is? (Hint: It's not me.)

Since you're apparently the Grand Ayatollah of the left, explain to me why the leftist line should be supporting the individual mandate to buy private insurance? If you can't explain that, then the logical thing to do is to support efforts to challenge that mandate. It's really very simple, but you're just too caught up in this shell game of trying to position yourself in relation to what the Republicans say. Like the Republican party platform should dictate what the leftist line is. It's just more ridiculous CPUSA posturing.

[KurtFF8]

I think he's telling you this bit of history to let you know your offense at people supposedly adopting the GOP's language should pale in comparison to the offense you should take at supporting a health care law that was on the GOP agenda just in the last 15 years. Guess who that person is? (Hint: It's not me.)

Since you're apparently the Grand Ayatollah of the left, explain to me why the leftist line should be supporting the individual mandate to buy private insurance? If you can't explain that, then the logical thing to do is to support efforts to challenge that mandate. It's really very simple, but you're just too caught up in this shell game of trying to position yourself in relation to what the Republicans say. Like the Republican party platform should dictate what the leftist line is. It's just more ridiculous CPUSA posturing.

Enough with the straw man arguments here. I am not, and no one else in this thread is, supporting the health care law.

If you're going to dabble in mainstream American politics, however, and take a stance on a judicial ruling on such as this one, how are you going to criticize an opposition to the GOP position against the law when your own criticisms of the law seem to be that it was drafted by the GOP!

You do realize that the movement that lead to the ruling that the OP is about want even more power in the hands of the HI and Pharma companies, right?

It's no secret that the Democratic Party constantly moves towards the Right and that the law is not something that the revolutionary Left supports. But you sure as hell won't see me at some Tea Party rally, railing against "Obamacare" and supporting the most reactionary elements of American politics because I don't support the bill. I understand, as does most of the Left, that the entire reactionary Tea Party movement (and thus the majority of the Right-wing swing) was started in large part over opposition (from the Right) to the reform laws.

Your criticize me for "supporting" the law, and that criticism comes from your opposition to supporting a major bourgeois party. Yet your answer to doing that is to turn around and support the more reactionary of those two parties!

And on top of that, you're just using a strawman argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman). Point to one instance in this thread of me offering my support to that law please. Your argument here isn't making much sense to me.

[apawllo]

Who made this rule? Not all laws relating to health care are good laws.

i didn't suggest that this was the case, but the system was shit to begin with, and improving public health is certainly better than not doing so.

[Lucretia]

Enough with the straw man arguments here. I am not, and no one else in this thread is, supporting the health care law.

So what is your position on it? Should it remain in place or shouldn't it? Out with it, man.


If you're going to dabble in mainstream American politics, however, and take a stance on a judicial ruling on such as this one, how are you going to criticize an opposition to the GOP position against the law when your own criticisms of the law seem to be that it was drafted by the GOP!Do I really need to spell out what a naive and over simplistic conception of politics is? According to you, there are two possible political positions to take: support for the GOP and opposition to the GOP. Apparently if the GOP claims to support something, then a leftist cannot possibly support it -- regardless of whether it's a good policy or not. The idea that the left should support and oppose particular policies on the basis of how those policies affect the workers, while not supporting either bourgeois party is totally foreign to you. As is the idea that supporting a campaign or a policy is fundamentally different than supporting a party. Once again, you're letting tribal membership dictate where you stand on an issue rather than the issue's consequences for the working-class.


You do realize that the movement that lead to the ruling that the OP is about want even more power in the hands of the HI and Pharma companies, right?You seem to be operating under a number of illusions here. First, your post implies that striking the individual mandate for people to buy private insurance strengthens the the HI and Pharma companies, which is a laughable position to take.

Second, the tea party people do not want more power in the hands of the HI and Pharma companies. Because they confusedly support the Republicans, they end up taking actions that result in more HI and Pharma control (again, those are two entirely different things -- people's actions, especially when ill informed, often have unintended consequences). The GOP officials who have been pandering to the tea party, but will end up stabbing those tea partiers deep into their backs with as much brio as the democrats do to "socialist" supporters like you, is the group that wants more power to the health insurance monopolies. And guess what? They are the VERY GROUP that the OP correctly pointed out designed Obama's plan over a decade ago.


It's no secret that the Democratic Party constantly moves towards the Right and that the law is not something that the revolutionary Left supports.Again, what position are you taking on it? Neither support nor opposition to a bill that strengthens and locks in private health insurance? That's a good leftist position how exactly?


But you sure as hell won't see me at some Tea Party rally, railing against "Obamacare" and supporting the most reactionary elements of American politics because I don't support the bill.Right, because supporting a judicial ruling is the same as joining the tea party and attending their rallies. I am just going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that you cannot possibly be this stupid. :rolleyes:


I understand, as does most of the Left, that the entire reactionary Tea Party movement (and thus the majority of the Right-wing swing) was started in large part over opposition (from the Right) to the reform laws.This is the liberal democratic take on the tea party. In reality, the phenomenon is a combination of contradictory grassroots anger and GOP attempts to try to co-opt that anger and channel into establishment politics much as the Democratic party does to leftist anger. I say the anger is contradictory, rooted in both truth and lies, because it is driven by a correct awareness of everyday people's powerlessness in Washington, reflected in things like the bailout. Yet it is also directed against the wrong culprits: the government, as if its power isn't ultimately derived from and subject to private capital.


Your criticize me for "supporting" the law, and that criticism comes from your opposition to supporting a major bourgeois party. Yet your answer to doing that is to turn around and support the more reactionary of those two parties!Wrong, wrong, wrong. Saying that a judicial ruling striking down the individual mandate is good for the working class is not support for a bourgeois party. How much democrat party propaganda did you have to imbibe before you arrived at this conclusion?

[Lucretia]

i didn't suggest that this was the case, but the system was shit to begin with, and improving public health is certainly better than not doing so.

I absolutely agree that improving health care is better than not improving it. I just disagree that improving health care entails forcing people to buy crappy, almost unusable insurance policies from private health care cartels.

[Amphictyonis]

I absolutely agree that improving health care is better than not improving it. I just disagree that improving health care entails forcing people to buy crappy, almost unusable insurance policies from private health care cartels.
Mussolini improved the lives of the Italian working class. This obviously means he should have remained in power forever.

[KurtFF8]

I am just going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that you cannot possibly be this stupid.

I was going to go through and reply to your posts until I read this.

[Lucretia]

I was going to go through and reply to your posts until I read this.

There's nothing you can really say in response. It is nothing short of stupefying to compare voting for the GOP or supporting the Tea Party to supporting a judicial ruling that prevents the poorest workers from having to fork over their earnings to monopolistic health care cartels. By your definition everybody who supports the right to bear arms, and opposes overly harsh restrictions on said right, must be supporting the Tea Baggers also.

[KurtFF8]

There's nothing you can really say in response. It is nothing short of stupefying to compare voting for the GOP or supporting the Tea Party to supporting a judicial ruling that prevents the poorest workers from having to fork over their earnings to monopolistic health care cartels. By your definition everybody who supports the right to bear arms, and opposes overly harsh restrictions on said right, must be supporting the Tea Baggers also.

Oh give me a break, this is just pathetic on your behalf. There is plenty to say, I'm just not going to join you in these petty personal attacks, there's no room for that on a site like this (although it ends up happening all too often).

Your argument is full of holes and contradiction: you condemn my "support"
(which of course is a straw man argument) for the health care law on the grounds that it was drafted by the GOP. Yet you turn around an join with the Tea Party movement in calling for a return to the previous less regulated health care industry!

I'm sure your next reply will just be railing against my "support for the HC bill" which of course will once again be ignoring the fact that I've said consistently throughout this thread that I don't support that bill, nor does any real Leftist (or even really Social Democratic figure that I'm aware of)

[Amphictyonis]

You do realize that the movement that lead to the ruling that the OP is about want even more power in the hands of the HI and Pharma companies, right?

It's no secret that the Democratic Party constantly moves towards the Right and that the law is not something that the revolutionary Left supports. But you sure as hell won't see me at some Tea Party rally, railing against "Obamacare" and supporting the most reactionary elements of American politics because I don't support the bill.


No one you're critisizing here is ever going to attend a 'Tea Party'. No one ever said anything close to that. What I said is teh Republicans attack on this law is grandstanding. It means nothing and will go nowhere. The pharma and insurance corporations wrote the law. They got exactly what they wanted. Hundreds of millions of new customers at the end of a gun barrel. This law brings them in trillions and trillions of dollars and if the republicans were somehow successful in ending the law the phrama and insurance corporations would loose trillions. Who do you think backs the campaigns of many republicans?

[KurtFF8]

No one you're critisizing here is ever going to attend a 'Tea Party'. No one ever said anything close to that. What I said is teh Republicans attack on this law is grandstanding. It means nothing and will go nowhere. The pharma and insurance corporations wrote the law. They got exactly what they wanted. Hundreds of millions of new customers at the end of a gun barrel. This law brings them in trillions and trillions of dollars and if the republicans were somehow successful in ending the law the phrama and insurance corporations would loose trillions. Who do you think backs the campaigns of many republicans?

I would certainly hope no one here would support the Tea Party, and I wouldn't expect that to be the case.

You, and Lucretia are making it seem as if the GOP is some how fighting big Pharma and the HI industry, or that this ruling is somehow a major blow to them, which is absurd.

It's just as absurd as claiming that the reform law is great and comparable to a Single-Payer system or even a public option. You both do understand that the Tea Party and initial opposition to the law was funded by the Health Insurance Industry, right? I suggest checking out the documentary (Astro)turf wars (http://www.astroturfwars.com/).

[Amphictyonis]

I would certainly hope no one here would support the Tea Party, and I wouldn't expect that to be the case.

You, and Lucretia are making it seem as if the GOP is some how fighting big Pharma and the HI industry, or that this ruling is somehow a major blow to them, which is absurd.

It's just as absurd as claiming that the reform law is great and comparable to a Single-Payer system or even a public option. You both do understand that the Tea Party and initial opposition to the law was funded by the Health Insurance Industry, right?

The tea parties were mainly funded by Koch industries and the pharma/health insurance companies always wanted this law. They organized the right wing to make the law even more profitable for them. They wrote the fucking bill. I never once said the GOP is fighting the health insurance corporations. What I have said is it's all show. How many times do I need to say this? The pharma and health insurance companies got what they wanted. They're happy. We got screwed. The coin is a coin with heads on both sides. There is no democracy in America. The pharma and health corporations got what they wanted. The GOP is not seriously trying to nullify this law. They actually proposed the same law in the 1990's. What else do you want me to say? Defending Obama/democrats is fucking silly and I'm damn sure not defending Republicans. I don't even have much of a problem with you it's the other two posters who need to go hang out on the daily kos.

[Amphictyonis]

KurtFF8- The right wing attacks on this modest HC bill put the Left in an annoying position: we don't want to support this bill that is pretty much a hand-out to the health insurance industry, yet we have to oppose the far-right attacks on it.

No we don't. Thats all I have to say to you :)


NGNM85 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29065)It is unfortunate that the Republicans took the House, the House was working, and, in fact, passed a more expansive version of the bill. The Senate is the clusterfuck, although, the Republicans might take the Senate back, too, and really fuck things up.
However, I have to ask, do you even vote?

LOL


NGNM85 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29065) That’s saying that it , indeed, does do more harm than good, which I don’t find convincing. I think this is a marginal improvement, but it doesn’t make things worse. People can no longer be randomly stripped of the healthcare coverage or denied the ability to get coverage, under the aegis of a ‘preexisting condition.’ The bill also ends lifetime coverage limits, allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans longer, they closed the Medicare ‘donut hole’, an expansion of Medicaid criteria to cover more people, etc., there are some good things in this bill. In the scheme of things it’s a very moderate improvement

LOL


NGNM85 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29065) Again with the Obamacare too, I can't help but mix your talking points up with those of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang over at FOX.

LOL. If he's not with the Democrats he must be a right wing talking head supporter!


thesadmafioso (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=30142) Has anyone actually provided an explanation for the rightist rhetoric being used in this topic yet? Something about 'leftists' thoughtlessly throwing about the corporate financed talking points of the Republican Party strikes me as somewhat odd.

What you are blind t is the law was written by corporations. You guys are political infants.


thesadmafioso (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=30142)We are really just getting back to the argument of political reality versus ideological purity though. Yes, the modern political environment's of the west often change and demand the occasional concession in order to actually get anything done.

What was done by setting the foundations for the abject privatization of healthcare?

[NGNM85]

LOL

Eloquent in it’s brevity. You make it increasingly difficult to take you seriously. I mean, if you have anything intelligent to say; be my guest. I stand by all of those statements;

Yes, the House passed the more expansive version of the Affordable Health care act which included the public option, as well as a provision which would change taxes that unfairly punish gay couples.

Yes, this was passed entirely by House Democrats. Oh, I’m sorry, yes ONE Republican voted for it, but only after it had already gotten enough votes to pass.

Now, I understand ‘clusterfuck’ is not a technical term and somewhat open to interpretation, however, I think the present US Senate meets the sufficient conditions.

Yes, the irate American electorate gave the House of Representatives to the Republicans, not in the least because they were angry about the healthcare bill. The problem with this being that according to polls (Which I will gladly provide.) two thirds of the Americans which were unhappy with the bill were angry that it wasn’t expansive enough. So, the electorate shot themselves in the foot by voting out the House Democrats who voted to give them a Public Option, and give the House to the party that is firmly against it. However, this is hardly unprecedented.

Yes, while I will be the first to admit I have no supernatural powers of precognition, I predict it is quite likely the electorate will give the Republicans a majority in the Senate, as well, in the next election. Time will tell, but I stand by that prediction.

Also, I think it speaks volumes that my question as to whether or not she votes was left, quite deliberately, unanswered.



LOL

Again, I stand by these statements, especially as virtually none of this statement is opinion, but, rather, empirical, verifiable fact.

The new law prohibits insurance companies from randomly cutting off coverage to customers they don’t want to pay for under the aegis of a ‘preexisting condition.' Also, you can no longer be denied the ability to obtain insurance if you have a medical condition.

The bill does end lifetime coverage limits. The bill does allow kids to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.

While the infamous Medicare donut hole won’t be fixed overnight, checks are already being mailed to the affected individuals.

Those are facts. I could have also added that the new bill includes a provision for Americans to receive certain preventative procedures; like mammograms and colonoscopies, totally free, without a deductible or a copay. Or I could have pointed out that around 30 million more Americans now have health insurance, who, previously, did not. Now, those are facts. My opinion, is that while I think this bill is far too limited in scope, (Again, I’m an advocate of a completely nationalized healthcare program, like the rest of the industrialized world.) be that as it may, that this is better than it was before. I think you are hearing something quite different from what I am saying, but that is not my responsibility. What I want from you, and what you have failed miserably in doing, is to make a cogent statement why those 30 million Americans were better off with no insurance, why it was better when insurers could drop people’s coverage whenever they didn’t feel like paying for care, why it was better that we have lifetime limits so seniors suddenly find themselves with no coverage, etc. Cut the schoolyard crap and explain to me, in a cogent argument; Why is that better?



NGNM85
Again with the Obamacare too, I can't help but mix your talking points up with those of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang over at FOX.

LOL. If he's not with the Democrats he must be a right wing talking head supporter!

I did not make this statement, which you have, incorrectly, attributed to me. If you just use the quote function properly, you won’t have these mixups.

EDIT-Since you misattributed the statement, I'm going to chime in, anyway. My perspective, and I think this is what Kurt was trying to convey, is that the phrase 'Obamacare' is like 'Partial-Birth Abortion', a bogus catchphrase designed to reinforce right-wing memes.


What was done by setting the foundations for the abject privatization of healthcare?

I apologize for interjecting, but the healthcare system in the US has always been private. What you mean to say is there is an attack on the welfare state. That’s true. However, this is undermined by the fact that you have repeatedly, and emphatically stated you don’t want to do anything about it. Therefore I can only conclude that you are glad that the welfare state is being cut back, or you don’t care. Either way, this point does nothing for you.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i feel slightly happy that it is getting challenged only because it brings it into the spotlight and may actually cause more polarization..


the bill itself was a turd though.

[Lucretia]

Oh give me a break, this is just pathetic on your behalf. There is plenty to say, I'm just not going to join you in these petty personal attacks, there's no room for that on a site like this (although it ends up happening all too often).

Your argument is full of holes and contradiction: you condemn my "support"
(which of course is a straw man argument) for the health care law on the grounds that it was drafted by the GOP. Yet you turn around an join with the Tea Party movement in calling for a return to the previous less regulated health care industry!

I'm sure your next reply will just be railing against my "support for the HC bill" which of course will once again be ignoring the fact that I've said consistently throughout this thread that I don't support that bill, nor does any real Leftist (or even really Social Democratic figure that I'm aware of)

I still don't know what political position you think we should take on the individual mandate provision of the law, and the law as a whole, because whenever I asked, all I got in response was a bunch of self pity about how mean my rhetoric was.

Also, nobody is "joining" with the tea party movement except in the sense of agreeing that a particular provision of a specific law is bad for working people. In fact, people on this forum who decry the health insurance reform law do so with the opposite rationale that many tea baggers express. How many times does it have to be repeated that agreeing with a group of people that a specific law is terrible is not the same as offering that group material support, agreeing with the group ideologically, or joining the group?

[thesadmafioso]

No we don't. Thats all I have to say to you :)



LOL



LOL



LOL. If he's not with the Democrats he must be a right wing talking head supporter!



What you are blind t is the law was written by corporations. You guys are political infants.



What was done by setting the foundations for the abject privatization of healthcare?



Again with the Obamacare too, I can't help but mix your talking points up with those of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang over at FOX.

I believe that the acronym for laughing out loud would be applicable here.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2008518&postcount=42

[Amphictyonis]

I've said plenty. All thats left to do is laugh at you two. It's a sad laughter trust me (because you people are the political norm on the left).

[thesadmafioso]

I've said plenty. All thats left to do is laugh at you two. It's a sad laughter trust me (because you people are the political norm on the left).

You just completely ignored the fact that you attributed a quote of mine in a false manner. That was the point of my post, not the 'laughing out loud' bit.

[Amphictyonis]

You just completely ignored the fact that you attributed a quote of mine in a false manner. That was the point of my post, not the 'laughing out loud' bit.

The fact you think the new healthcare law is good for the working class is laughable. I could beat you over the head with a reality stick and you'd latch onto your erroneous position even tighter. Which has been happening for pages in two threads.

[thesadmafioso]

The fact you think the new healthcare law is good for the working class is laughable. I could beat you over the head with a reality stick and you'd latch onto your erroneous position even tighter. Which has been happening for pages in two threads.

The reality of the revolutionary left being nonexistent in America? Yes,I do believe that would only strengthen my resolve here, as most any other response would be rather illogical.

[Amphictyonis]

The reality of the revolutionary left being nonexistent in America?

I wonder why. Could it be because people like you (en mass) are regurgitating idiocy such as this-



Originally Posted by thesadmafioso http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2016514#post2016514)
How does one go about privatizing something which is already privatized? It is not as if Medicare and Medicade are being stricken from the system entirely, it is just that the demand for the services which they provide will be reduced when this law takes full effect in 2014. This law marks a dramatic improvement in the state of American health care, as it provides individuals of the working class access to cheap and affordable health care. If they don't choose to participate in the new health care system then they will have to pay a minimal fee which will likely cost less than the actual health care, which hardly sounds like an absolute individual mandate.

[NGNM85]

The fact you think the new healthcare law is good for the working class is laughable. I could beat you over the head with a reality stick and you'd latch onto your erroneous position even tighter. Which has been happening for pages in two threads.

It's actually the reverse. I have offered historical facts, scientific studies specific examples, and painstakingly detailed explaination, to be met with platitudes, namecalling, and 'LOL.' I'm still waiting for a response, BTW.

[NGNM85]

Also, nobody is "joining" with the tea party movement except in the sense of agreeing that a particular provision of a specific law is bad for working people. In fact, people on this forum who decry the health insurance reform law do so with the opposite rationale that many tea baggers express.

Maybe you can answer the question Amphictyonis can’t. (So far.) This new Healthcare Bill includes a number of provisions, such as prohibiting insurance companies from randomly cutting off coverage to customers they don’t want to pay for under the aegis of a ‘preexisting condition', or preventing Americans with medical conditions from purchasing insurance. The Bill ends lifetime coverage limits. The Bill allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26. The Bill shrinks the infamous Medicare ‘donut hole’, which will be reduced over time, until it is, effectively, closed. It also, again, includes a provision for Americans to receive certain preventative procedures; like mammograms and colonoscopies, totally free, without a deductible or a copay. It also insures 30 million Americans that, previously, had no health insurance at all. Again, I just want one simple thing. I only ask that you produce a cogent argument why this does more harm than good for the working class, that this is bad for the working class. Thrill me with your acumen.


How many times does it have to be repeated that agreeing with a group of people that a specific law is terrible is not the same as offering that group material support, agreeing with the group ideologically, or joining the group?

How many times does it have to be repeated that voting for a political party is not the same as offering material support, agreeing with the group ideologically, or joining the group?

[Lucretia]

Maybe you can answer the question Amphictyonis can’t. (So far.) This new Healthcare Bill includes a number of provisions, such as prohibiting insurance companies from randomly cutting off coverage to customers they don’t want to pay for under the aegis of a ‘preexisting condition', or preventing Americans with medical conditions from purchasing insurance. The Bill ends lifetime coverage limits. The Bill allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26. The Bill shrinks the infamous Medicare ‘donut hole’, which will be reduced over time, until it is, effectively, closed. It also, again, includes a provision for Americans to receive certain preventative procedures; like mammograms and colonoscopies, totally free, without a deductible or a copay. It also insures 30 million Americans that, previously, had no health insurance at all. Again, I just want one simple thing. I only ask that you produce a cogent argument why this does more harm than good for the working class, that this is bad for the working class. Thrill me with your acumen.



How many times does it have to be repeated that voting for a political party is not the same as offering material support, agreeing with the group ideologically, or joining the group?


I had a long response typed out before I had technical difficulties. It basically said that you're deluded if you think voting for candidates of a political party is not the same as supporting a political party, that you probably never had to purchase health insurance before if you aren't aware of the very likely scenario of people being forced to buy health care plans they won't be able to use (they will function as VERY expensive catastrophic health insurance plans), and that the insurance "reform" that was passed locked into place a private system while providing a few good but easily reversible reforms. If you don't understand the link between private companies having greater control over the system as a whole, and the ability for health companies to have greater authority in reversing positive reforms or block future ones, then I really don't know what to tell you. It's the equivalent of locking all free-holding peasants into a system of chattel slavery, but requiring that the master provide three square meals a day instead of two. Do you think the master who surpluses will increase as a result of owning the slaves won't use that additional power to roll back the extra meal? The plan does more harm than good, and even progressive democrats like Dennis Kucinich still believe this, and said as much even as they announced they would vote for the bill so that Obama wouldn't suffer a "political defeat". Apparently you are to the right of these democrats.

[Amphictyonis]

It's actually the reverse. I have offered historical facts, scientific studies specific examples, and painstakingly detailed explaination, to be met with platitudes, namecalling, and 'LOL.' I'm still waiting for a response, BTW.

"scientific studies" from a democrat party hack which somehow "proves" cutting billions from medicare/medicaid/disability and veteran benefits while forcing everyone to buy privatized insurance is a good thing for the working class? I've yet to see such things come from you. Your definition of science must include subjective opinion. Something I'm not willing to take seriously.

I can show you scientific studies showing why a single payer system is what the working class needs. How is this now going to happen with the insurance and pharma corporations stronger than ever? Thinking your prior "scientific" post showing how great it is democrats are cutting hundreds of billions from medicare/medicaid while making the insurance and pharma corporations the most powerful lobby on earth is a good thing falls just short of insanity.

"Competition within the market economy is good"? "The working class needs privatized healthcare?

Get outta here kid.

[NGNM85]

I had a long response typed out before I had technical difficulties. It basically said that you're deluded if you think voting for candidates of a political party is not the same as supporting a political party,..

No, you’re deluded. This is complete nonsense. I didn’t have to like John Kerry to vote for him, I still dislike him, I have always professed to dislike him, I just had to have the common sense to know he was better than the reactionary thugs in the Bush administration. This isn’t a shred of truth to this.


… that you probably never had to purchase health insurance before..

I get healthcare through my workplace, which is unionized. However, I do have to pay a little bit every week.


..if you aren't aware of the very likely scenario of people being forced to buy health care plans they won't be able to use (they will function as VERY expensive catastrophic health insurance plans),

If you expect me to take you seriously justify this statement. Prove it. Give me the figures that justify this statement. I’m asking because I don’t think you can.


…and that the insurance "reform" that was passed locked into place a private system while providing a few good but easily reversible reforms.

If by ‘easy’, you mean getting a bill through the House, the Senate, and getting the president to sign it.


If you don't understand the link between private companies having greater control over the system as a whole, and the ability for health companies to have greater authority in reversing positive reforms or block future ones, then I really don't know what to tell you.

No, no, no, no. I offered facts and statistics. You are giving me opinions. This isn’t what I asked for. I’m asking you, very simply, for a shred of evidence that supports your thesis.


It's the equivalent of locking all free-holding peasants into a system of chattel slavery, but requiring that the master provide three square meals a day instead of two. Do you think the master who surpluses will increase as a result of owning the slaves won't use that additional power to roll back the extra meal?

If you gave a crap about the slaves, you’d want them to have more food. Plain and simple. However, you are just resorting to shrill rhetoric and metaphors.


The plan does more harm than good,..

You haven’t provided any evidence to prove this.


and even progressive democrats like Dennis Kucinich still believe this, and said as much even as they announced they would vote for the bill so that Obama wouldn't suffer a "political defeat". Apparently you are to the right of these democrats.

You’re misrepresenting Kucinich’s opinion, and mine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/dennis-kucinich-health-care_n_502182.html

[Amphictyonis]

If you gave a crap about the slaves, you’d want them to have more food. Plain and simple. However, you are just resorting to shrill rhetoric and metaphors.


I am one of the slaves it's you who's taking a liberal petty bourgeois approach to politics/economics. As I've said before one can justify all manner of treachery so long as that treachery provides some sort of material gain. The war in the middle east provides material gain for US workers. Do I support that? No.

Can a moderator on this site please explain to me how and why you think a socialist should support the new healthcare law? How is this capitalist mandate good for us slaves?

[NGNM85]

"scientific studies" from a democrat party hack which somehow "proves" cutting billions from medicare/medicaid/disability and veteran benefits while forcing everyone to buy privatized insurance is a good thing for the working class?

Do you have evidence to back up these accusations? How much does it cut? How is that worse that having 30 million more people with no insurance at all?

Second, I want to protect those programs, actually, I want to expand them. You don’t. I don’t understand that.


I've yet to see such things come from you. Your definition of science must include subjective opinion. Something I'm not willing to take seriously.

I was referring to the Bartels study, and the Liscio report study. Those are hard numbers observing economic trends for over 50 years. That is science. You can’t just say they’re wrong or that they were conducted by hacks because you dislike the results. That has to be based on some kind of verifiable fact.


I can show you scientific studies showing why a single payer system is what the working class needs.

No-one is arguing otherwise.


How is this now going to happen with the insurance and pharma corporations stronger than ever?

This Healthcare bill doesn’t significant increase or decrease their political power. Citizens United, on the other hand, absolutely had an impact.


Thinking your prior "scientific" post showing how great it is democrats are cutting hundreds of billions from medicare/medicaid while making the insurance and pharma corporations the most powerful lobby on earth is a good thing falls just short of insanity.

That isn’t an accurate description of what happened, nor is it an accurate summation of what I said.

You still refuse to answer my question.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2015723&postcount=86


I am one of the slaves it's you who's taking a liberal petty bourgeois approach to politics/economics. As I've said before one can justify all manner of treachery so long as that treachery provides some sort of material gain.

No, you can’t.


The war in the middle east provides material gain for US workers. Do I support that? No.

This Bill will not kill thousands of people. Very likely, it will save some. This is a false comparison.


Can a moderator on this site please explain to me how and why you think a socialist should support the new healthcare law? How is this capitalist mandate good for us slaves?

Can you please provide any hard evidence, facts and figures, that the cost of this bill outweighs the benefits, that it hurts more working people than it helps? Of course you can’t, because you don’t have it.

[Amphictyonis]

Do you have evidence to back up these accusations? How much does it cut? How is that worse that having 30 million more people with no insurance at all?
Am I corresponding with Obama? Rahm is that you? If I have to explain to a "socialist" why cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from medicare/medicaid while forcing everyone to buy private insurance in so absolutely KILLING any future attempt at a singlepayer system is bad then....me and you need to start from the beginning. It's so obvious you're a liberal it makes my toe nails bleed. Are you just trolling? Fuck mods. You guys need to get off your asses. If you don't know how much the law cuts from social welfare programs why are you supporting it? Because YOU ARE A LIBERAL. Look it up yourself. My patience has worn very thin.



Second, I want to protect those programs, actually, I want to expand them. You don’t. I don’t understand that.
What don't you understand about hundreds of billions being cut from those programs thanks to the new law you're supporting? Why is this not getting through to you? You have to be a troll. Thats the only reason I can find for your total ignorance on display here. This law is a MASSIVE attack on social programs. Just a small part of the overall global structual adjustment happening right now. Why are you blind to this. What are you doing on this site?




I was referring to the Bartels study, and the Liscio report study. Those are hard numbers observing economic trends for over 50 years. That is science. You can’t just say they’re wrong or that they were conducted by hacks because you dislike the results. That has to be based on some kind of verifiable fact.
According to you capitalism is justifiable if democrats are in office because when they're in office the working class 'has it great'. Again. what are you doing on this site?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/defi-n18.shtml

http://indiglit.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/obama-administration-assures-world-bank-and-international-monetary-fund-a-free-reign-of-abuse-project-censored/

http://www.laprogressive.com/economic-equality/progressives-predicted-clinton-welfare-reform-law-fails-families/

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08282009.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obamas-public-education-policy-privatization-charters-mass-firings-neighborhood-destabilizat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

And to even assume Democrats somehow facilitated 'economic' stability is to completley ignore the nature of capitalism with it's economic bubbles and bursts. Your faith in party dogma and lack of understanding capitalism is quite apparent as is your use of bourgeois economists to substantiate your liberal point of view.






This Healthcare bill doesn’t significant increase or decrease their political power. Citizens United, on the other hand, absolutely had an impact.

Again, you don't understand capitalism. Money/concentrated wealth = concentrated political power. How many trillions do these insurance and pharma companies stand to make? What will that money be used for in the future if not political and economic gain?




That isn’t an accurate description of what happened, nor is it an accurate summation of what I said.

You still refuse to answer my question.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2015723&postcount=86
What question? All you leave are questions, the main one- what are you doing on this site?


Originally Posted by Amphictyonis http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2016749#post2016749)
I am one of the slaves it's you who's taking a liberal petty bourgeois approach to politics/economics. As I've said before one can justify all manner of treachery so long as that treachery provides some sort of material gain.
No, you can’t.

This is EXACTLY what you're doing when defending the new healthcare law!





This Bill will not kill thousands of people. Very likely, it will save some. This is a false comparison. We could save hundreds of billions of lives if fascism was the global system. Just tote the party line and everything will be fine. We could save billions of lives if we set up an Orwellian police state. Perhaps we should do that?




Can you please provide any hard evidence, facts and figures, that the cost of this bill outweighs the benefits, that it hurts more working people than it helps? Of course you can’t, because you don’t have it.

The fact this new law hurts the working class more than it helps (from a socialist perspective) is so obvious I'm not going to waist my time. What do you think I've been doing for pages in two different threads?

You're implying "competition within the market" (especially when it comes to healthcare) is going to help the working class. A giant endorsement of capitalism much? You're implying setting in stone a law that forces everyone to buy private insurance in so generating trillions more for the insurance and pharma lobby won't have any future political effects in our fight for socialism. Ignorant much? You're implying cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from our now public systems is somehow a good thing for the future of socialism?



GO AWAY!

[NGNM85]

Am I corresponding with Obama? Rahm is that you? If I have to explain to a "socialist" why cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from medicare/Medicaid..

That isn’t what I asked. I want to preserve Medicare and Medicaid, in fact, I’d like something much more expansive.


while forcing everyone to buy private insurance in so absolutely KILLING any future attempt at a singlepayer system is bad then

There’s no evidence that it does this.


....me and you need to start from the beginning. It's so obvious you're a liberal it makes my toe nails bleed. Are you just trolling? Fuck mods. You guys need to get off your asses. If you don't know how much the law cuts from social welfare programs why are you supporting it? Because YOU ARE A LIBERAL. Look it up yourself. My patience has worn very thin.

What don't you understand about hundreds of billions being cut from those programs thanks to the new law you're supporting? Why is this not getting through to you? You have to be a troll. Thats the only reason I can find for your total ignorance on display here. This law is a MASSIVE attack on social programs. Just a small part of the overall global structual adjustment happening right now. Why are you blind to this.

What you need to do is provide some verifiable evidence that this Bill does more harm than good. Specifically, in this case, that it reduces or eliminates coverage for over 30 million people. I don’t think you have that evidence because I don’t think that’s true. What you need to do, then, is simply admit you don’t know.


What are you doing on this site?

I wanted to find a decent Anarchist forum.


According to you capitalism is justifiable if democrats are in office because when they're in office the working class 'has it great'. Again. what are you doing on this site?

No, first of all, what we have is more accurately described as ‘State-Capitalism’, or ‘Corporate Mercantilism.’ This is always bad. The state is an illegitimate institution, and we, presently, have two wings of the business party. However, these wings represent different elite constituencies, and behave slightly differently. As it stands, the working class always suffers, according to 50 years of data which I have provided, the working class generally suffers a little less under Democratic administrations.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/defi-n18.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/defi-n18.shtml)
http://indiglit.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/obama-administration-assures-world-bank-and-international-monetary-fund-a-free-reign-of-abuse-project-censored/ (http://indiglit.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/obama-administration-assures-world-bank-and-international-monetary-fund-a-free-reign-of-abuse-project-censored/)
http://www.laprogressive.com/economic-equality/progressives-predicted-clinton-welfare-reform-law-fails-families/ (http://www.laprogressive.com/economic-equality/progressives-predicted-clinton-welfare-reform-law-fails-families/)
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08282009.html (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08282009.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obamas-public-education-policy-privatization-charters-mass-firings-neighborhood-destabilizat (http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obamas-public-education-policy-privatization-charters-mass-firings-neighborhood-destabilizat)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

I’m a bit puzzled by the Dot.Com-Bubble one. I don’t see any evidence that is the fault of the Democratic party.


And to even assume Democrats somehow facilitated 'economic' stability..

That isn’t what I said.


is to completley ignore the nature of capitalism with it's economic bubbles and bursts. Your faith in party dogma

This is what I mean, I’ve repeatedly disparaged the Democratic party, but you can’t hear it.


and lack of understanding capitalism is quite apparent as is your use of bourgeois economists to substantiate your liberal point of view.

You can’t just say the study is wrong because you don’t like it. Reality is not multiple choice. Come up with contrary data, or accept the conclusions.


Again, you don't understand capitalism. Money/concentrated wealth = concentrated political power. How many trillions do these insurance and pharma companies stand to make? What will that money be used for in the future if not political and economic gain?

They already have all the concentrated power they could get without the country degenerating into some kind of dictatorship. Also, again, this is nebulous. I have given you specifics.


What question? All you leave are questions, the main one- what are you doing on this site?

I was looking for a decent Anarchist forum.


This is EXACTLY what you're doing when defending the new healthcare law!

No, I’m defending it because, in this case, the gain outweighs the cost. If the cost of giving minimal to moderate health coverage to 30 million Americans was to kill another 12 billion people, I wouldn’t take it. That would be insane. In this case, according to all the evidence I’ve seen, the benefit outweighs the cost. It’s an extremely moderate improvement. I think it’s terribly negligent, but that doesn’t mean I’d be happier if 30 million less Americans had healthcare.


We could save hundreds of billions of lives if fascism was the global system.
Just tote the party line and everything will be fine. We could save billions of lives if we set up an Orwellian police state. Perhaps we should do that?

There’s no direct evidence to support that. Also, there are other ways to save lives.


The fact this new law hurts the working class more than it helps (from a socialist perspective) is so obvious I'm not going to waist my time.
What do you think I've been doing for pages in two different threads?

No, you’re just saying it’s obvious because you can’t prove it. You don’t have evidence that this Bill has caused 30 million Americans to lose their healthcare because it hasn’t.

Mostly, you’ve been calling me names, distorting what I say, and presenting your opinion as if it were fact.


You're implying "competition within the market" (especially when it comes to healthcare) is going to help the working class.

I never said that.


A giant endorsement of capitalism much? You're implying setting in stone a law that forces everyone to buy private insurance in so generating trillions more for the insurance and pharma lobby won't have any future political effects in our fight for socialism. Ignorant much?

See above.


You're implying cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from our now public systems is somehow a good thing for the future of socialism?

This is an improvement from your earlier misstatement. No, I think whittling away at the present, minimal welfare state is bad. However, again, in this case the benefit outweighs the harm.

[Lucretia]

No, you’re deluded. This is complete nonsense. I didn’t have to like John Kerry to vote for him, I still dislike him, I have always professed to dislike him, I just had to have the common sense to know he was better than the reactionary thugs in the Bush administration. This isn’t a shred of truth to this.

Now you're changing the terms of the debate. No wonder these vapid discussions drag on for pages and pages and pages. You support him if you vote for him. You support his party if you help a member of that party to assume the presidency. Does this really need to be explained to you?


If you gave a crap about the slaves, you’d want them to have more food. Plain and simple. However, you are just resorting to shrill rhetoric and metaphors. So let me get this right: if I cared about slaves, I wouldn't want them to be liberated from the masters, I would only want to concern myself with whether they get an extra meal under the ownership of their masters? Yeah, that pretty much says all that needs to be said about your dead-end reformism.


You’re misrepresenting Kucinich’s opinion, and mine.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/dennis-kucinich-health-care_n_502182.htmlI am not misrepresenting his position at all. Do you pay any attention to what's going on in the news? Why don't you read Kucinich's actual remarks? Kucinich announced he would vote for the bill, he said:

"I know I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see it, but the bill as it is. My criticisms of the legislation have been well reported. I do not retract them. I incorporate them in this statement. They still stand as legitimate and cautionary. I still have doubts about the bill. I do not think it is a first step toward anything I have supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to support, even as I continue efforts until the last minute to modify the bill."

His criticisms, of course, were what caused him to vote in opposition to the bill before the issue became tied to the success of Obama's presidency, and was framed as a political Waterloo for Obama. As the Washington Post noted, "Kucinich was persuaded by Obama to switch his vote on the health-care bill -- not because he likes anything about the measure, but because of the same sentiment often voiced by Obama's foes: A defeat on the legislation would destroy Obama's presidency." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031702461.html)

What were Kucinich's earlier criticisms?

Glad you asked!

He criticized the bill as follows:

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

(http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995)

Note that NONE of these criticisms was retracted!

So which is it? Is Kucinich wrong, or are you to the right Kucinich on the health care bill?

[Amphictyonis]

John Brown is a hero to the American socialist left because he fought for extra meals for slaves! What was his role in sparking the civil war? Maybe he should have just voted.

[Amphictyonis]

The dot com bubble was just one example, as you admit democrats had nothing to do with, that made a democrat party period prosperous and after the crash in mid 2000 a republican administration took over a not so prosperous period for capitalism. I provided just a few examples of democrats attacking workers. I could actually provide pages. Whats Jerry Brown up to in CA?

[PhoenixAsh]

Now you're changing the terms of the debate. No wonder these vapid discussions drag on for pages and pages and pages. You support him if you vote for him. You support his party if you help a member of that party to assume the presidency. Does this really need to be explained to you?

Wow...this is a bit rich from someone who a few pages ago supported right wing initiatives to tacle a bill and argued in favor of their efforts and thereby, one could argue, fruthered their propaganda base.

No...voting for someone does not constitute support in the sense in which it is meant here: endorsing. You are introducing a new term into the debate.





So let me get this right: if I cared about slaves, I wouldn't want them to be liberated from the masters, I would only want to concern myself with whether they get an extra meal under the ownership of their masters? Yeah, that pretty much says all that needs to be said about your dead-end reformism.


Let me ask you this question:

When you know you can not abolish slavery right now or in the foreseeable future...but you do have the power to directly influence right now if the slave has a master who gives one meal or a master which gives two meals.

What would you do?

Because the arguments that have been made here seems that we should not care one fuck what the slave owner does to the slave because slavery is wrong period...we should let the save suffer because we just need to keep working towards abolotion no matter how many slaves will starve in the mean time....because the intitution is wrong.

What you are trying to suggest is that the only thing suggested is that we either only vote or only work towards revolution. Thats an absurd assertion.

[Amphictyonis]

The slaves in this case (being me) aren't getting SQUAT from our masters because of this new law! WHY DON"T YOU GET THIS? The healthcare law makes us BUY OUR OWN INSURANCE. It's strengthening our masters grip around our necks.What don't you understand about this?

"Oh it will be OK because 'competition in the market' will make sure we all get fair and affordable plans!" Ya right Mr. Capitalism. Ya right.

[Lucretia]

Wow...this is a bit rich from someone who a few pages ago supported right wing initiatives to tacle a bill and argued in favor of their efforts and thereby, one could argue, fruthered their propaganda base.

So if a right-wing Christian thinks the Sun is at the center of the solar system, and you agree with him, you're furthering right-wing initiatives? Not even you believe these cheap baseless attacks.



No...voting for someone does not constitute support in the sense in which it is meant here: endorsing. You are introducing a new term into the debate.Uh huh. And if I give money to somebody, but I am unhappy about it, I am not supporting that person. :rolleyes: I think the word often applied to people like you is "enabler" -- you know, the person who guiltily gives the drug addict money so he can continue his shitty lifestyle. The person who introduced a new term into the debate was you: that term was "DISLIKE." You think John Kerry gives a fuck if you dislike him, so long as you vote for him every six years? Talk about naive.


Let me ask you this question:

When you know you can not abolish slavery right now or in the foreseeable future...but you do have the power to directly influence right now if the slave has a master who gives one meal or a master which gives two meals.

What would you do? This is what you don't get, and never will get: the bourgeois establishment exerts ideological hegemony by convincing you that socialism is not possible for the foreseeable future. It is possible, and has been possible for some time. What has been absent is a working-class movement for socialism, and one of the reasons such a movement has been absent is the willingness of the working class to accept your argument that supporting the democrats is important because socialism "isn't feasible" or "isn't possible" for the "foreseeable future."

I am also still waiting for an answer to my question: ARE YOU -- THE "SOCIALIST" -- TO THE RIGHT OF KUCINICH ON HEALTH CARE, OR WAS KUCINICH WRONG?

[NGNM85]

Now you're changing the terms of the debate. No wonder these vapid discussions drag on for pages and pages and pages. You support him if you vote for him. You support his party if you help a member of that party to assume the presidency. Does this really need to be explained to you?

No, I voted for him, and he is a member of his party. I dislike him as a politician, just as I dislike his party. No-one in the race represented my views. I could have voted for a Green, and, essentially, voted for George Bush, or I could have voted against George Bush. I had no illusions when I voted for him, I was merely being philosophically consistent.


So let me get this right: if I cared about slaves, I wouldn't want them to be liberated from the masters, I would only want to concern myself with whether they get an extra meal under the ownership of their masters? Yeah, that pretty much says all that needs to be said about your dead-end reformism.

You are either being dense or dishonest. I have said over a dozen times the state is an illegitimate institution. If I could wish it away, I would. However, I don’t have magic powers. To use your metaphor, my wish is that slavery shouldn’t exist because it’s an illegitimate institution, however, being that I care about the slaves, as I was working to dismantle this institution, I would at least want them to suffer less. You don’t understand that your argument makes no sense. The way you phrase this implies you would care about the slaves, who, in this metaphor, represent the working class, if you cared you would absolutely try to overthrow the system that was harming them, however, if you actually felt that way, you would also stop to give some food to one that was starving in front of you. These two things are not mutually exclusive, as much as you want them to be. My voting in one election does not prevent or undermine other forms of activism, but it might reduce the suffering of working class people. This is not a zero-sum game. This is a false dichotomy. It’s not; “Do I vote for the less brutal choice or try to dismantle the state?’ It’s; ‘Do I vote for the less brutal choice while trying to dismantle the state?’


So which is it? Is Kucinich wrong, or are you to the right Kucinich on the health care bill?


Kucinich is saying, essentially, the same thing I am. I never said I liked the Bill, or that it was ideal. I said 30 million more Americans have more coverage than they had before. He criticized the Bill for the reasons most Americans, myself included, criticized it, it wasn’t far-reaching enough. That’s what I said. However, what he didn’t say was that it was better to have 30 million more uninsured Americans, because it isn’t. He also said that failure to pass this Bill would make the passage of future legislation more difficult, which I also agree with. I haven’t heard him say anything about eliminating nation-states, or religion, so he has a ways to go before he gets to where I’m at.

[Lucretia]

No, I voted for him, and he is a member of his party. I dislike him as a politician, just as I dislike his party. No-one in the race represented my views. I could have voted for a Green, and, essentially, voted for George Bush, or I could have voted against George Bush. I had no illusions when I voted for him, I was merely being philosophically consistent.

Nobody cares what your personal feelings are about a politician. If you vote for him, you are supporting him. Because he is a member of a particular party, and you are helping to elect a member of that party, you are supporting the party. What is going on in that small mind of yours is truly irrelevant.


You are either being dense or dishonest. I have said over a dozen times the state is an illegitimate institution. If I could wish it away, I would. However, I don’t have magic powers. To use your metaphor, my wish is that slavery shouldn’t exist because it’s an illegitimate institution, however, being that I care about the slaves, as I was working to dismantle this institution, I would at least want them to suffer less.So would I. We agree! But where you're completely and totally confused by dominant bourgeois ideology is that you think you are helping the slave by strengthening the slave-owner. By voting for democratic party politicians, you are strengthening a party that actively tries to undermine leftist politics and actively strengthens capitalism, whether you like the party or not. The party is a bourgeois party controlled by capital. Voting for members of the party at the same time you think you are working to dismantle capitalism makes as much sense as giving money to slave-owners while working dismantle slavery. Your position should be framed in the socialist museum one day as the case study in how ideological confusion so powerfully thwarted socialist movements for such a long time. Voting for the democratic party is not the same as struggling for reforms.


You don’t understand that your argument makes no sense. The way you phrase this implies you would care about the slaves, who, in this metaphor, represent the working class, if you cared you would absolutely try to overthrow the system that was harming them, however, if you actually felt that way, you would also stop to give some food to one that was starving in front of you.Of course I would. But the subject of our dispute isn't whether we would directly give them food. It's about whether we would channel that food through an intermediary party that is actually responsible for that slave's oppression. Does EVERYTHING need to be spelled out for you in excruciating detail before you can understand it? No wonder these threads go on and on and on and on...


These two things are not mutually exclusive, as much as you want them to be.Fighting to end slavery and fighting for reforms to ameliorate slavery are not mutually exclusive. Nobody argued they are. Fighting to end capitalism and fighting for reforms to end capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Nobody argued they are.


My voting in one election does not prevent or undermine other forms of activism, but it might reduce the suffering of working class people.Really? Engaging in a political action that strengthens a bourgeois capitalist party that undermines socialist movements does not undermine struggles for socialism? Do you not stop to reflect on what youre really saying?


This is not a zero-sum game. This is a false dichotomy. It’s not; “Do I vote for the less brutal choice or try to dismantle the state?’ It’s; ‘Do I vote for the less brutal choice while trying to dismantle the state?’No, it's not, if you're talking about struggling for reforms and struggling for socialism. But committing yourself to a two-party system that actively subverts socialism is logically inconsistent with struggling. The slight of hand you keep repeating over and over again is substituting "voting democratic" with "fighting for reforms."

You're a moron if you think these two things are synonymous.


Kucinich is saying, essentially, the same thing I am. I never said I liked the Bill, or that it was ideal. I said 30 million more Americans have more coverage than they had before. He criticized the Bill for the reasons most Americans, myself included, criticized it, it wasn’t far-reaching enough. That’s what I said. However, what he didn’t say was that it was better to have 30 million more uninsured Americans, because it isn’t. He also said that failure to pass this Bill would make the passage of future legislation more difficult, which I also agree with. I haven’t heard him say anything about eliminating nation-states, or religion, so he has a ways to go before he gets to where I’m at.Stop talking about religion or nation-states. I am discussing your position in relation to his position on the health care law.Read the quote. Pause. Read it again. He said A LOT more than just your trite "not ideal" reading. He said that the bill does not make any progress toward the goal of universal single-payer. He said that it strengthens the privatization of health care. He said that it was a bad bill and voted against it, only changing his mind when he thought that voting against the bill would damage Obama's presidency. He is expressing the very ideas you've critiqued on this thread. Strange how you're to the right of him, yet consider yourself a socialist. More ideological confusion, I suspect.

[PhoenixAsh]

So if a right-wing Christian thinks the Sun is at the center of the solar system, and you agree with him, you're furthering right-wing initiatives? Not even you believe these cheap baseless attacks.

I follow your exact line of reasoning. And yes...extending YOUR line of reasoning expressing support for right wing agenda's is providing a platform for that agenda.




Uh huh. And if I give money to somebody, but I am unhappy about it, I am not supporting that person. :rolleyes: O..you support that person. But not necessarilly in the sense that you endorse him. THAT is the point NGNM85 is making. THAT is what I said...but yo want to see it in your own subjective interpretation of what we actually mean...than what we actually mean.



I think the word often applied to people like you is "enabler" -- you know, the person who guiltily gives the drug addict money so he can continue his shitty lifestyle.You express doing nothing because there is no difference in the parties....





The person who introduced a new term into the debate was you: that term was "DISLIKE." You think John Kerry gives a fuck if you dislike him, so long as you vote for him every six years? Talk about naive.Yeah...again...what is the realistic immediate alternative to Kerry?



This is what you don't get, and never will get: the bourgeois establishment exerts ideological hegemony by convincing you that socialism is not possible for the foreseeable future. It is possible, and has been possible for some time. What has been absent is a working-class movement for socialism, and one of the reasons such a movement has been absent is the willingness of the working class to accept your argument that supporting the democrats is important because socialism "isn't feasible" or "isn't possible" for the "foreseeable future."My argument? My argument is that I individually check a ballot box. I do not express nor advocate voting for anybody....because its my individual choice to check a ballot box in the way that see fit as the least of the evils available.

THAT is something YOU do not seem to be willing to get....you immediately equate voting for with advocating and loudly endorsing the respective parties agenda....

However that is no what I, and also NGNM85, have been arguing at all. far from it.

You seem to be absolutely intent on putting words in our mouths and drawing conclusions which you can not logically draw.

What we have been arguing is that voting is an individual tool to win certain battles or prevent certain losses. We nowhere advocated that this should be done instead of revolutionary work like direct action, organising workers or other actions. Far from it. But that is something you are somehow unwilling or unable to see...instead you narrowly focus on false representations of what has been said and engage the abject act of putting words in our mouths.

also... would like to underline that I never have and never will vote for the democratic party in the US. Since my AIVD file would not permit me to even travel to the US (though I have been to NY for a meeting for my company once...saw the airport...but got kicked out again...loosig my job in the proces)...you have no idea what I vote for.




I am also still waiting for an answer to my question: ARE YOU -- THE "SOCIALIST" -- TO THE RIGHT OF KUCINICH ON HEALTH CARE, OR WAS KUCINICH WRONG?Yeah...you are confused here ...but to enlighten you you didn't ask that question to me. And I have no intention of answering because I simply do not take a position on that and, as I expressed before I have too little knowledge about the health care debate. If you would have read my post earlier on that topic I expressed in fact a position on the whole debate that is very, very weary of the whole reforms equating it to the Dutch situation.

so answer my question which you so elegantly try to avoid....

[PhoenixAsh]

The slaves in this case (being me) aren't getting SQUAT from our masters because of this new law! WHY DON"T YOU GET THIS? The healthcare law makes us BUY OUR OWN INSURANCE. It's strengthening our masters grip around our necks.What don't you understand about this?

"Oh it will be OK because 'competition in the market' will make sure we all get fair and affordable plans!" Ya right Mr. Capitalism. Ya right.

Do not evade the question. Would you or would you not vote for two meals a day?

Or would you do nothing and wait for the revolution....

[Lucretia]

I follow your exact line of reasoning. And yes...extending YOUR line of reasoning expressing support for right wing agenda's is providing a platform for that agenda.

The right-wing agenda is to oppose Obamacare because it is a government take over of a pure, pristine, wonderful health insurance industry. I oppose Obamacare because, as Kucinich acknowledged, the bill strengthens the privatization of health care. My "line of reasoning" rejects the right-wing propaganda. Our agendas are different, though they intersect in opposition to this monstrosity of a law. I am glad to know you think that opposing the privatization of health care is a right-wing agenda. If only more people would be so right-wing.


O..you support that person. But not necessarilly in the sense that you endorse him. THAT is the point NGNM85 is making. THAT is what I said...but yo want to see it in your own subjective interpretation of what we actually mean...than what we actually mean.What? Support the person but not endorse him? If you're voting for a person, you are offering him electoral support. Now it's certainly true that there are additional forms of support you might offer, that you are withholding. But let's be honest here. Voting for somebody is benefiting that person, putting that person in a position of political power, electorally supporting that person.

It amazes me how many "pragmatists" on this thread want to discount the real, practical consequences of their actions by alluding to some psychic messages they claim to have in their mind.


You express doing nothing because there is no difference in the parties.... Where did I say that there are no differences between the parties? Only an idiot would say there are no differences.


Yeah...again...what is the realistic immediate alternative to Kerry?This has already been addressed about 1,000 times. This is why people like me get cranky -- we get tired of repeating the same shit over and over again. The alternative to voting for Kerry is signalling to the Democratic party that it has to earn your vote, not automatically expecting your vote simply because the party is moderately less bad than the Republican party. This is what is called a long term political strategy that will help move the electoral political system to the left.


My argument? My argument is that I individually check a ballot box. I do not express nor advocate voting for anybody....because its my individual choice to check a ballot box in the way that see fit as the least of the evils available.The person who just facetiously asked what alternative there is to voting for Kerry is now pretending he's not advocating that people vote for anybody in particular. This is dishonest.


THAT is something YOU do not seem to be willing to get....you immediately equate voting for with advocating and loudly endorsing the respective parties agenda.... You seem to think that advocacy is something you do only with your mouth, as if voting isn't a form of advocacy.


However that is no what I, and also NGNM85, have been arguing at all. far from it.Yes, you've been arguing for the importance of reforms, while supporting a party that does everything possible to suppress reforms on the basis that there is no "realistic alternative."


You seem to be absolutely intent on putting words in our mouths and drawing conclusions which you can not logically draw.I make it a point in every post to respond directly to quoted text. Nobody is putting words in your mouth. Stop playing the victim.


What we have been arguing is that voting is an individual tool to win certain battles or prevent certain losses. We nowhere advocated that this should be done instead of revolutionary work like direct action, organising workers or other actions. Far from it.Nobody is claiming that you advocated people not engage in grassroots politics. We're claiming that your electoral behavior, insofar as you support the U.S. democratic party, helps to suppress grassroots politics in spite of what your intentions might be.


also... would like to underline that I never have and never will vote for the democratic party in the US. Since my AIVD file would not permit me to even travel to the US (though I have been to NY for a meeting for my company once...saw the airport...but got kicked out again...loosig my job in the proces)...you have no idea what I vote for.I am not claiming to have knowledge of your voting behavior. I am responding to your comments about voting.

[PhoenixAsh]

The right-wing agenda is to oppose Obamacare because it is a government take over of a pure, pristine, wonderful health insurance industry. I oppose Obamacare because, as Kucinich acknowledged, the bill strengthens the privatization of health care. My "line of reasoning" rejects the right-wing propaganda. Our agendas are different, though they intersect in opposition to this monstrosity of a law. I am glad to know you think that opposing the privatization of health care is a right-wing agenda. If only more people would be so right-wing.

I got that from the first go...and personally I do not care...but as you have your reasons so have others.

I have no real position on the Health care system. I always heard the HC system in the US sucked and many people could not afford help. As what I know the proposed reforms would amend that situation...which I consider a good thing. All the information in this thread however is new to me. As such I expressed that I do not agree with privitasition because it is dangerous...for reasons which were confirmed by the video that was posted by Amphictiunys by the YTY.

As such I do not agree with that part of the bill and would indeed oppose it. But I do not have indepth knowledge of comparing figures and information. As such I also respect NgNM85's choice of voting for such reforms on the basis that it is outweighted by the fact that more people will now actually get health care.




What? Support the person but not endorse him? If you're voting for a person, you are offering him electoral support. Now it's certainly true that there are additional forms of support you might offer, that you are withholding. But let's be honest here. Voting for somebody is benefiting that person, putting that person in a position of political power, electorally supporting that person.


It amazes me how many "pragmatists" on this thread want to discount the real, practical consequences of their actions by alluding to some psychic messages they claim to have in their mind.

Yes...I agree there. However its also important to assess what would happen if you do not vote. In that case Republicans might get the majority implementing even worse legislation...I can not say for the US situation.

The real practical consequences are very little. As it is an individualist act and not a platform for advocating in a broader sense.



Where did I say that there are no differences between the parties? Only an idiot would say there are no differences.

Yes...I agree here. As such...would you generally prefer a republican or a democrat? Seeing that are the only short term viable alternatives.



This has already been addressed about 1,000 times. This is why people like me get cranky -- we get tired of repeating the same shit over and over again. The alternative to voting for Kerry is signalling to the Democratic party that it has to earn your vote, not automatically expecting your vote simply because the party is moderately less bad than the Republican party. This is what is called a long term political strategy that will help move the electoral political system to the left.

Fair enough. How do you signal that? Voting for a third party?



The person who just facetiously asked what alternative there is to voting for Kerry is now pretending he's not advocating that people vote for anybody in particular. This is dishonest.

No...its general honest curiosity as to your opinion and arguments. What are the immediate alternatives to Kerry? Seeing as the only viable alternatives were Bush and Kerry...what would have been your solution?



You seem to think that advocacy is something you do only with your mouth, as if voting isn't a form of advocacy.

Well....its the definition of the word. Advocate means speak for, argue in favor of or plead for....

Voting in itself is not advocating.



Yes, you've been arguing for the importance of reforms, while supporting a party that does everything possible to suppress reforms on the basis that there is no "realistic alternative."

The other viable alternative is no reforms at all. Which agreed sometimes acn be better. But needs to be assessed in the total package of positions.



I make it a point in every post to respond directly to quoted text. Nobody is putting words in your mouth. Stop playing the victim.

indeed you do...however you adress in your answer not realy waht we are arguing. There is a communication disparity.



Nobody is claiming that you advocated people not engage in grassroots politics. We're claiming that your electoral behavior, insofar as you support the U.S. democratic party, helps to suppress grassroots politics in spite of what your intentions might be.

I think that is not really happening as grassroot politics is established at the base in direct dialogue pre ballot. If the arguments put foreward are sound and convincing grassroots should overrule voting behaviour.



I am not claiming to have knowledge of your voting behavior. I am responding to your comments about voting.

fair enough.

[The Mad Crapper]

Oh dear.

we don't want to support this bill that is pretty much a hand-out to the health insurance industry, yet we have to oppose the far-right attacks on it.

I hate when that happens.

[Lucretia]

As such I do not agree with that part of the bill and would indeed oppose it. But I do not have indepth knowledge of comparing figures and information. As such I also respect NgNM85's choice of voting for such reforms on the basis that it is outweighted by the fact that more people will now actually get health care.

Nobody here "voted" for the health care bill. If there were a popular referendum, it would have failed because of its unpopularity. It was a bill up before congress, which was approved by bourgeois politicians doing the bidding of their masters.

Also, you keep repeating this myth that the bill will allow more people to get health care. This is quite simply false. The bill will require more people to access health insurance, which is not the same as health care (I know this might not make sense to somebody living under a single-payer system). Take, for example, a private insurance plan I purchased over five years ago, which I paid 200 dollars per month for: it had a 50 dollar co-pay (which means I had to pay 50 dollars for every routine check-up) and a $2,000 dollar deductible, which means that I had to pay more than 2,000 dollars in bills before my policy would kick in and begin to cover my expenses. Now, since I am relatively healthy, I simply forked out the money for my routine check-ups, but I would not have been able to have any additional work done without incurring massive bills that insurance would not have covered. In other words, if I had some sort of health complication, I would not have been able to access health care to resolve the problem without paying as much as $2,000 dollars out of pocket. In other words, I was effectively denied health care, except for routine check-ups (which would normally have been $200, instead of $50) -- BUT KEEP IN MIND MY MONTHLY PREMIUM WAS $200!!!

This is exactly the kind of situation that the health insurance reform bill will not correct. In fact, it will force people to buy insurance policies like mine or even worse than mine, insurance policies which will be literally unusable except as overpriced catastrophic health insurance. Do you understand now why this bill will not necessarily "allow more people to access health care"? I expect most of the people in this thread rallying around this bill have not, for whatever reason, actually had to navigate the private insurance market. My guess is that they are too young.


Yes...I agree here. As such...would you generally prefer a republican or a democrat? Seeing that are the only short term viable alternatives.

I prefer not voting for a bourgeois party in the current circumstances, when both are so similar on such a wide range of important issues, because doing so forecloses any possibility of moving either party to the left while gaining very little benefit in terms of real policy differences once the LOTE is in power (see Obama's last two years for an example). I am not mechanically, in principle, opposed to voting for the Democrats. I would probably be opposed in most situations, and am definitely opposed in the present context.


No...its general honest curiosity as to your opinion and arguments. What are the immediate alternatives to Kerry? Seeing as the only viable alternatives were Bush and Kerry...what would have been your solution?

There are multiple options including not voting or voting for a third-party candidate. There's a reason only Bush and Kerry were viable was that both were bourgeois establishment who would not have changed very much. Bush's second term was not much different than how a Kerry first-term would have been. Chomsky himself has noted the striking continuity between Bush's second term and Obama's first term.


Well....its the definition of the word. Advocate means speak for, argue in favor of or plead for.... Voting in itself is not advocating.

Voting for a member of a party is supporting that party. A vote by somebody who dislikes the party counts just as much as a vote from an excited supporter.


The other viable alternative is no reforms at all. Which agreed sometimes acn be better. But needs to be assessed in the total package of positions.

You are slipping into the slight of hand that has been repeated over and over again on this thread. "Voting for the democrats is the same as fighting for reforms, because reforms come from the democrats. If you don't vote for the democrats, then you don't get reforms."

I am not going to bother wasting my time responding again. I have already responded to this multiple times, and if you haven't read and comprehended those by now, I have little hope that you'll magically begin to comprehend it now.

[PhoenixAsh]

Nobody here "voted" for the health care bill. If there were a popular referendum, it would have failed because of its unpopularity. It was a bill up before congress, which was approved by bourgeois politicians doing the bidding of their masters.

Also, you keep repeating this myth that the bill will allow more people to get health care. This is quite simply false. The bill will require more people to access health insurance, which is not the same as health care (I know this might not make sense to somebody living under a single-payer system). Take, for example, a private insurance plan I purchased over five years ago, which I paid 200 dollars per month for: it had a 50 dollar co-pay (which means I had to pay 50 dollars for every routine check-up) and a $2,000 dollar deductible, which means that I had to pay more than 2,000 dollars in bills before my policy would kick in and begin to cover my expenses. Now, since I am relatively healthy, I simply forked out the money for my routine check-ups, but I would not have been able to have any additional work done without incurring massive bills that insurance would not have covered. In other words, if I had some sort of health complication, I would not have been able to access health care to resolve the problem without paying as much as $2,000 dollars out of pocket. In other words, I was effectively denied health care, except for routine check-ups (which would normally have been $200, instead of $50) -- BUT KEEP IN MIND MY MONTHLY PREMIUM WAS $200!!!

This is exactly the kind of situation that the health insurance reform bill will not correct. In fact, it will force people to buy insurance policies like mine or even worse than mine, insurance policies which will be literally unusable except as overpriced catastrophic health insurance. Do you understand now why this bill will not necessarily "allow more people to access health care"? I expect most of the people in this thread rallying around this bill have not, for whatever reason, actually had to navigate the private insurance market. My guess is that they are too young.

Again....I am not going to argue into the details of the PPACA. I simply know to little about the content of the many, many provisions to make informed statements either in favour of or against what you are saying. Nor do I know enough about the sliding scale subsidies or the actual cost structure.

I expressed what I had heard as when I started this thread about the PPACA in an argument I was making expressing, again, that I do not take a position on the PPACA for simple lack of knowledge...and as such I do not appreciate if you make it appear like a somehow continue a myth willingly. At least that is how I interpret your statement...which I highlighted in red.

I also would like to point out, again, that I have expressed in an earlier post the dangers inherrited in a privitisation of Health Care (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2010853&postcount=57).



I prefer not voting for a bourgeois party in the current circumstances, when both are so similar on such a wide range of important issues, because doing so forecloses any possibility of moving either party to the left while gaining very little benefit in terms of real policy differences once the LOTE is in power (see Obama's last two years for an example). I am not mechanically, in principle, opposed to voting for the Democrats. I would probably be opposed in most situations, and am definitely opposed in the present context.

I appreciate your position on that. If you are opposed to the bill then logically it will follow that you abstain or vote for a third party which does not have a viable chance at government.

Now as I said...I can not comment on the content of the bill.... But if you are making a weighted assessment and conclude that the bill is indeed the best option at the current time. Then logically it would follow that you would vote for the democrats.

Chomsky had this to say about the bill (http://dprogram.net/2010/03/22/noam-chomsky-health-bill-sustains-the-system%E2%80%99s-core-ills/)...he follows your arguments but still concludes the bill is a marginal step foreward.


Out of the context of this paticular example...strategic voting is not always bad. Which is actually the only argument I am making.

Democrat policy is also not limited to this single issue of the PPACA....in its entirety the Democratic policy may or may not be arginally better even if it includes privitatsed health care.


The largest problem is that you are faced with a two party system. Which is limiting the political playing field and leads to fractionalisation within the party which confuses from overall party politics. Voting democrat in one state is like voting for a whole different party in another if assessed from the local point of view.

This system is IMO seriously hampering any form of real progress in the US....since voters with a whole different set of ideologies need to be "covered" by either the one or the other. Making party programs nearly impossible not to be vague and generalistic.

It also excludes fraction forming in the house and senate. Meaning that on some issues cooperation needs to be established between the opposing parties....which will result in watered down versions of bills and legislation.

we do not have this problem in such a profound way. In fact we have multiple parties which actually does have a somewhat more pronounced effect on policy making.

I can appreciate the difficulty one has in establishing what would constitute the least harm in a two party system.

Which leads to the following.


There are multiple options including not voting or voting for a third-party candidate. There's a reason only Bush and Kerry were viable was that both were bourgeois establishment who would not have changed very much. Bush's second term was not much different than how a Kerry first-term would have been. Chomsky himself has noted the striking continuity between Bush's second term and Obama's first term.

Yes. I see these possibilities as viable options as well. However. Not voting would result in a possible victory for the Republicans. Meaning the democrats would have to wait 4 years in order to be able to show political progress. Which they would not do since 4 years is too lang in the voters memory and the memory of a political party.

Chomsky endorsed Kerry. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/20/uselections2004.usa)Stating that he was a Bush-light and marginally better than Bush but still an improvement. He also made an argument about Bush's plan for the health system.



Voting for a member of a party is supporting that party. A vote by somebody who dislikes the party counts just as much as a vote from an excited supporter.

That is someting very different from advocating it now isn't it?



You are slipping into the slight of hand that has been repeated over and over again on this thread. "Voting for the democrats is the same as fighting for reforms, because reforms come from the democrats. If you don't vote for the democrats, then you don't get reforms."

Neither NGNM85 nor I have stated the only choice within pragmatism is the democrats. In fact NGNM85 explicitly stated he changed his vote according to the assessment of the situation at the time of vote. I think that is very important to state again here.

Its your assumption that is what we are saying in several posts. Following that line of reasoning I gave you an answer. I will explain my answer in that line of reasoning.

Given the fact that you are operating in a two party system and the republicans having the far right and christian right agenda in their back pockets which is an inherrent danger and therefore IMO not an option at all...you get to chose between Republican government or Democratic government. As the two viable choices.

I tink it is safe to assume that is such an instance the only reform however marginal that is worthwhile will come from democrats.

As nobody is claiming advocacy of a vote for democrats (however you consider the act of voting as such) the argument you also express that it doesn't matter who rules since they are both part of the same system...makes it equally less important who we vote for. Because the eventual outcome in your line of reasining will not matter at all.

Therefore I do not understand hour aggresive attack on the pragmatic voting issue.

That is...unless you are in fact arguing that a democrat rule is hampering revolutionary movement. In which case it would logically follow that you prefer a Republican president. I can see the logic and reason behind that line of argument. Howevr I do not agree with it.




I am not going to bother wasting my time responding again. I have already responded to this multiple times, and if you haven't read and comprehended those by now, I have little hope that you'll magically begin to comprehend it now.

I have explained why I do not understand your arguments and line of reasoning above.

[Lucretia]

Again....I am not going to argue into the details of the PPACA. I simply know to little about the content of the many, many provisions to make informed statements either in favour of or against what you are saying. Nor do I know enough about the sliding scale subsidies or the actual cost structure.

I expressed what I had heard as when I started this thread about the PPACA in an argument I was making expressing, again, that I do not take a position on the PPACA for simple lack of knowledge...and as such I do not appreciate if you make it appear like a somehow continue a myth willingly. At least that is how I interpret your statement...which I highlighted in red.

I also would like to point out, again, that I have expressed in an earlier post the dangers inherrited in a privitisation of Health Care (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2010853&postcount=57).



I appreciate your position on that. If you are opposed to the bill then logically it will follow that you abstain or vote for a third party which does not have a viable chance at government.

Now as I said...I can not comment on the content of the bill.... But if you are making a weighted assessment and conclude that the bill is indeed the best option at the current time. Then logically it would follow that you would vote for the democrats.

Chomsky had this to say about the bill (http://dprogram.net/2010/03/22/noam-chomsky-health-bill-sustains-the-system%E2%80%99s-core-ills/)...he follows your arguments but still concludes the bill is a marginal step foreward.


Out of the context of this paticular example...strategic voting is not always bad. Which is actually the only argument I am making.

Democrat policy is also not limited to this single issue of the PPACA....in its entirety the Democratic policy may or may not be arginally better even if it includes privitatsed health care.


The largest problem is that you are faced with a two party system. Which is limiting the political playing field and leads to fractionalisation within the party which confuses from overall party politics. Voting democrat in one state is like voting for a whole different party in another if assessed from the local point of view.

This system is IMO seriously hampering any form of real progress in the US....since voters with a whole different set of ideologies need to be "covered" by either the one or the other. Making party programs nearly impossible not to be vague and generalistic.

It also excludes fraction forming in the house and senate. Meaning that on some issues cooperation needs to be established between the opposing parties....which will result in watered down versions of bills and legislation.

we do not have this problem in such a profound way. In fact we have multiple parties which actually does have a somewhat more pronounced effect on policy making.

I can appreciate the difficulty one has in establishing what would constitute the least harm in a two party system.

Which leads to the following.



Yes. I see these possibilities as viable options as well. However. Not voting would result in a possible victory for the Republicans. Meaning the democrats would have to wait 4 years in order to be able to show political progress. Which they would not do since 4 years is too lang in the voters memory and the memory of a political party.

Chomsky endorsed Kerry. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/20/uselections2004.usa)Stating that he was a Bush-light and marginally better than Bush but still an improvement. He also made an argument about Bush's plan for the health system.



That is someting very different from advocating it now isn't it?



Neither NGNM85 nor I have stated the only choice within pragmatism is the democrats. In fact NGNM85 explicitly stated he changed his vote according to the assessment of the situation at the time of vote. I think that is very important to state again here.

Its your assumption that is what we are saying in several posts. Following that line of reasoning I gave you an answer. I will explain my answer in that line of reasoning.

Given the fact that you are operating in a two party system and the republicans having the far right and christian right agenda in their back pockets which is an inherrent danger and therefore IMO not an option at all...you get to chose between Republican government or Democratic government. As the two viable choices.

I tink it is safe to assume that is such an instance the only reform however marginal that is worthwhile will come from democrats.

As nobody is claiming advocacy of a vote for democrats (however you consider the act of voting as such) the argument you also express that it doesn't matter who rules since they are both part of the same system...makes it equally less important who we vote for. Because the eventual outcome in your line of reasining will not matter at all.

Therefore I do not understand hour aggresive attack on the pragmatic voting issue.

That is...unless you are in fact arguing that a democrat rule is hampering revolutionary movement. In which case it would logically follow that you prefer a Republican president. I can see the logic and reason behind that line of argument. Howevr I do not agree with it.




I have explained why I do not understand your arguments and line of reasoning above.

My main points stand and are not refuted by your response.

My argument that the law worsens our health care system is not refuted by simply saying that Chomsky would have voted for the bill. That's a fallacy called argumentum ad verecundium).

My argument that voting for a candidate is supporting that candidate and, indirectly, that candidate's party is not lessened by your semantic argument about whether it does or does not also constitute advocacy. Even if we agree that it is not technically advocacy, it is a more important form of support, for it is what advocacy is aimed at accomplishing.

My argument that voting for the lesser of two evils engenders a mindset that does curtail left grassroots movements does not mean that people prefer a Republican to be president. Your thinking here is laughably sloppy. It is perfectly possible to agree more in substance with the policies of one evil over the policies of another, but still maintain that the act of supporting any of the evils comes at a cost greater than the benefit gained by supporting the lesser evil.

PS: Chomsky never endorsed Kerry, though he did say that Kerry would be better than Bush strictly in terms of their policy positions. (What sane person wouldn't agree with that assertion?)

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.counterpunch.org/vorpahl02082011.html






What is necessary is for the unions to take advantage of this perspective and blow off the accumulated dust of decades of conservative habits. For too long unions have been putting their money and work towards getting a seat at the table of the corporate politicians rather than organizing in the trenches. Not only have the bi-partisan attacks on Labor's historical conquests, and the broken promises of the Democrats demonstrated how wrong this approach is, but a recent organizing victory has displayed what can be won when these upside-down priorities are turned right-side up.

[PhoenixAsh]

My main points stand and are not refuted by your response.

My argument that the law worsens our health care system is not refuted by simply saying that Chomsky would have voted for the bill. That's a fallacy called argumentum ad verecundium).

As I stated I was not trying to either agree too or argue against your positon. What am saying however, and why I introduced that Chomsky article, is that you could also come to an opposite conlcusion even if you are on the left perspective.



My argument that voting for a candidate is supporting that candidate and, indirectly, that candidate's party is not lessened by your semantic argument about whether it does or does not also constitute advocacy. Even if we agree that it is not technically advocacy, it is a more important form of support, for it is what advocacy is aimed at accomplishing.

I agree that it is support as I have from teh start. But I do not follow nor agree to the line of reasoning that it thus will lead to hampering grassroot movements which you expressed or hinted on earlier.

Discussing this could, and should, be a whole topic in itself. The effectiveness of the redical left in granishing popular support....and why our message isn't stronger, in the case of the US, isn't as convincing as the message of the liberals (in the US sense of the word). Now...continuing to garnish popular support is increadibly important.

As it now stand however the reality in the two party system of the US does not offer a viable alternative YET to the Republicans or Democrats come voting time.As such...not voting will automagtically lead to either one or the other coming into power. Which has established nothing that would not have been established by voting. Not voting will maintain the status quo just as much as voting would do. In that case the individual act of going to the voting boot does ont alter the outcome of the overall picture...it can however change the nuances.
Incidentally...Obama's campaign was fuelled by grassroot campaigning.



My argument that voting for the lesser of two evils engenders a mindset that does curtail left grassroots movements does not mean that people prefer a Republican to be president.

Try to follow this logic. If a Republican is president the most easilly obtained aleviation of the problems is trying to get a Democrat in. Political action will be focussed on that objective. As democrats are only marginally better than Republicans they will lead to disappointment. And on that disappointment the readical left will have more grounds to expand popular support because their message will not be obfuscated or dismissed with the blanket statement: "if only we had a democrat as president"

From a "marketing" perspective on motivation this is the most viable exit point for garnishing support for outside-the-current-spectrum politics.

The statement that voting for a democrat is somehow hampering the grassroot movements is in my opinion arguing that we do not have valid message or are somehow unable to articulate that message in a way which makes people understand. In other words...our message is not packaged in a convincing way.

The argument that it is hampering grassroot movements is build on the assumption that democrats somehow alleviate the systems and are seen as such by people. Ergo...having a democrat pressident be disappointing, which they always will be, should be used to maximum effectiveness. Something which the radical left has not been able to fully exploit.



Your thinking here is laughably sloppy. It is perfectly possible to agree more in substance with the policies of one evil over the policies of another, but still maintain that the act of supporting any of the evils comes at a cost greater than the benefit gained by supporting the lesser evil.

That is a personal choice and assessment. As such I agree that its absolutely valid. Therefore I have never attacked your choice not to vote. From a pragmatic position its not effective as expained above.



PS: Chomsky never endorsed Kerry, though he did say that Kerry would be better than Bush strictly in terms of their policy positions. (What sane person wouldn't agree with that assertion?)

You are right...I formulated that sloppily.... I should have said endorsed voting for Kerry.



He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.