Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare. Liberals, Insurance Companies Elated

[Teacher]

What a joke liberalism has become that they are reduced to cheering for something like the Obama health care law.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, well my best friend's mom (not to mention me, tho my health problems aren't immediately threatening; kidney stones, smoking, and the like) will now be able to get treatment for the numerous diseases she has. It's not perfect, for sure. But in short, fuck you.

... too far? :scared:

[Garret]

How watered down is Obamacare compared to what we have with the NHS (Or will have if the Tory's have their way)? How vast of an improvement is it to now/before?

[Revolution starts with U]

It's pretty watered down compared to the NHS, I'm sure. And in many ways it's just a handout to insurance companies. Nevertheless, some healthcare is better than "just go die, pauper." Also, concessions from an obstinate ruling class are victories for the proletariat.

It mandates everyone buy health insurance. But up to 400% of the federal poverty limit (which is low) it subsidizes your premiums. For a family of four that's like 95k/yr if I'm doing my math correctly... which suffice it to say, is a lot of people. It also bars insurance companies from denying people for pre-existing conditions, which has been a particularly glaring problem with the old system.

[Raúl Duke]

It's a weak reform and I'm unsure if it'll benefit me or my family.

A reform nonetheless (one that kinda benefits private health insurance companies as well, fucks)...but as it turns out nothing like the NHS, etc.

[Book O'Dead]

I just heard one Republican rep from Texas say in reference to SCOTUS' decision that "a constitutional law does not make for a wise law"!!
Bohner is now defending that assertion agaisnt the question of a reporter.

[Catma]

I still find it shocking how quickly both US parties are moving to the right. This was a republican plan just 10 or 15 years ago, and now they're fighting against it with everything they have.

[Prometeo liberado]

Ya, well my best friend's mom (not to mention me, tho my health problems aren't immediately threatening; kidney stones, smoking, and the like) will now be able to get treatment for the numerous diseases she has. It's not perfect, for sure. But in short, fuck you.

... too far? :scared:

All this law does is give the Feds the right to "tax". Nothing was said about the definition of "care" that the insurance companies will be responsible for. You will soon be able to see a general practitioner but anything beyond that is really up to a for profit company. Fuck you? Go push get out the vote crap for the dems elsewhere.

[jookyle]

I still find it shocking how quickly both US parties are moving to the right. This was a republican plan just 10 or 15 years ago, and now they're fighting against it with everything they have.

The Republican party has become the party of the right an the Democratic party has become the party of the would be moderate Republicans(center right).

Also, it's not the best healthcare program out there but it's certainly better than nothing. I know many people that will benefit from the bill, especially us students.

[Prometeo liberado]

I can't beleive what I'm reading here. Better than nothing? It's like having a headache and rationalizing that smoking heroine would be "better than nothing". Being oblivious to what your long term needs may be for the sake of a quick fix that will ultimately lead to even greater misery. How many more times do we accept these poisoned scraps as "better than nothing" when we have a responsibilty as leftist to call shit as shit when we see it? For profit healthcare begets PROFITS, sans real healthcare. And mandated at that. Acquiescence is approval. Standing still is not a revolutionary act.

[KurtFF8]

For the love of God, please stop using the term "Obamacare"

[Regicollis]

It is certainly good that the US has moved towards no longer denying people their basic human right to health care. If the reform passes it can mean the difference between life and death to a lot of people. Although it is certainly not a revolutionary or socialist reform it has a potential to improve the lives of many ordinary working class people.

That it is a big handout to insurance companies just demonstrates how inefficient bourgeois policies are - even within a liberal democratic framework. Within the confines of a liberal democratic system the most reasonable way to provide health care would simply be to hire health care professionals. The problem is not that insurance companies needs money but that people need health care.

[Prometeo liberado]

The problem is not that insurance companies needs money but that people need health care.
The catstrophy that faces the American worker here is that with no exsisting health care infrastructure to deal with this the Administration will look to the for-profit insurance companies for guidance as to the day to day decisions and admin costs. The average worker is once again forced to blindly hand over what little money it has on a for-profit pipe dream that has little to do with healthcare and most assuredly something to do with CASH concentrated in fewer hands. And as cash equals political power in America who loses here and who gains?

[Ocean Seal]

Ya, well my best friend's mom (not to mention me, tho my health problems aren't immediately threatening; kidney stones, smoking, and the like) will now be able to get treatment for the numerous diseases she has. It's not perfect, for sure. But in short, fuck you.

... too far? :scared:
Granted its good that the health insurance companies cannot deny coverage, but consider the fact that they'll be getting enough money to finance this because people are forced to buy their health insurance.


How watered down is Obamacare compared to what we have with the NHS (Or will have if the Tory's have their way)? How vast of an improvement is it to now/before?
Its not much of an improvement and it is nothing like NHS. Its still private healthcare, its just mandatory private healthcare.


I just heard one Republican rep from Texas say in reference to SCOTUS' decision that "a constitutional law does not make for a wise law"!!
Bohner is now defending that assertion agaisnt the question of a reporter.
He's right. In fact I would argue that the Constitution has played a big part in ensuring that our laws have been shit.

[Revolution starts with U]

All this law does is give the Feds the right to "tax". Nothing was said about the definition of "care" that the insurance companies will be responsible for. You will soon be able to see a general practitioner but anything beyond that is really up to a for profit company. Fuck you? Go push get out the vote crap for the dems elsewhere.

Well obviously you're not dying, or under the threat of dying of any disease. How fortunate for you! Some of us aren't so lucky and this is a material step in the right direction. Some care > "go die, pauper."


I can't beleive what I'm reading here. Better than nothing? It's like having a headache and rationalizing that smoking heroine would be "better than nothing". Being oblivious to what your long term needs may be for the sake of a quick fix that will ultimately lead to even greater misery. How many more times do we accept these poisoned scraps as "better than nothing" when we have a responsibilty as leftist to call shit as shit when we see it? For profit healthcare begets PROFITS, sans real healthcare. And mandated at that. Acquiescence is approval. Standing still is not a revolutionary act.
That would be better than nothing if you have a migraine...
You can accept a victory the working class fought for and still call bs on it. Or you can role play leftist, whatever. People don't refrain from revolution because reforms are passed. They refrain from revolution because material situations don't put them in a position to functionally challenge the ruling class.

I love how you equate my being glad that someone I know will have a better chance of not dying as shilling for Democrats. Piss off...


The catstrophy that faces the American worker here is that with no exsisting health care infrastructure to deal with this the Administration will look to the for-profit insurance companies for guidance as to the day to day decisions and admin costs. The average worker is once again forced to blindly hand over what little money it has on a for-profit pipe dream that has little to do with healthcare and most assuredly something to do with CASH concentrated in fewer hands. And as cash equals political power in America who loses here and who gains?

400% of the federal poverty line is a lot of workers being subsidized, so you're claim here is really just false.

I mean it's a shit law, for a shit system. But I'd rather real workers not die just because they can't get care. I'm sure it's more important to discuss what Trotsky would or wouldn't have done different tho...

[Prometeo liberado]

Revolution starts with U, I understand what your saying but I feel that you are reading too much into what this act will bring. Ask yourself who will run it and for what purpose. Insurance companies and for a profit. Have you read the vague language concerning pre-existing conditions and how that will be dealt with? Yes the vast amount of workers will be technically "covered" by force and their own cash that will still have them shopping for relief from private carriers when they realize that as this is mandatory, the insurance companies only need give the bare minimum to ensure record PROFITS.


I'm sure it's more important to discuss what Trotsky would or wouldn't have done different tho...
And this?!! What the hell does a dead guy and his dead ideas have to do with any of this? Leave the baiting out.


Well obviously you're not dying, or under the threat of dying of any disease. How fortunate for you! Some of us aren't so lucky and this is a material step in the right direction. Some care > "go die, pauper."

Obviously that crystal ball you got can see my medical records. What is called for here is to be impartial and analyze this not from emotion but for who gains now and in the future and it won't be you or I.

[MuscularTophFan]

So John Roberts randomly breaks ranks and votes to upheld the Affordable Care Act. Honestly I thought it would have been ruled unconstitutional. Hopefully this will lead America down the road of single payer healthcare.

[Lobotomy]

I can't beleive what I'm reading here. Better than nothing? It's like having a headache and rationalizing that smoking heroine would be "better than nothing". Being oblivious to what your long term needs may be for the sake of a quick fix that will ultimately lead to even greater misery. How many more times do we accept these poisoned scraps as "better than nothing" when we have a responsibilty as leftist to call shit as shit when we see it? For profit healthcare begets PROFITS, sans real healthcare. And mandated at that. Acquiescence is approval. Standing still is not a revolutionary act.

nobody is denying that it's shit. but if you're a person who is actually going to have some kind of benefit from this (eg a person who could be at risk for getting denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition; or a young person like myself who can now enjoy a longer period of coverage from our parents) then it is frankly hard to take such a flippant view on it.

This is a communist forum and therefore your points about this plan maximizing profits for the insurance companies are really just not news to anyone. the reason nobody is raving about that is because it has always been glaringly inevitable.

[Revolution starts with U]

Lobotomy sums up my response pretty well.

As far as the Trotsky comment, you could insert any random leftist hero there. I was really just talking about 15 page thread about irrelevant shit that happened 100 years ago lol

I will gain from it. I have medical issues that need addressed, are not major, and can only be addressed currently if it's an emergency, which they are not.
It's like saying I shouldn't eat food because agriculture is a for profit industry.
Forgive my hostility, I'm on 4hrs sleep and was arguing with rightists on fb all day :lol:

[Prometeo liberado]

nobody is denying that it's shit. but if you're a person who is actually going to have some kind of benefit from this (eg a person who could be at risk for getting denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition; or a young person like myself who can now enjoy a longer period of coverage from our parents) then it is frankly hard to take such a flippant view on it.

This is a communist forum and therefore your points about this plan maximizing profits for the insurance companies are really just not news to anyone. the reason nobody is raving about that is because it has always been glaringly inevitable.

The other point that I am trying to make as clear as possible is that the level of care is not mandated. This will be left up to those who administer it. The language from the Obama's plan is so vague on this issue that it leaves no other option than to be settled by the Health Care professionals, the insurance companies. Add to this that the subsidies to those who can not afford it are also not clearly defined or even locked in to the cost of living, or anything else for that matter, speaks volumes about where this is all headed. This is nothing more than learning the game as you play it. When in fact it didn't need to be done like this. Our health is not something we should be joyful that others are playing with.

Inevitable? Oh christ, defeatism still alive and well here.

[Book O'Dead]

nobody is denying that it's shit. but if you're a person who is actually going to have some kind of benefit from this (eg a person who could be at risk for getting denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition; or a young person like myself who can now enjoy a longer period of coverage from our parents) then it is frankly hard to take such a flippant view on it.

This is a communist forum and therefore your points about this plan maximizing profits for the insurance companies are really just not news to anyone. the reason nobody is raving about that is because it has always been glaringly inevitable.

I agree with this. I would add that a more balanced approach is needed to assess the impact this capitalist reform has on individual workers and the working class in general.

It's not like every worker can afford to simply stand back and call every capitalist reform "shit" without at least looking for any possible advantage that we as class can derive from it. It's bad politics, I think.

[Revolution starts with U]

Jbeard, should we oppose (in your opinion) laws guaranteeing a right to unionize because they don't go far enough in establishing worker's rights, and allow owners to get their hands in the unionization process?

[JPSartre12]

My folks in Québec literally can't wrap there head around why universal healthcare is even an issue.

Wish the Democrats had the backbone to fight for single-payer from the beginning (or, at least, a robust public option that could lead to single-payer), but I guess the Affordable Care Act is better than nothing :huh:

[Robocommie]

My folks in Québec literally can't wrap there head around why universal healthcare is even an issue.

Wish the Democrats had the backbone to fight for single-payer from the beginning (or, at least, a robust public option that could lead to single-payer), but I guess the Affordable Care Act is better than nothing :huh:

It's not really about backbone, it's about lobbyists.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Jbeard, should we oppose (in your opinion) laws guaranteeing a right to unionize because they don't go far enough in establishing worker's rights, and allow owners to get their hands in the unionization process?

A better question is,: should bourgeois law dictate whether or not workers unionize, or go beyond unionizing to the point of revolutionary activity? The answer, of course, is a big loud NO. I understand that someone you know may benefit from this, but if you are serious about settling for bourgeois reforms, then here (http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2012/03/31/no-private-healthcare/)'s a great read for you. Ffs, at least aim higher than Obama's health care reform. If you're serious about moving beyond capitalism, then jbeard is absolutely right. Settling for what's "better than the worst" is not revolutionary. It's liberal reformism that will only condemn many more people to illness because it's not affordable for a private company to treat them.

[Prometeo liberado]

Jbeard, should we oppose (in your opinion) laws guaranteeing a right to unionize because they don't go far enough in establishing worker's rights, and allow owners to get their hands in the unionization process?

Im saying READ what the ruling really said and how vague this Act really is. Christ, they are playing with your money and your lives. You want to equate this with "..owners to get their hands in the unionization process?". Well given the Supreme Courts ruling which will allow the Feds to mandate a "tax" for this, and having not said much else in regards to its day to day implementation one can only surmise that yes the Boss's will and do have their hands in the how's and why's of keeping us healthy. Just look at California, which was one of the first states to sign on to this plan, and one of the states to not oppose it. Already Gov. Brown has had to appeal to the insurance executives and the White House for clarification as to the limits of care to offer, taking into account acceptable "operating" margins and consulting fees for said insurance and health care companies. People are seeing the limitations of poorly put together scam. One that will send people running to private care and paying double for what should be a right. A two tier system rife with abuse because of it's vagueness. Some see it as a welcome reform, I wish it were. The Republicans wanted something very similar many years ago and the Dems rightly called it madness. I see no difference in it's madness now that Obama spouts it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

ObamaCare still leaves the US with the worst healthcare system of advanced capitalist nations.

[Revolution starts with U]

A better question is,: should bourgeois law dictate whether or not workers unionize, or go beyond unionizing to the point of revolutionary activity?
Of course not. Who said they should? You're just inventing positions for people here.

The answer, of course, is a big loud NO. I understand that someone you know may benefit from this, but if you are serious about settling for bourgeois reforms, then here (http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2012/03/31/no-private-healthcare/)'s a great read for you. Ffs, at least aim higher than Obama's health care reform.
Who say's I'm not? Christ stop the intellectualism for a second for a second and think about actual workers out there in the real world.

If you're serious about moving beyond capitalism, then jbeard is absolutely right. Settling for what's "better than the worst" is not revolutionary. It's liberal reformism that will only condemn many more people to illness because it's not affordable for a private company to treat them.
Who's settling? Stop inventing positions for me.


Im saying READ what the ruling really said and how vague this Act really is. Christ, they are playing with your money and your lives. You want to equate this with "..owners to get their hands in the unionization process?". Well given the Supreme Courts ruling which will allow the Feds to mandate a "tax" for this, and having not said much else in regards to its day to day implementation one can only surmise that yes the Boss's will and do have their hands in the how's and why's of keeping us healthy. Just look at California, which was one of the first states to sign on to this plan, and one of the states to not oppose it. Already Gov. Brown has had to appeal to the insurance executives and the White House for clarification as to the limits of care to offer, taking into account acceptable "operating" margins and consulting fees for said insurance and health care companies. People are seeing the limitations of poorly put together scam. One that will send people running to private care and paying double for what should be a right. A two tier system rife with abuse because of it's vagueness. Some see it as a welcome reform, I wish it were. The Republicans wanted something very similar many years ago and the Dems rightly called it madness. I see no difference in it's madness now that Obama spouts it.

All this criticism is true, and I don't know where you guys got the idea that I thought otherwise. I'm thinking about my and my family and friends real situation in the here and now. They won't be rushing to private healthcare because they can't afford it as is. This is a real material step forward for them, regardless of any inefficiencies.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

If it's not universal and out of the hands of the proletariat, it's not worth having.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There are certain aspects of the bill I think are pretty sweet cuz I'm a young 20-something who gets to stay on mommy and daddy's insurance for a few more years, but there really is nothing at all progressive about that utter monstrosity of a bill, which is essentially a guaranteed profit program for pharma and the insurance industry. It clocks in at over a thousand pages...in contrast, a single payer plan proposed during the same period that the former bill was being debated clocked in at about thirty pages (it had essentially no chance of passing, but still).

Here's our friends, the right-wing troglodytes of WSJ, on the bill:


The joint venture was forged in secret in spring 2009 amid an uneasy mix of menace and opportunism. The drug makers worried that health-care reform would revert to the liberal default of price controls and drug re-importation that Mr. Obama campaigned on, but they also understood that a new entitlement could be a windfall as taxpayers bought more of their products. The White House wanted industry financial help and knew that determined business opposition could tank the bill.

Initially, the Obamateers and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus asked for $100 billion, 90% of it from mandatory "rebates" through the Medicare prescription drug benefit like those that are imposed in Medicaid. The drug makers wheedled them down to $80 billion by offsetting cost-sharing for seniors on Medicare, in an explicit quid pro quo for protection against such rebates and re-importation. As Pfizer's then-CEO Jeff Kindler put it, "our key deal points . . . are, to some extent, as important as the total dollars." Mr. Kindler played a more influential role than we understood before, as the emails show.

Thus began a close if sometimes dysfunctional relationship with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, as led by Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana Democrat turned Republican turned lobbyist. As a White House staffer put it in May 2009, "Rahm's calling Nancy-Ann and knows Billy is going to talk to Nancy-Ann tonight. Rahm will make it clear that PhRMA needs a direct line of communication, separate and apart from any coalition." Nancy-Ann is Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House health reform director, and Rahm is, of course, Rahm.

Terms were reached in June. Mr. Kindler's chief of staff wrote a memo to her industry colleagues explaining that "Jeff would object to me telling you that his communication skills and breadth of knowledge on the issues was very helpful in keeping the meeting productive." Soon the White House leaked the details to show that reform was making health-care progress, and lead PhRMA negotiator Bryant Hall wrote on June 12 that Mr. Obama "knows personally about our deal and is pushing no agenda."

But Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman then announced that he was pocketing PhRMA's concessions and demanding more, including re-importation. We wrote about the double-cross in a July 16, 2009 editorial called "Big Pharma Gets Played," noting that Mr. Tauzin's "corporate clients and their shareholders may soon pay for his attempt to get cozy with ObamaCare."

Mr. Hall forwarded the piece to Ms. DeParle with the subject line, "This sucks." The duo commiserated about how unreasonable House Democrats are, unlike Mr. Baucus and the Senators. The full exchange is among the excerpts from the emails printed nearby.

Then New York Times reporter Duff Wilson wrote to a PhRMA spokesman, "Tony, you see the WSJ editorial, 'Big Pharma Gets Played"? I'm doing a story along that line for Monday." The drug dealers had a problem.

The White House rode to the rescue. In September Mr. Hall informed Mr. Kindler that deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina "is working on some very explicit language on importation to kill it in health care reform. This has to stay quiet."

PhRMA more than repaid the favor, with a $150 million advertising campaign coordinated with the White House political shop. As one of Mr. Hall's deputies put it earlier in the minutes of a meeting when the deal was being negotiated, "The WH-designated folks . . . would like us to start to define what 'consensus health care reform' means, and what it might include. . . . They definitely want us in the game and on the same side."

In particular, the drug lobby would spend $70 million on two 501(c)(4) front groups called Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care. In July, Mr. Hall wrote that "Rahm asked for Harry and Louise ads thru third party. We've already contacted the agent."

Mr. Messina—known as "the fixer" in the West Wing—asked on December 15, 2009, "Can we get immediate robo calls in Nebraska urging nelson to vote for cloture?" Ben Nelson was the last Democratic holdout toward the Senate's 60-vote threshold, and, as Mr. Messina wrote, "We are at 59, we have to have him." They got him.

At least PhRMA deserves backhanded credit for the competence of its political operatives—unlike, say, the American Medical Association. A thread running through the emails is a hapless AMA lobbyist importuning Ms. DeParle and Mr. Messina for face-to-face meetings to discuss reforming the Medicare physician payment formula. The AMA supported ObamaCare in return for this "doc fix," which it never got.

"We are running out of time," this lobbyist, Richard Deem, writes in October 2009. How can he "tell my colleagues at AMA headquarters to proceed with $2m TV buy" without a permanent fix? The question answers itself: It was only $2 million

Mr. Waxman recently put out a rebuttal memo dismissing these email revelations as routine, "exactly what Presidents have always done to enact major legislation." Which is precisely the point—the normality is the scandal. In 2003 PhRMA took a similar road trip with the Bush Republicans to create the Medicare drug benefit. That effort included building public support by heavily funding a shell outfit called Citizens for a Better Medicare.

Of course Democrats claim to be above this kind of merger of private profits and political power, as Mr. Obama did as a candidate. "The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies," he said in 2008. "And you know what? The chairman of the committee who pushed the law through"—that would be Mr. Tauzin— "went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577446470015843822.html

[The Intransigent Faction]

Of course not. Who said they should? You're just inventing positions for people here.

Who say's I'm not? Christ stop the intellectualism for a second for a second and think about actual workers out there in the real world.

Who's settling? Stop inventing positions for me.



All this criticism is true, and I don't know where you guys got the idea that I thought otherwise. I'm thinking about my and my family and friends real situation in the here and now. They won't be rushing to private healthcare because they can't afford it as is. This is a real material step forward for them, regardless of any inefficiencies.

I "invented" nothing. You yourself said this is "better than nothing", implying you are settling for a bourgeois reform. As for me not thinking about actual workers, how ironic that you say that after accusing me of "inventing positions for people". Nice strawman, but those of us who actually see what limiting the struggle to one for bourgeois reforms will do to workers in the long run are thinking about workers. Just because we don't accept bourgeois reformism does not mean we aren't materialists/concerned with the well-being and class-consciousness of workers. The only difference is we adopt a communist position while you adopt a reformist one by settling for Obama's bill.

[ed miliband]

How watered down is Obamacare compared to what we have with the NHS (Or will have if the Tory's have their way)? How vast of an improvement is it to now/before?

put it this way: if the tories even attempted to turn the nhs into something resembling "obamacare" (lol) it'd be the end of them

[Sasha]

whoehahahahahahahaha: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare :laugh:

[electrostal]

Why are Americans so angry about this? Lol, Bismarck's Germany had better healthcare more than a hundred years ago.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

If it's not universal and out of the hands of the proletariat, it's not worth having.

Agreed, but at the same time, as other posters have said, does accepting that this is a tiny step in the generally right direction the same as saying 'Oh well, job done, end of issuse' and just accepting it?
I think it's possible to view elements of this act as positive whilst still maintaining that it isn't enough and that truly universal health care provision is still needed.

But as I say, I do agree that it's inadequate and doesn't stop the absurd capitalist profit-driven health care system from continuing.

[Philosopher Jay]

My wife, my daughter and I will be able to get some kind of health insurance starting in 2014. They have been without health insurance for 3 years, I have been without health care insurance for six years. It will also help about 30 million other working class people.
Given that a revolutionary situation or serious revolutionary movement does not exist in the United States at the moment, this is a positive, concrete step that helps many poor workers.

Seeing it as a solution to the capitalist health care crisis is a mistake, but not seeing that it is helpful to many workers is a greater mistake. Opposing such reforms and hoping they'll be overturned, objectively allies certain so-called communists with the American Republican Party. Communists are and should be smarter than that.

[Revolution starts with U]

I "invented" nothing.
You did and still are when you say I'm "settling" for anything... which also implies I campaigned for this bill.

You yourself said this is "better than nothing", implying you are settling for a bourgeois reform.
How is this implied? Idk about you but I'm going to continue slogging away at breaking down capitalism and igniting a class consciousness in the proletariat. I'm going to continue pushing for a universal healthcare.
How is it implied that I am settling for bourgeois reforms...?

As for me not thinking about actual workers, how ironic that you say that after accusing me of "inventing positions for people". Nice strawman,
Do you care that millions of working class people die every year simply for a lack of insurance?

but those of us who actually see what limiting the struggle to one for bourgeois reforms will do to workers in the long run are thinking about workers.
Who is limiting anything? Why, in your mind, does "this is a step forward for the working class" imply "which means we should all just go home and thank the ruling class for giving it to to us?"

Just because we don't accept bourgeois reformism does not mean we aren't materialists/concerned with the well-being and class-consciousness of workers.
It doesn't imply that. But are you concerned with the material well being of the working class?
If I had to guess, and I may be wrong, it sounds like your one of the types that thinks if the system weren't so nice to workers we would have already revolted.

The only difference is we adopt a communist position while you adopt a reformist one by settling for Obama's bill.
You adopt a roleplaying position. I adopt a proletarian position, looking at this through the eyes of a member of the working class, myself.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

...I don't think I've seen a single post that suggests or openly endorses the idea that anyone should 'settle' for this act as the final solution to the problems of adequate health care provision for American workers.
Seems there's just a lot of arguing over whether you in any way think this act is a move in the right direction and will help some people or if you think it's a complete waste of time and shouldn't be supported in any way on principle.

[Lucretia]

A couple of notes here: Why stop calling Obamacare Obamacare? The bill was crafted behind the scenes by the insurance companies, in conjunction with Obama's approval, and then subtly filtered into congressional committees bit by by through back channels by the White House. The bill is exactly the one Obama wanted. The result is Obamacare. Even the liberals who think Obama can do no wrong now embrace the term. So in short, deal.

Two: Not to sound heartless, but I'm tired of hearing "Well, this is a good bill because my grandmother can get her kidneystones taken care of!" The country and world are bigger than your grandmother, as lovely as I am sure she is. We might as well concede to capitalists that capitalism is a damn good thing when capitalists argue, "Well, it lets my kids go to the finest schools and develop their full potential!" You need to think about the subpar, for-profit care that is now locked into place on a near-permanent basis thanks to this law, and you need to think of the hundreds of thousands of working people who will be mandated to pay, unsubsidized, for health insurance they can neither afford nor really use (since the policy won't be anything near respectable), lest they face a six hundred dollar fine from the government. Not only will they continue to lack healthcare, but they'll be even worse off thanks to the mandate. What about them? I guess they're not as important as your grandmother.

Three: The law will not provide "universal" healthcare. And nowhere does it even bother to pretend that it treats healthcare as a right. Even the most optimistic estimates indicate that hundreds of thousands of people (the penalty payers, mostly) will still not have health insurance or health care.

Four: There is a difference between health insurance and health care. The former is an institutionally based policy that is supposed to guarantee access to the other, but in for-profit systems such as in the US, this is far from always the case. Many of the policies that the newly "insured" people will have to fork out big money for will feature deductibles and co-pays so high that they will function as worthless certificates -- perhaps overpriced catastrophic insurance -- for their bearers (though, of course, they represent dollar signs for the insurance company).

[Prometeo liberado]

My wife, my daughter and I will be able to get some kind of health insurance starting in 2014. They have been without health insurance for 3 years, I have been without health care insurance for six years. It will also help about 30 million other working class people.
Given that a revolutionary situation or serious revolutionary movement does not exist in the United States at the moment, this is a positive, concrete step that helps many poor workers.

Seeing it as a solution to the capitalist health care crisis is a mistake, but not seeing that it is helpful to many workers is a greater mistake. Opposing such reforms and hoping they'll be overturned, objectively allies certain so-called communists with the American Republican Party. Communists are and should be smarter than that.

My point is that when 2014 comes around many of you will find out what many of us in states like California, which adopted most of this Act shortly after both houses agreed on it, already are finding out. That it is extremely vague and does little more for those with pre-existing conditions other than "accept them" into the system. With little or no infrastructure in place to manage the day to day workings of the system we are left to the discrection of the same userpers as before. Only now they can play with our health with the full legal backing of the government. We all have families and health concern of some kind, but to only think of the here and now, and me and mine is to truly act as an ally of the Rep/Dems.

[Book O'Dead]

My point is that when 2014 comes around many of you will find out what many of us in states like California, which adopted most of this Act shortly after both houses agreed on it, already are finding out. That it is extremely vague and does little more for those with pre-existing conditions other than "accept them" into the system. With little or no infrastructure in place to manage the day to day workings of the system we are left to the discrection of the same userpers as before. Only now they can play with our health with the full legal backing of the government. We all have families and health concern of some kind, but to only think of the here and now, and me and mine is to truly act as an ally of the Rep/Dems.

We're already finding out. In the state of Florida, gov Rick Scott refuses to accept federal dollars intended to help the state enact the reform as it pertains to hospitals, hospices and a whole shitload of medical facilities that still depend on government money.

For example, the Miami Jackson Medical system in Miami-Dade has been in economic trouble for quite some time because of having to render unpaid and unpayable medical services, mostly to the poor. The monies that the federal government will disperse as part of its obligation to succor public institutions such as hospitals must get to them.

We have to prop up the few public hospitals that we have left because that is where the working class seeks medical attention and I, for one would like to have a properly staffed and equipped hospital nearby for when the SHIT HITS THE FAN.

A lot of innocent and not so innocent people will be hurt in America if circumstances change for the worse or the reactionaries forces arrayed against their own government attempt to deprive us of our most fundamental rights. I want lots of hospitals nearby.

So, if only for that, we should try to be less cynical unto ourselves about capitalist reforms. After all, wasn't it Lenin who joked that the capitalist would sell us the rope with which to hang him?

[Prometeo liberado]

http://soc.li/ePYO9hH

Book O' Dead,I was thinking more along the lines of this. They are using our money to make us pay for our own slow hanging.


And many of those who do gain coverage could have a tough time finding a doctor to treat them.
This quote alone should answer any doubts.

[Book O'Dead]

http://soc.li/ePYO9hH

Book O' Dead,I was thinking more along the lines of this. They are using our money to make us pay for our own slow hanging.


This quote alone should answer any doubts.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But maybe some physicians can be persuaded to take an active role in the occupy movement, such as it is, and help occupy a hospital or two in the name of the people?

Can that ever happen, you think?

[Eagle_Syr]

The only thing I'm worried about with concessions like this one is that the people will become complacent and lose sight of the final goal.

[Book O'Dead]

The only thing I'm worried about with concessions like this one is that the people will become complacent and lose sight of the final goal.

The "final goal" being..?

[Prometeo liberado]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But maybe some physicians can be persuaded to take an active role in the occupy movement, such as it is, and help occupy a hospital or two in the name of the people?

Can that ever happen, you think?

Your post may sound like a pipe dream to many who read it but those who work in the labor movement know that the nurses and care giver unions are some of the most radical on the scene. Now you are starting to think outside the Obama Health Care box when it comes to the issue of OUR health and OUR rights. Systemic change or even digestible reforms must come from us, because it is for us. To the point will it will shatter the system. This thing was so vaguely wriiten so as to appease the insurance companies with greater, mandated profits, and so verbose that the average American would never read it. Lies like this are often told directly to your face.

[wsg1991]

final goal would be having a Health care system comparable to at least Britain NHS
not to mention France , who has the best healthcare system in the world ,
USA position in healthcare according WHO , is disastrous

Quality : great , the best in the world
efficiency : take a look to wikipedia , and see how much each citizen in industrious countries pays to healthcare , and his life expectation , USA a disaster
availability \ equality : somewhere here mentioned how 30 millions workers don't have healthcare , it's a shame such high quality service is available to only some rich elite
accuracy of spending : does the health spending respond to USA population really needs ?
the amount USA spend on animal healthcare , plastic surgeries , represents how fuckup the system is , and his twisted priorities , not to mention no real prevention policy ,
says no ,

i don't know if there is any alive movement in the USA , as this ''reform'' can be just a way to prevent a real reform like public healthcare , or to disturb and Prevent Real reforms that they are seeing it coming ,

this reform can slightly raise availability , in the expense of efficiency , as private insurance will increase their services costs , and you will pay them from your taxes

my opinion is , this Obamacare is not enough ,as it might look good , but it's preventing real healthcare reform by making people stop half way for some piece of shit Obamacare we cannot simply accept it , i ask for a public healthcare similar at least to Britain ,
as demoralized and not organized workers are , they might fall for it , it's our job as leftist to prevent that , and remember them of what they really need , at least in Health

[Eagle_Syr]

The "final goal" being..?

We can't agree on much, but I think we can all agree that workers should be directly in control and we should abolish capitalism. That's a goal.

As it is right now, concessions have historically pacified class conflict. I think soon we will need to find the final solution to all of this.

[Book O'Dead]

Your post may sound like a pipe dream to many who read it but those who work in the labor movement know that the nurses and care giver unions are some of the most radical on the scene. Now you are starting to think outside the Obama Health Care box when it comes to the issue of OUR health and OUR rights. Systemic change or even digestible reforms must come from us, because it is for us. To the point will it will shatter the system. This thing was so vaguely wriiten so as to appease the insurance companies with greater, mandated profits, and so verbose that the average American would never read it. Lies like this are often told directly to your face.

Also, a recruiting strategy can be designed to focus Occupy recruitment in states where Republican administrations are being recalcitrant about the federal funds allegedly available to help hospitals in financial distress.

Go to where the trouble is.

[Book O'Dead]

We can't agree on much, but I think we can all agree that workers should be directly in control and we should abolish capitalism. That's a goal.

As it is right now, concessions have historically pacified class conflict. I think soon we will need to find the final solution to all of this.

I don't agree with the second paragraph.

Also, any mention of "final solutions" makes the hair on the back of head stand up. Don't you get that feeling as well?

[electrostal]

Also, any mention of "final solutions" makes the hair on the back of head stand up. Don't you get that feeling as well?
You should learn German, Die Endlösung doesn't sound half as bad. :laugh:

[Eagle_Syr]

I don't agree with the second paragraph. How do you explain the dying-down of revolutionary fervor since the Gilded Age?

If Russia had had a large middle class in 1917, there would not have been a revolution, IMO. People become comfortable and comfortable people don't want to revolt.


Also, any mention of "final solutions" makes the hair on the back of head stand up. Don't you get that feeling as well?

No. I believe in meeting force with force.

[electrostal]

If Russia had had a large middle class in 1917, there would not have been a revolution, IMO. People become comfortable and comfortable people don't want to revolt.
The middle class, from historical experience, can and did go both ways. It's not much of an ally, but still...

[Eagle_Syr]

The middle class, from historical experience, can and did go both ways. It's not much of an ally, but still...

How many countries that have experienced socialist revolutions had a significant middle class?

The answer is zero

[electrostal]

How many countries that have experienced socialist revolutions had a significant middle class?
Numbers and percentages aren't that relevant here. The middle class has historically been progressive to a certain point ( and beyond: Engels and so on....).

[Sasha]

How many countries that have experienced socialist revolutions had a significant middle class?

The answer is zero


how many of those countries had a succesfull socialist revolution? if we stretch the definition of socialism to breaking point we can maybe argue one, namely cuba, and key to their succes is without doubt their aggresive expansion of higher education, their doctors (medical or not) are a better defence than their soldiers, an everywhere except maybe cuba itself one would consider them middle class.

[Book O'Dead]

You should learn German, Die Endlösung doesn't sound half as bad. :laugh:



To me it sounds like death.

[Eagle_Syr]

Numbers and percentages aren't that relevant here. The middle class has historically been progressive to a certain point ( and beyond: Engels and so on....).

We of all people should know that there is a difference between bourgeois progressivism and legitimate socialism.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I really get sick of back-and-forth online posturing pretty fast, so this will be the last time I respond to this bs:


You did and still are when you say I'm "settling" for anything... which also implies I campaigned for this bill.

You are settling for it. I don't remember saying you campaigned for anything, but you may as well go all out and do that.


How is this implied? Idk about you but I'm going to continue slogging away at breaking down capitalism and igniting a class consciousness in the proletariat. I'm going to continue pushing for a universal healthcare.

Yeah because Obama's health care plan = Universal health care. Try again. Go back and read my last post with the link in it, and then maybe you'll understand. I still don't understand how you can be so damn dense about this: You won't ignite class consciousness in the proletariat if you're too afraid to take the communist position, and settle for supporting Obama's health care plan.


How is it implied that I am settling for bourgeois reforms...?

Same question just repeated again, so see above.


Do you care that millions of working class people die every year simply for a lack of insurance?

Yes, and frankly it's insulting that you even ask that, and in doing so continue to be the one strawmanning here.


Who is limiting anything? Why, in your mind, does "this is a step forward for the working class" imply "which means we should all just go home and thank the ruling class for giving it to to us?"

It's not about what's in my mind, it's about the painfully obvious truth that you just refuse to accept because you'd rather take the reformist route and feel a false sense of security that it's somehow going to solve things 'eventually'.


It doesn't imply that. But are you concerned with the material well being of the working class?

What settling for reforms implies is that you've given up on revolution, and again of course my answer is yes I am concerned. I'm concerned that your fear, and that of some others, of stating the communist position unapologetically will continue to lead you to support the "lesser evil" approach rather than presenting a revolutionary position. If revolution as an alternative doesn't enter the discussion because you're too busy supporting Obama, it will take a lot longer for it to happen (if it does).


If I had to guess, and I may be wrong, it sounds like your one of the types that thinks if the system weren't so nice to workers we would have already revolted.

Wrong again! One cannot deny that an openly repressive state breeds active, revolutionary dissent pretty fast. That said, however, communists do not stand above workers to try to manipulate them into carrying out a revolution. So no, communists should not go out and vote for some libertarian to slash social programs and hope that the resulting anger boils into a revolution. What they should do is reject the system outright and openly state the alternative in order to counter the capitalist ideology with which workers are constantly bombarded, rather than lower themselves to supporting the lesser of two evils (which can mean supporting some pretty heinous shit).


You adopt a roleplaying position. I adopt a proletarian position, looking at this through the eyes of a member of the working class, myself.

No, I 'adopt' a communist position. You adopt a "lesser evil" position. How far do they have to shift to the right before you realize that you've completed abandoned a revolutionary position in the name of supposed pragmatism? The proletarian position is not to pick sides in a bourgeois 'democracy' any more than it is to pick sides in an imperialist conflict. If anything, you're the one "roleplaying" by supporting this plan instead of supporting proletarian revolution.


Anyway, if someone else wants to respond to you, great, but I don't expect to get through to you. It seems like you've made up your mind that I'm some reactionary who doesn't care about the well-being of the working-class because I dare to support the oh-so-impractical overthrow of capitalism.

[The Intransigent Faction]

By the way, one more thing...


The "final goal" being..?

It's communism---you know, workers' control of the means of production. Just in case you forgot.

[Book O'Dead]

By the way, one more thing...



It's communism---you know, workers' control of the means of production. Just in case you forgot.

What I forgot you haven't learned yet, Barf.

[Prometeo liberado]

What I forgot you haven't learned yet, Barf.

It's so cute when you two go at it.:D

[TrotskistMarx]

I was reading on Wikipedia what liberalism means. And I've noticed that the definition of liberalism is based on general things like equal rights, freedom of speech, and all those beautiful freedoms preached by traditional political parties. But what I don't like about the definition of liberalism is doesn't go deep into the heart the matter, like the means of production. In a liberalism system they don't say who will *own* *manage* and *control* the businesses of the liberalism society, etc.

What I am trying to say by this is that liberalism is the same thing as conservatism, they are the same capitalist shit. So don't be so surprised by the free market neoliberal libertarian Obama-care


.



What a joke liberalism has become that they are reduced to cheering for something like the Obama health care law.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's only back and forth because you're being dense. I can say "the slaves should have never been free because the Union was a bourgeois government and they were only trying to use the end of slavery to further advance capitalism." Or I can say (like Marx incidentally), "the Union did a good job announcing the abolishment of chattel slavery. Now it's time to abolish wage slavery."

There's a big difference between the two. In no way does one have to lessen their revolutionary support at all by proudly announcing the concession of an obviously obstinate ruling class.

[Martin Blank]

I think it is a fundamental mistake to praise the upholding of Obamacare by the Supreme Court. Let me be clear: This is not a genuine reform; this is corporate welfare for the health insurance companies disguised as "reform". It is not a first step toward single-payer any more than bailing out the auto industry was a first step toward workers' control of production. In fact, I would argue that this decision is an attack on workers' rights and livelihoods, not a gain.

1. The Individual Mandate is a Tax, and an Attack, on Workers. When the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) was winding its way through Congress, we were regularly pointing out how the "individual mandate" was, in fact, a tax on poor and working people. In spite of the propaganda from the White House and Congressional Democrats, we saw that the substance of the mandate was actually a tax rebate/penalty that would be figured into annual income taxes. If you bought health insurance through one of the state exchanges, you would qualify for a deduction that would cover much of the cost. However, if you couldn't afford it, you would be assessed a penalty -- small at first ($50), but ever larger after that. That penalty would reach into the thousands and be imposed every year you didn't have health insurance. The IRS has the power to have you arrested for refusal or inability to pay taxes; the result is either imposition of even greater fines or jail time if unable to pay. For those in the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, the fines are a non-issue, since most health insurance can be purchased by those who have the resources to qualify for it. For poor and working people, on the other hand, it is too expensive (otherwise, they'd have it already). This means that the tax penalty will disproportionately affect workers ... which also means that the threat of federal prison for non-payment is very real.

1a. Obamacare Doesn't Have Provisions for Extent of Coverage or Premium Caps. Much is made about how the ACA makes it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. What is not talked about is how the health insurance companies can charge whatever they like for premiums. Premium caps were taken out of the original bill before it ever made it to the floor of either house of Congress; they disappeared along with the "public option". In addition, the only mandate that affects the insurance companies is that people are forced to purchase from them. There is no mandate on the amount of coverage they have to provide. When governments first mandated auto insurance for every driver, it was at a time when all insurance was comprehensive. Over time, the auto insurance companies developed the cut-rate "no-fault" insurance packages. Already, there is talk of the health insurance companies creating a similar cut-rate "no-fault" kind of insurance for the poor.

2. The Expansion of Medicaid Struck Down. The one and only nominally progressive aspect of ACA that survived all the way to becoming law was the expansion of Medicaid. Under Obamacare, the Medicaid program, jointly administered by the states and federal government, was to be expanded to cover everyone between the ages of 16 and 65 who is at or below 133 percent of the poverty line. If states did not comply, the ACA allowed the federal government to stop all Medicaid funding to them. The Supreme Court struck this provision down 7-2. The result is that states can simply ignore the federal government's expansion provisions with impunity. Considering 26 state attorneys-general had filed a lawsuit against this provision, most of whom represent some of the most populous states (California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, etc.), we should expect that none of these states will undertake the expansion, in spite of the fact that the federal government is paying 90 percent of the extra cost in the first year and 100 percent in following years. To look at it another way, most of the 11 million people who are uninsured and qualify under the expansion will never be covered, and may even end up included in the individual mandate provision (see Point 1).

3. The Roberts Doctrine. Lost between the liberal glee-fest and the conservative seething is the meaning behind Chief Justice John Roberts' "break" with his fellow rightwing justices. Among all of the conservative justices, Roberts is perhaps not only the smartest, but also the most strategic thinker. If he breaks ranks with his rightwing brethren, you can expect it's a maneuver that will end up being a bigger victory for the right than any immediate gain. Enter the Roberts Doctrine. In his majority opinion on the ACA, Roberts took the opportunity to establish the general philosophical stance that the Supreme Court would take during his tenure. Every chief justice, at one point or another in their early years on the bench, establishes their doctrine. For Roberts, his doctrine was summed up as being humble and deferential when it comes to the belief that the other two branches of the government act in good faith. This is why, even though Roberts rejected the argument that the individual mandate was legitimate under the "commerce clause" of the Constitution, he nevertheless upheld it as tax policy -- an argument never made by the Solicitor-General or the federal government. Roberts, like justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy, could have simply said it was unconstitutional under the "commerce clause" and left it at that. But he didn't. (More on the effect of Roberts' opinion on the "commerce clause" below.)

3a. The Roberts Doctrine and Judicial Review. The Roberts Doctrine, which effectively gives the benefit of the doubt to the legislative and executive branches when it comes to law and policy, severely undermines the Marshall Doctrine of judicial review, established in 1803, but existing in practice since the colonial period. Judicial review, the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, has been the cornerstone of American legal doctrine, regardless of whether the Court was conservative or liberal in its majority. The Supreme Court -- and, by extension, the federal court system -- was designed to be a check on the power of the other two branches through its ability to declare laws in violation of the Constitution. To put it another way, the Supreme Court and federal courts were meant to maintain an independent, co-equal and, to a large extent, antagonistic stance vis-à-vis the Congress and White House. The Roberts Doctrine all but erases this relationship; subservience takes the place of independence, humility replaces equality, deference over antagonism. Under the Roberts Doctrine, the Supreme Court becomes a shameless rubber stamp for Congress and the White House when it chooses to be. The fig leaf of objectivity is fully removed, and the blatantly partisan character of the Court is allowed to show.

3b. The Roberts Doctrine and the Commerce Clause. It must also be said that the establishment of the Roberts Doctrine did not only put an end to the self-declared independence and objectivity of the Supreme Court. In his very narrow read of the "commerce clause", Roberts has laid the basis for reversing most of the social welfare programs currently in place, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc., as well as virtually all labor regulations. Most of these laws, passed during either the Progressive Era, New Deal or Great Society, used the "commerce clause" -- the constitutional right of Congress to regulate commerce among the states -- as the basis for their legitimacy. But in rejecting the "commerce clause" argument made by the Solicitor-General, stating that the clause only covers existing commerce, not the creation of new commerce, Roberts effectively reversed the constitutional basis for these programs and regulations. It is only a matter of time before such laws as the Social Security Act, the Wagner Act, the laws regulating child labor, etc., are challenged in the courts and struck down as unconstitutional. It may be only a matter of a few years before the right to unionize and bargain collectively is struck down by the Roberts Court.

5. Obamacare and the Impossibility of Single-Payer Reform. Finally, it should be pointed out that the upholding of Obamacare is a resounding defeat for the advocates of the single-payer health care system and/or "Medicare for All". Obamacare itself was designed to be a bulwark against single-payer -- a means of providing "universal coverage" in a for-profit system. This is why, in the end, nearly all of the conservative Democrats fell in line behind the ACA. They came to understand that, if Obamacare was struck down by the Supreme Court, the only other viable road to "universal coverage", and the only viable alternative to the status quo was single-payer. With the ACA now upheld (for the most part) by the Supreme Court, any murmurs about single-payer among Congressional Democrats is now squelched. Single-payer advocates have the door slammed in their face, as far as Congress and the White House are concerned. And certainly the ruling classes can live with Obamacare; indeed, many of them will thrive as a result of the decision.

I understand the personal feelings many comrades here have about the upholding of the ACA. As someone who is nearly a half-million dollars in debt from medical treatment (treatment for cancer and chemotherapy, treatment for heart failure and heart surgery, etc. -- much of it while having no insurance), I can imagine that the mouthpieces of the Obama White House and Congressional Democrats sound like a great relief and even a godsend. But the reality of Obamacare is far, far uglier than many understand or can imagine. The ACA, and the Supreme Court's upholding of the law, is a massive attack on workers, especially the working poor, and a windfall for the health insurance corporations, disguised as a "reform". Caveat emptor.

------------------------------

Postscript: There is one more thing to take into consideration when looking at the ACA and the Supreme Court decision. We need to keep in mind that, as far as reforms go, this is the most we can ever expect from the exploiting and oppressing classes. Remember, Obamacare was the product not only of nearly a century of attempting to improve health care in the U.S. (the first attempt was made by Theodore Roosevelt when he was president), but also the product of a century of organizing and protests by advocates of a more progressive health care system. And through all those fights, and all those protests, and all that lobbying, and all the backroom maneuvering, and so on and so on, this is the best we can get out of the American capitalist system. Period. This should give those comrades who spend so much time and resources on pressuring for reforms from the ruling classes a reason to pause and reflect. This is as good as it gets from the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. Anything better will require a revolution.

[shinjuku dori]

As I understand, this law means Americans is forced to buy a product. No progress.

This is not social medicine that rest of civilized world has.

[Philosopher Jay]

As I understand it, for those making less than $50,000 a year, the government will essentially pay most or all of the cost of the health insurance. It is only those making over $50,000 a year who are going to be forced to spend some money to buy health insurance or face tax penalties. Basically, the result is a small tax on the young and wealthy who are presently uninsured. As a tax it is really quite progressive.

[shinjuku dori]

Can you live in America if you make less than 50000 a year? I visit New York before, my hotel was cost around 300 per diem!

[Book O'Dead]

I think it is a fundamental mistake to praise the upholding of Obamacare by the Supreme Court. Let me be clear: This is not a genuine reform; this is corporate welfare for the health insurance companies disguised as "reform". It is not a first step toward single-payer any more than bailing out the auto industry was a first step toward workers' control of production. In fact, I would argue that this decision is an attack on workers' rights and livelihoods, not a gain.
.


If ACA is an "attack on worker's rights and livelihoods" why are so many reactionaries (including the Florida-based insurance companies and the governor) so dead set against it?

Is it all political theater?

[shinjuku dori]

Bourgeois has conflicts with itself a lot my friend. Bourgeois in every other civilized country says to us: "Here you have this social healthcare. You complain when we modify it? Imagine, you could be in America to die in the street!" They also say we are great nation, we take care of our people, look at America! Nationalism my friend.

[Martin Blank]

As I understand it, for those making less than $50,000 a year, the government will essentially pay most or all of the cost of the health insurance. It is only those making over $50,000 a year who are going to be forced to spend some money to buy health insurance or face tax penalties. Basically, the result is a small tax on the young and wealthy who are presently uninsured. As a tax it is really quite progressive.

Yes and no. Those individuals who make between $15,000 and $50,000 a year still have to purchase health insurance at whatever rate the company charges, but they get a tax rebate at the end of the year that is meant to cover their annual costs (whether it actually will is another matter). If they don't, the penalty is assessed. As for the "young and wealthy", most (if not all) of these yuppies make at least $50,000 a year starting out and receive health coverage through their employers.


If ACA is an "attack on worker's rights and livelihoods" why are so many reactionaries (including the Florida-based insurance companies and the governor) so dead set against it?

Is it all political theater?

Some of it is theater, but not all of it. Some of it might be ideological (see below), but I would figure that most of it is not wanting to be bothered with the extra aggravation of having to deal with poor and working people. There are, after all, some insurance companies that only cater to the wealthy, and they may be annoyed that they have to go "slumming" because of Obamacare.

As for the governor of Florida, he's part of that far-right Tea Party Nativist crowd that believes sick people should be turned away from the hospital and left to die if they cannot afford insurance.

[Sendo]

Hilarious. This board is absolutely hilarious.

when Francois Hollande was elected president everyone rained down, saying he's just a capitalist stooge no better than Sarkozy and now everyone is all like "hey, it's better than nothing" for this healthcare bullshit.

This could help some people, but don't count on it. Private insurers now have ZERO incentive to do anything positive; they have a guaranteed customer base. Even the forced coverage of all people is flawed. If a corporation stalls on paying for a kidney transplant that costs a 100 Grand and then the patient dies, what happens? Will anyone go to jail? No. The company will be charged a fine that will pale in comparison to the bill of the surgery in question.

Oh, and as for the righteousness of this law. This is like saying everyone must buy fast-food dinners once a week for their families from a for-profit national fast food chain like Pizza Hut or KFC (no cheap McDonalds). Hey! Some crack-addicted single parents won't feed their kids at all. This is better than nothing! Those who can afford this are already likely feeding themselves and their kids just fine already. Now for those who can't afford it, we'll subsidize you if you make under $40 Grand. If you don't comply you can go to debtors' prison.

I really hope this law can extend coverage (the under 26 on the family plan of course is great, but isn't a long-term solution, obviously). I am not sure. I am 100% cynical here. If the insurance companies and drug companies were not getting a boon from new subscribers and were not able to raise their prices (they will skyrocket, believe me) they would not extend a bit of coverage if it cost them any profits. Obama is not part of the industrial-military complex the same way Bush I and II were,* but he is the biggest stooge for Wall STreet and the financial industry I have ever seen.

*This isn't to imply that Obama is anti-war, far from it. He simply isn't interested in directly enriching the war profiteers. For him it's about general dominance and opening markets, not helping out chums at the contracting and natural resource companies.

[Sendo]

Yes and no. Those individuals who make between $15,000 and $50,000 a year still have to purchase health insurance at whatever rate the company charges, but they get a tax rebate at the end of the year that is meant to cover their annual costs (whether it actually will is another matter). If they don't, the penalty is assessed. As for the "young and wealthy", most (if not all) of these yuppies make at least $50,000 a year starting out and receive health coverage through their employers.

So if you have a chronic illness and need year-round doctor visits or whatnot it is entirely legal and plausible that someone on $17,000 a year could end up paying thousands a year. How do Americans survive with all the regressive tax policies, high rents, fuel costs, privatized health care, lack of public transit, expensive vegetables, subsidized ammonia beef, exploitative grocers in the ghetto who charge more than the suburban grocers do? I'm not being rhetorical. I really don't understand how America even functions anymore. The stories of too many people competing for too few jobs (which pay a pittance) are piling up, too.

I have a friend who could likely rot away forever in his cycle. We grew up in a suburban commuter town for mostly white collar office working people who commuted 60 miles a day or more on what was once cheap gasoline. He has no savings to speak of. He does whatever local jobs he can get which pay zilch, or he can buy another used car, buy insurance, and gas, and commute to get a job which pays pretty okay for someone without a degree. It's made all the harder because of the ceilings everywhere. You can work at the local chain restaurant forever and never go anywhere (how many assistant managers can you have?) and that experience is useless, resume-wise for any other jobs.

He's on the border for being eligible for government aid for getting health insurance, but what a place to be. He will probably never use because he wants to save and not spend money on co-pays for the visits to the doctor's office or hospital if he pays for his plan. What fun, get a promotion and lose money to BlueCross or MVP or whatever. I doubt he's going to call in sick to a temp job and drive down to the hospital and take care of things. He'll either tough it out or risk getting fired, which has happened. Worked at a place for over a year, I think it was Best Buy, and he gets dicked over on his schedule all the time with split shifts. He has to take a sick day once and they say if he doesn't show up he is fired.

Even if he could save up money and get out the competition is so tough. Still, I recommend he pack up and move and live like a true pauper and live on a friend's couch until he finds something.

[Lucretia]

It should definitely give pause to the "leftists" here who think that Obamacare is somehow progressive that one of the most common arguments in support of it is that it will force those irresponsible (code: lazy) poor people to pay for the emergency-room care they've been skimming off the rest of society.

[A Marxist Historian]

Can you live in America if you make less than 50000 a year? I visit New York before, my hotel was cost around 300 per diem!

Fortunately you can, even in New York. Hell, I do, considerably less.

Just don't stay in hotels in New York. Or any place else really.

I am skeptical about the subsidies for healthcare being anything like that generous. I suspect that, when you check the fine print, everyone except the absolute poorest people are still paying through the nose. With advertising claims to the contrary from the Obamanoids, of course.

And the poorest people are shoved onto Medicaid, which is extremely inferior healthcare.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

So if you have a chronic illness and need year-round doctor visits or whatnot it is entirely legal and plausible that someone on $17,000 a year could end up paying thousands a year. How do Americans survive with all the regressive tax policies, high rents, fuel costs, privatized health care, lack of public transit, expensive vegetables, subsidized ammonia beef, exploitative grocers in the ghetto who charge more than the suburban grocers do? I'm not being rhetorical. I really don't understand how America even functions anymore. The stories of too many people competing for too few jobs (which pay a pittance) are piling up, too.

I have a friend who could likely rot away forever in his cycle. We grew up in a suburban commuter town for mostly white collar office working people who commuted 60 miles a day or more on what was once cheap gasoline. He has no savings to speak of. He does whatever local jobs he can get which pay zilch, or he can buy another used car, buy insurance, and gas, and commute to get a job which pays pretty okay for someone without a degree. It's made all the harder because of the ceilings everywhere. You can work at the local chain restaurant forever and never go anywhere (how many assistant managers can you have?) and that experience is useless, resume-wise for any other jobs.

He's on the border for being eligible for government aid for getting health insurance, but what a place to be. He will probably never use because he wants to save and not spend money on co-pays for the visits to the doctor's office or hospital if he pays for his plan. What fun, get a promotion and lose money to BlueCross or MVP or whatever. I doubt he's going to call in sick to a temp job and drive down to the hospital and take care of things. He'll either tough it out or risk getting fired, which has happened. Worked at a place for over a year, I think it was Best Buy, and he gets dicked over on his schedule all the time with split shifts. He has to take a sick day once and they say if he doesn't show up he is fired.

Even if he could save up money and get out the competition is so tough. Still, I recommend he pack up and move and live like a true pauper and live on a friend's couch until he finds something.

A tax rebate at the end of the year? But first they have to pay market rates, which they can't? And when they can't, they get hit with a penalty?

What a scam.

-M.H.-

[Raúl Duke]

How many countries that have experienced socialist revolutions had a significant middle class?

The answer is zero

Cuba...(relative to most of the region)

If you consider what they did "socialist."

Perhaps even Spain...