Obamacare: Devastating to the Working Poor?

[HumanRightsGuy]

I haven't seen any discussion of Obamacare yet on the RevLeft Forum, but I keep hearing that it's causing employers to cut back hours to reduce full-time workers to part-time status so they won't have to pay in, and that stock prices for health insurance companies are soaring as the program nears inauguration.

It's being both marketed and denounced as being "Socialistic", and yet the law was written by the insurance companies, and is effectively requiring people to become their paying customers under penalty of law.

It appears, to me, to be Bush-style corporate Republicanism in liberal Democratic guise (and, yes, I no there's no real difference between the two corporate-owned parties, so please don't lecture me on that subject).

Has anyone else heard anything similar?

[argeiphontes]

Yeah I've heard all those things. It hasn't seen much discussion on RevLeft because it's only tangential to our revolutionary aims. It's part of the question of whether or not one should support things that help the condition of the working class at the expense of their greater identification with the system.

But... calling ObamaCare "socialist" is part of the whole propaganda campaign about Obama that tries to redefine socialism. No serious person would think that Obama or any of his policies are socialist. But the propaganda has had some effect. In one case, I had to explain why Obama(care) isn't socialist to someone who came from the former Eastern Bloc.

Health insurance companies are going to be very happy. It's with their consent that he pushed through the legislation. Notice there is no public option, because that would compete with the inefficient and wasteful insurance companies.

Capitalist firms are acting to reduce costs, of course. It's to be expected. It's further evidence that reforming the capitalist system is impossible and it needs to be replaced.

[the debater]

Notice there is no public option, because that would compete with the inefficient and wasteful insurance companies.



An interesting article from one of my favorite journalists. I do believe it's from March of 2013: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/whatever-happened-to-the-public-option/

[argeiphontes]

Yeah, I like Ezra Klein too. Too bad he's on the Dark Side. ;)

[Creative Destruction]

It's not Obamacare that is devastating to the working poor. It's parasitic employers who are cutting hours for ideological, rather than practical, reasons. To be sure, Obamacare isn't great at all and is just a giant give-away to the insurance companies, but this is the same shit employers pull (or say they're going to pull) whenever there is a tax increase.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It became completely counter-productive the second they dropped the public option. However it should have been clear to everyone from the beginning that it would not survive. Polls at the time showed that 60-70 percent of the country favored a single-payer system but Obama and his crew didn't even bother putting it on the table. They sort of removed the pre-existing condition issue but they made it clear that the profits for the insurance industry were still more important than the well-being of people by adding in the mandate.

If he's accomplished anything, he's successfully killed any possibility of universal healthcare in the US. Any future mention of healthcare reform will result in everyone remembering how badly they got fucked this time around which will ensure it's quickly killed off by public opinion.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

People under 26 being allowed covered by their parents plan is a relative good thing, though. I know someone who would've not been able to see anyone about a very serious condition if it was not for that little provision.

[HumanRightsGuy]

People under 26 being allowed covered by their parents plan is a relative good thing, though. I know someone who would've not been able to see anyone about a very serious condition if it was not for that little provision.

Yeah, OK, right, and all that, except for the fact that Obamacare has not yet entered into effective force, and, therefor, cannot take credit for that happy outcome.

[Klaatu]

All of this is really not about "ObamaCare," per se, this is really about Southern racists that are trying as hard as they can to make Obama look like a failed president. Many of these racists are elected US Congressmen.

Case in point: most of the tenets of The Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) were actually Republican ideas, originally.

The interesting thing is that, had Romney been elected, the same federal health care plan would have been enacted, and everyone would have accepted it without question. After all, AHA is based on his own plan from the State of Massachusetts, which is very successful!

[Per Levy]

can someone answer me something about obama care? is it true that if you dont have an insurance you have to pay fees? id like to know cause i know some people from the states who dont have insurance and are just to poor to have one.

[Klaatu]

can someone answer me something about obama care? is it true that if you dont have an insurance you have to pay fees? id like to know cause i know some people from the states who dont have insurance and are just to poor to have one.

Actually if you are poor, you can get improved Medicaid (as long as your state did not choose to deny your deserved benefits) and this will cost you little or nothing.

[RedGuevara]

It's still wrong. Instead of paying for health care, the US should make the transition to public healthcare. All people receive the same quality of health care no matter how much your annual salary is. Covered in taxes. To capitalize on education and health, not even including the entire system of capitalism, is an atrocity that reeks of negativity and persecution.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

People under 26 being allowed covered by their parents plan is a relative good thing, though. I know someone who would've not been able to see anyone about a very serious condition if it was not for that little provision.

I mean yeah that's great, as long as you don't remember that they sacrificed a public option that would have made an action like this irrelevant and unnecessary.

[HumanRightsGuy]

All of this is really not about "ObamaCare," per se, this is really about Southern racists that are trying as hard as they can to make Obama look like a failed president. Many of these racists are elected US Congressmen.

Case in point: most of the tenets of The Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) were actually Republican ideas, originally.

The interesting thing is that, had Romney been elected, the same federal health care plan would have been enacted, and everyone would have accepted it without question. After all, AHA is based on his own plan from the State of Massachusetts, which is very successful!

AW, PLEASE!!!

Obamacare is a CORPORATE idea. Don't you see how the corporate powers-that-be are ridiculing us by virtue of the very Presidential candidates they offer us? In 2008, the major issue was Obama's citizenship. So, who did they offer as the Republican alternative? John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone in off-base housing, which renders him constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency. In 2012, the main issue was Obamacare. So, who did they offer as the Republican alternative? Mitt Romney, who, as Governor of Massachusetts, rammed "Masscare" (i.e. the prototype of Obamacare) down the legislature's throat.

Obamacare was written by the health insurance corporations. He's a Democrat, so it looks liberal, and he's black, so opposition looks racist, but it's just another corporate ROBBERY!!!! (I'll try to look up my piece from years ago about the farce of NORAD, and the extent to which it constituted plain and simple robbery of the American taxpayer by the arms dealers to sell very expensive weapons that didn't work in order to deal with a threat that didn't exist.)

And, as Ethics Gradient has pointed out, the whole Obamacare farce is poisoning the mind of the public against any future hope for genuine social health care.

[HumanRightsGuy]

Actually, Klaatu, one further point:

Who cares about anyone trying to make Obama out to be a failed President in the context of an obviously collapsing capitalist system?

As much as I hate the capitalist system, I realize fully that the current collapse of that system means starvation and death for many millions of people around the planet.

Who cares about Obama?

FUCK!!!!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The lack of a public option blows as it takes away a universal and more affordable option, but as far as I can tell it's increased the access of health care to most people, and insurance companies were going to make a killing without this law anyways. At least the marketplaces give consumers a little bit more power in making their choice and people cannot be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition. It's a reformist measure of course, and a revolutionary society won't have "Obamacare" anymore, but it's definitely going to save some people's lives.


Actually, Klaatu, one further point:

Who cares about anyone trying to make Obama out to be a failed President in the context of an obviously collapsing capitalist system?

As much as I hate the capitalist system, I realize fully that the current collapse of that system means starvation and death for many millions of people around the planet.

Who cares about Obama?

FUCK!!!!

The problem is that they're trying to attribute this failure to his "difference" and playing up his "distinction" from normal white America. Obama didn't "fail" as President, and certainly if he did not for the reasons the Republicans argue. Capitalism failed because of the material conditions of our era. Making it about Obama and not Capitalism just plays into the hands of closet racist rightwing demagogues.

http://www.blog.joelx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/fox-news-racist-barack-obama-pic.gif

[Consistent.Surprise]

can someone answer me something about obama care? is it true that if you dont have an insurance you have to pay fees? id like to know cause i know some people from the states who dont have insurance and are just to poor to have one.

Yes, basically you will be fined for not having insurance. Some states changed their Medicare coverage to encompass more people.

The ACA will supply a refund to people up to 150% above poverty (for a single person, that is grossing $11,400 a year)

To touch on the republican blame, the ACA is based on Massachusetts healthcare put in place by Romney, so it is a republican program.

I have yet to be able to sign up to browse the plans in my state. It is all corporate & single payer/public option would have been best.

Obama is not espousing the "socialist" mentality, that is those fucked up Tea Party people; Fox News or Rush or one of those assholes said it first & it stuck with their idiot followers who can't read a fact if it's not attached to conservative rhetoric

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The lack of a public option blows as it takes away a universal and more affordable option, but as far as I can tell it's increased the access of health care to most people, and insurance companies were going to make a killing without this law anyways. At least the marketplaces give consumers a little bit more power in making their choice and people cannot be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition. It's a reformist measure of course, and a revolutionary society won't have "Obamacare" anymore, but it's definitely going to save some people's lives.



The problem is that they're trying to attribute this failure to his "difference" and playing up his "distinction" from normal white America. Obama didn't "fail" as President, and certainly if he did not for the reasons the Republicans argue. Capitalism failed because of the material conditions of our era. Making it about Obama and not Capitalism just plays into the hands of closet racist rightwing demagogues.

http://www.blog.joelx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/fox-news-racist-barack-obama-pic.gif

It will help people I'm not denying that, but it needs to be pointed out that these are literally the scrapings off the bottom of the barrel. This idiot wasted some pretty great momentum that was building in the country for universal healthcare and all he can show for it is shit that wouldn't have fucking mattered if he hadn't been so spineless. It's a handout to the corporations with some scraps thrown at the rest of us, I'm not gonna act like it's awesome.

[Slavic]

The right to not be denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions and the extension for children under their parent's health insurance is the only silver lining in the ACA. These policies hit home for me since my wife just turned 26 this year and suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm 2 years ago. ACA allowed her to stay on her father's state health insurance and probably saved us $75,000.

Lets be honest; a universal public healthcare law would never be passed in the US congress considering the knee jerk reaction the general public and media have toward socialist policies, perceived or real. Yes; the law basically gave private insurance companies millions of new customers but for those of us who have medical problems, the pre-existing condition clause is very beneficial.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'd have to dig around but at the time when it was happening I was following it closely for reasons similar to your own and polls were showing that a large majority agreed that it was a responsibility of the government to provide health care and a slightly smaller majority was explicitly in favor of universal healthcare. Of course all this has changed due to how both sides chose to position themselves on the issue and the moment has passed. So yes let's all pretend that all anyone ever wanted was for 26 year olds to be covered under their patents plans and for people to stop being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

[Klaatu]

AW, PLEASE!!!

Obamacare is a CORPORATE idea. Don't you see how the corporate powers-that-be are ridiculing us by virtue of the very Presidential candidates they offer us? In 2008, the major issue was Obama's citizenship. So, who did they offer as the Republican alternative? John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone in off-base housing, which renders him constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency. In 2012, the main issue was Obamacare. So, who did they offer as the Republican alternative? Mitt Romney, who, as Governor of Massachusetts, rammed "Masscare" (i.e. the prototype of Obamacare) down the legislature's throat.

Obamacare was written by the health insurance corporations. He's a Democrat, so it looks liberal, and he's black, so opposition looks racist, but it's just another corporate ROBBERY!!!! (I'll try to look up my piece from years ago about the farce of NORAD, and the extent to which it constituted plain and simple robbery of the American taxpayer by the arms dealers to sell very expensive weapons that didn't work in order to deal with a threat that didn't exist.)

And, as Ethics Gradient has pointed out, the whole Obamacare farce is poisoning the mind of the public against any future hope for genuine social health care.

Well I am trying to point out that there are forces in this country that are using any means necessary to deride the black man in the White House. This has been going on since Day One (election day, 2008) and I am sick of it.

And yes, you are right, this is a corporate idea but will ultimately evolve into a truly national health-care system. As soon as people discover how much better off they are (I am already paying only one-third of the premiums I had to pay formerly) the sooner they will realize how good it is to have affordable health care. Therefore I will have to disagree that Obamacare is "poisoning the mind of the public against any future hope for genuine social health care," as it sure has not poisoned my opinion, nor most people I have discussed this topic with. The whole thing needs improvement, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Do you know what the Republican health-insurance plan was? They actually have no plan. Eric Cantor brought out a booklet with the Republican healthcare plan --- it was nothing but blank pages (literally!)


It hasn't seen much discussion on RevLeft because it's only tangential to our revolutionary aims. It's part of the question of whether or not one should support things that help the condition of the working class at the expense of their greater identification with the system.

Actually, having National Health Care is a part of the Socialist Revolution. That is, kicking out money-grubbing capitalists is our goal. This can happen suddenly, as in a bloody civil-war revolution, or it can happen over time, in a peaceful revolution. Frankly, I prefer the latter method.



"a universal public healthcare law would never be passed in the US congress considering the knee jerk reaction the general public and media have toward socialist policies, perceived or real."

We can thank the likes of Fox News, the so-called "Tea Party," and their ilk for this.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'd have to dig around but at the time when it was happening I was following it closely for reasons similar to your own and polls were showing that a large majority agreed that it was a responsibility of the government to provide health care and a slightly smaller majority was explicitly in favor of universal healthcare. Of course all this has changed due to how both sides chose to position themselves on the issue and the moment has passed. So yes let's all pretend that all anyone ever wanted was for 26 year olds to be covered under their patents plans and for people to stop being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

IMO a part of the bourgeois political order is making it difficult to institute minor progressive reforms even when they are wildly popular. There was no way that universal public health care could clear the Senate or the House for a whole host of reasons (the least of which was the influence of private insurance interests and other neoliberal lobbying bodies).

[HumanRightsGuy]

Well I am trying to point out that there are forces in this country that are using any means necessary to deride the black man in the White House. This has been going on since Day One (election day, 2008) and I am sick of it.

And yes, you are right, this is a corporate idea but will ultimately evolve into a truly national health-care system. As soon as people discover how much better off they are (I am already paying only one-third of the premiums I had to pay formerly) the sooner they will realize how good it is to have affordable health care. Therefore I will have to disagree that Obamacare is "poisoning the mind of the public against any future hope for genuine social health care," as it sure has not poisoned my opinion, nor most people I have discussed this topic with. The whole thing needs improvement, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Do you know what the Republican health-insurance plan was? They actually have no plan. Eric Cantor brought out a booklet with the Republican healthcare plan --- it was nothing but blank pages (literally!)


Actually, having National Health Care is a part of the Socialist Revolution. That is, kicking out money-grubbing capitalists is our goal. This can happen suddenly, as in a bloody civil-war revolution, or it can happen over time, in a peaceful revolution. Frankly, I prefer the latter method.



We can thank the likes of Fox News, the so-called "Tea Party," and their ilk for this.

Aw, c'mon!!!

Don't you see that the powers-who-think-they-are (as opposed to the people, who are the only REAL power who ever were and ever shall be), have picked Obama to be the Black man in the White House to render any opposition to the corporate agenda liable to allegations of racism?

In my community, a hip-hop shop once had large stocks of Obama t-shirts. Those t-shirts soon disappeared from the store windows, not because they were sold out (indeed, I never saw anyone wearing one), but because nobody in the Black community was interested in buying them. (Per the owner of the store by means of personal conversation.)

It was only a few months later that the white Liberal/Leftist crowd became disenchanted with Obama, and began publicly demonstrating against his blatantly (and violently!!!!) imperialist foreign policy.

Can you explain how this corporate give-away can possibly evolve into a true public health care system?

Obamacare, so far as I see it, is pretty much all bath water. There is no baby, save for, as Ethics Gradient has indicated, the pre-existing condition exemption and the under-26 inclusion.

But that's pretty much small potatoes compared to the fact of compulsory participation in the plan, under penalty of law, in private contractual commerce with the very insurance corporations who WROTE THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!

(This is quite easily distinguishable from mandatory automobile insurance, as nobody is required to own an automobile (I, myself, have not owned an automobile for the vast majority of my adult life, and have not owned one for many decades), whereas everyone subject to Obamacare possesses a human body, which is subject to compulsory contractual obligations to the medical insurance corporations, which gives private industry access to one's medical records, which private industry will be, in turn, deeply indebted to the politicians from whom they have bought Obamacare.)

[Klaatu]

Aw, c'mon!!!

Don't you see that the powers-who-think-they-are (as opposed to the people, who are the only REAL power who ever were and ever shall be), have picked Obama to be the Black man in the White House to render any opposition to the corporate agenda liable to allegations of racism?

In my community, a hip-hop shop once had large stocks of Obama t-shirts. Those t-shirts soon disappeared from the store windows, not because they were sold out (indeed, I never saw anyone wearing one), but because nobody in the Black community was interested in buying them. (Per the owner of the store by means of personal conversation.)

It was only a few months later that the white Liberal/Leftist crowd became disenchanted with Obama, and began publicly demonstrating against his blatantly (and violently!!!!) imperialist foreign policy.

Can you explain how this corporate give-away can possibly evolve into a true public health care system?

Obamacare, so far as I see it, is pretty much all bath water. There is no baby, save for, as Ethics Gradient has indicated, the pre-existing condition exemption and the under-26 inclusion.

But that's pretty much small potatoes compared to the fact of compulsory participation in the plan, under penalty of law, in private contractual commerce with the very insurance corporations who WROTE THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!

(This is quite easily distinguishable from mandatory automobile insurance, as nobody is required to own an automobile (I, myself, have not owned an automobile for the vast majority of my adult life, and have not owned one for many decades), whereas everyone subject to Obamacare possesses a human body, which is subject to compulsory contractual obligations to the medical insurance corporations, which gives private industry access to one's medical records, which private industry will be, in turn, deeply indebted to the politicians from whom they have bought Obamacare.)

Do you honestly think that the corporate capitalist overlords would have handed over the reins to a (truly) nationalized health care system, knowing full well that they will be giving up billions of dollars in profits? Of course they wouldn't! That's exactly why this is the route we must take: a universal healthcare system in which everyone participates, eventually morphing into socialized medicine. I really do believe this will happen, as it will be what people want. And THAT'S what the opponents are afraid of: the electorate's APPROVAL of socialized medicine. The opponents themselves KNOW this will happen, THAT'S WHY they fight it so much. They fear a loss of profit and control (they call it 'freedom' when in reality, it is only 'freedom' for the bourgeois class.)

Understand that I do realize that Obamacare is (A) a corporate creation and (B) is a bit flawed. As for 'A:' this may be a necessary evil in order to give people a taste of the much-needed ban on preexisting conditions and the ban on dropping those with catastrophic illness. As for 'B:' there is still much to be done in the area of repairing holes and fixing cracks. For example, have you ever built anything? If so, you know full well that things don't always go exactly as planned, and you have to go back and make tweaks and adjustments. That is to say that there are many contingencies and eventualities which no one had thought of when the law was being written, and need another look.

As for "compulsory participation in the plan, under penalty of law" it is not exactly so, one has only to pay a penalty of about less than $100 if one does not choose to participate. And if you are low-income, you can get Medicaid, if your income is under $15,000/annual. This is actually a good deal if you need expensive medical care --- personally, I have had two hospital stays this year, one for hernia, one for cancer. Not to mention my $2,000+ dental bills. You would think differently about all of this if you were in my place --- I hope you're healthy, comrade...

As for WHO picked Obama, I would say it WAS 'The People.' And it's not that I like him so much as What Would Be The Alternative? It could have been much worse, I can assure you! :crying:

[Red_Banner]

Medicaid?

I thought they weren't making it availible in my state.

[DasFapital]

Obamacare? More like Bob Dole-care! Amirite?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The lack of a public option blows as it takes away a universal and more affordable option, but as far as I can tell it's increased the access of health care to most people, and insurance companies were going to make a killing without this law anyways. At least the marketplaces give consumers a little bit more power in making their choice and people cannot be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition. It's a reformist measure of course, and a revolutionary society won't have "Obamacare" anymore, but it's definitely going to save some people's lives.

Actually I don't think it would have more than a nominal benifit for anyone and more importantly it preserves the main problem with modern popular health care in the US: our health remains a commodity.

My partner looked into it more in depth than I have but she says that the county "need" plan she was on is actually much better. I think the lowest plan was something like $1200/year with one free preventative check-up and then it would take spending $4000 in medical bills yourself before any of the insurance would kick in. It also explicitly excludes undocumented immigrants, so even if it was a good plan, that would be a major problem with it still.

At any rate I think what it represents is that popular health in the US is a universal problem impacting all classes, but in different ways. For workers, it should be obvious - we want to be healthy and not suffer, but health care has become really unattainable unless we have something through our job or have really good wages I guess. For small-business it's a burdon and a problem because they can't offer what big companies can in terms of plans and if they do offer any plan it's expensive for them too. The ruling class needs a workforce than can keep pace - US workers have less healthcare, work more hours, and have less vaccation and other benifits than a lot of other big economies - illness and chronic problems and the possibility of some major outbreak really impacting the flow of capital are stability problems for the system (just not as urgent for them).

So what I think the politicians have attempted to do is to adress the problem but in ways that only potentially "solve" the problem from a (neoliberal, specifically) capitalist perspective. It's like with education or transportation or other things I think - it's not just like the capitalists are scaming us (not as a class anyway, I'm sure charter school advocates and insurance companies are liking their lips at "reforms"), they are just adressing the problems of having an educated workforce, a mainly healthy workforce, etc, through their class interests.

[HumanRightsGuy]

As for WHO picked Obama, I would say it WAS 'The People.' And it's not that I like him so much as What Would Be The Alternative? It could have been much worse, I can assure you! :crying:

The alternative, in 2012, was Mitt Romney, who, as Governor of Massachusetts, rammed the "Masscare" act (i.e., the very prototype of "Obamacare"), through the state legislature.

In other words, the alternative would have been the same.

Because both parties' campaigns were backed by the same money.

That's why I'm a Communist, and not a Republican nor a Democrat.

[HumanRightsGuy]

Actually I don't think it would have more than a nominal benifit for anyone and more importantly it preserves the main problem with modern popular health care in the US: our health remains a commodity.

My partner looked into it more in depth than I have but she says that the county "need" plan she was on is actually much better. I think the lowest plan was something like $1200/year with one free preventative check-up and then it would take spending $4000 in medical bills yourself before any of the insurance would kick in. It also explicitly excludes undocumented immigrants, so even if it was a good plan, that would be a major problem with it still.

At any rate I think what it represents is that popular health in the US is a universal problem impacting all classes, but in different ways. For workers, it should be obvious - we want to be healthy and not suffer, but health care has become really unattainable unless we have something through our job or have really good wages I guess. For small-business it's a burdon and a problem because they can't offer what big companies can in terms of plans and if they do offer any plan it's expensive for them too. The ruling class needs a workforce than can keep pace - US workers have less healthcare, work more hours, and have less vaccation and other benifits than a lot of other big economies - illness and chronic problems and the possibility of some major outbreak really impacting the flow of capital are stability problems for the system (just not as urgent for them).

So what I think the politicians have attempted to do is to adress the problem but in ways that only potentially "solve" the problem from a (neoliberal, specifically) capitalist perspective. It's like with education or transportation or other things I think - it's not just like the capitalists are scaming us (not as a class anyway, I'm sure charter school advocates and insurance companies are liking their lips at "reforms"), they are just adressing the problems of having an educated workforce, a mainly healthy workforce, etc, through their class interests.

WHOLLY SMOKE!!!!

The Capitalist Class are interested in having an IMPRISONED workforce. Just look at the phenomenon of prison contract labor, which first arose in the South as a means of reimposing slavery upon Freedmen. By now, it's grown to the extent that a textile company in my own state was shut down some twenty or so years ago because their primary customer was the US government, which fact gave them the right to replace the law-abiding workers in the factory with prison labor. The owner, who had invented and patented the textiles, had no choice in the matter.

In other words, his factory was nationalized, not by Communism, but by Fascism.

The Capitalists have an interest in an educated and healthy workforce? Go ahead and write that science-fiction novel.

[Jimmie Higgins]

WHOLLY SMOKE!!!!No, not fully - maybe partially smoke:grin:


The Capitalist Class are interested in having an IMPRISONED workforce. Just look at the phenomenon of prison contract labor, which first arose in the South as a means of reimposing slavery upon Freedmen. By now, it's grown to the extent that a textile company in my own state was shut down some twenty or so years ago because their primary customer was the US government, which fact gave them the right to replace the law-abiding workers in the factory with prison labor. The owner, who had invented and patented the textiles, had no choice in the matter.If you mean the capitalist class is interested in maintaining a class of laborers who have no choice but to sell their labor - yes, that's essential for capitalism.

But for this specific question, I think this view of prisons is an overstatement. The capitalists as a class needed to restructure capital in the late 60s/70s and part of that meant devistating sections of the industrial workforce in some areas, undoing the economic reforms of the Keynsian era, and pushing back against social gains for black people specifically (but other people more generally). How did the capitalists deal with the devistation they created, the poverty and ghettos? Locking people up, warehousing "extra" labor which resulted in increased repressive abilities, and a kind of managed "surplus labor" force stuck in prisons. I think SOME specific capitalists make money off of prison labor and I'm sure they want to increase that and there are probably capitalists who see prison labor and prison privitization as a neoliberal answer to the massive incarceration and parole system they have developed, but prisons exist fundamentally to control us as a class, not control our labor specifically. If states were into prisons for the profit of super-exploited labor, then the project would be considered a failure because it's a big expense on states and has grown regardless of prison labor profiting.


The Capitalists have an interest in an educated and healthy workforce? Go ahead and write that science-fiction novel.Sure, I'll call this fable: "The History of Education in Big Capitalist Countries in the 20th century".:rolleyes:

Healthy and educated to them means something different that it would mean to most of us - this was the point I was trying to make. Healthy to them means we show up for work and capital can move without cities being shut down by fears of epidemics. Educated to them means we can do the tasks they require of us (which is why universal education is no longer a priority to them in the neoliberal era because they only need some skilled workers and they don't need service workers who've read Shakespeare or can do more than point-of-sales math).

Education for us is self-enrichment; health for us is living a good life with less worry of illness or going into debt. They don't care if we are in pain and debt, they just want us to be able to work.

This divide is where class struggle comes into play. When there is no pressure on them they will try and find market (or if not that, sometimes ideologically-suitable) solutions to social problems. They need a level of popular transporation, education, and health, but without pressure from below they will do this on their terms - sometimes ignoring it, sometimes trying to make a buck off of it, sometimes even privitely funding it (many of these reforms were done directly by capitalists through philanthropy in the guilded age... public transportation was done by big capitalists often so they could bring labor to their factories). They need to do something about the environment, but they will do it in pro-market ways. Since their methods and "solutions" put the profit system over the actual "use" of the popular need, we will always have a crappy education, crappy health services, crowded trains, the pollution will roll into our neighborhoods first. We need to try and develop class counter-forces and independant working class demands for how we see these things.

[HumanRightsGuy]

If you mean the capitalist class is interested in maintaining a class of laborers who have no choice but to sell their labor - yes, that's essential for capitalism.

I give up. I just absolutely give up!

You obviously possess the literacy skills necessary to understand my post, which far too many of the people with whom I deal on a daily basis lack, yet you appear to be pleased with presenting yourself before this forum in the guise of one proud of being quite deliberately obtuse.

I'm talking about the system of PRISON INMATE LABOR in the US, which you can read about, oh, where, yeah, that's right!

IN MY POST ABOVE!!!!

[Klaatu]

Calm down, HumanRightsGuy, you are among friends.

Consider that the US health care system always has been in corporate hands (with the exception of the V.A.) The fact is that Obamacare is a baby step AWAY from this mess. The Affordable Healthcare Act puts severe limitations on the money-grubbing capitalists. And that's a start. Really dude, Socialized Medicine will follow.

[Red_Banner]

Calm down, HumanRightsGuy, you are among friends.

Consider that the US health care system always has been in corporate hands (with the exception of the V.A.) The fact is that Obamacare is a baby step AWAY from this mess. The Affordable Healthcare Act puts severe limitations on the money-grubbing capitalists. And that's a start. Really dude, Socialized Medicine will follow.

What "severe limitations"?

It forces people to buy products from corporations.

The health insurance industry is being subsidized by the government.

Whatever these "limitations" are, they aren't getting in the way of profits in any serious way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm talking about the system of PRISON INMATE LABOR in the US, which you can read about, oh, where, yeah, that's right!

IN MY POST ABOVE!!!!yes and I addressed that. The us needs prisons to control us and discipline us - I don't think it holds up at all that they have prisons FOR prison labor. In California prison labor is only used for companies that provide things for other prisoners, they also have people working emergency dispatch etc. profits may be involved, but it's a bonus like war profiteering is a bonus, not the cause of imperialism.

[Klaatu]

What "severe limitations"?

OK let's leave out the word "severe." There are limitations.



It forces people to buy products from corporations.


True, but sans a truly public-owned healthcare system, the alternative is rising costs for the sick. Getting people to buy insurance is getting them used to a new public healthcare system, which will then morph into a national healthcare tax (it would not have been accepted at all if it was originally called a tax--- but the Supreme Court recognized it as such.) This tax will fund National Healthcare, much as Social Security operates now. The private healthcare providers will be froze out of business. That's because The Public Sector does not profit, does not pay taxes, nor does it pay CEOs millions of $. Public healthcare has got to be cheaper!



The health insurance industry is being subsidized by the government.

This is exactly how the government will eventually take full control of the healthcare system. For them to be involved is a part of the plan.



Whatever these "limitations" are, they aren't getting in the way of profits in any serious way.

Wrong. One of the limitations I refer to is that insurers cannot spend less than 80% of their sales on actual benefits. Personally, I have already saved hundreds of $ because my insurer can no longer charge me an extra $25/month just because I have high blood pressure.

For now, this is about affordable healthcare. Don't we deserve this? What would have been the alternative? If it were up to Capitalists, the answer is more screwing and gouging of the Working Class. I see a way out of this.

[Red_Banner]

OK let's leave out the word "severe." There are limitations.



True, but sans a truly public-owned healthcare system, the alternative is rising costs for the sick. Getting people to buy insurance is getting them used to a new public healthcare system, which will then morph into a national healthcare tax (it would not have been accepted at all if it was originally called a tax--- but the Supreme Court recognized it as such.) This tax will fund National Healthcare, much as Social Security operates now. The private healthcare providers will be froze out of business. That's because The Public Sector does not profit, does not pay taxes, nor does it pay CEOs millions of $. Public healthcare has got to be cheaper!



This is exactly how the government will eventually take full control of the healthcare system. For them to be involved is a part of the plan.



Wrong. One of the limitations I refer to is that insurers cannot spend less than 80% of their sales on actual benefits. Personally, I have already saved hundreds of $ because my insurer can no longer charge me an extra $25/month just because I have high blood pressure.

For now, this is about affordable healthcare. Don't we deserve this? What would have been the alternative? If it were up to Capitalists, the answer is more screwing and gouging of the Working Class. I see a way out of this.

:laugh:

"This tax will fund National Healthcare, much as Social Security operates now."

You mean like how social security is being robbed to line the pockets of rich businessmen?

"This is exactly how the government will eventually take full control of the healthcare system. For them to be involved is a part of the plan."

You sure it isn't how corporations will take more control of the government?

"Wrong. One of the limitations I refer to is that insurers cannot spend less than 80% of their sales on actual benefits. Personally, I have already saved hundreds of $ because my insurer can no longer charge me an extra $25/month just because I have high blood pressure."

Your insurer does not care! They have all the customers they need to make up for those loses!

" If it were up to Capitalists, the answer is more screwing and gouging of the Working Class. I see a way out of this."

"If it were up to Capitalists"?!

It is up to the capitalists!

Other than Bernie Sanders, what socialists, communists or anarchists do we have in the US House or Senate?

You are rather naive.

[#FF0000]

And that's a start. Really dude, Socialized Medicine will follow.

How can you be this naive, for real? That just isn't how things work, first of all. A slightly less-shitty system isn't necessarily a step towards a better one.

And it isn't stopping anyone from making money, least of all the health insurance companies, who've already worked out how to make their money off of this. Have you seen the individual plans, for example? "Preventative care" is supposedly free, aside from the copay, but the second something is found (say they find something during a cancer screen) and you need a test, you're paying for that test even if it comes up clean, because it's now diagnostic, not preventative. So it goes straight to the deductible, and that shit can cost thousands.

So no, it's not a good system. Is it slightly better than what we had? Maybe, but that's being generous. Come on, even the liberals have picked up on this and know ACA is a dud.

[Klaatu]

"This tax will fund National Healthcare, much as Social Security operates now."

You mean like how social security is being robbed to line the pockets of rich businessmen?

"This is exactly how the government will eventually take full control of the healthcare system. For them to be involved is a part of the plan."

You sure it isn't how corporations will take more control of the government?

"Wrong. One of the limitations I refer to is that insurers cannot spend less than 80% of their sales on actual benefits. Personally, I have already saved hundreds of $ because my insurer can no longer charge me an extra $25/month just because I have high blood pressure."

Your insurer does not care! They have all the customers they need to make up for those loses!

" If it were up to Capitalists, the answer is more screwing and gouging of the Working Class. I see a way out of this."

"If it were up to Capitalists"?!

It is up to the capitalists!

Other than Bernie Sanders, what socialists, communists or anarchists do we have in the US House or Senate?

You are rather naive.

We all know about the corporate government huggie-huggie-kissie-kissie relationship. Do you think you are the only one who resents this? Like it or not, we have to get healthcare to the people. That is the number one thing. So what are your suggestions? Or do you just want to whine about those dirty capitalists? What is YOUR PLAN? Any ideas?

If you think that you do not deserve affordable healthcare, that's fine. Lament capitalist skullduggery all you want (I'm with you on that!) But I have to pay thousands of $ for medical bills, while you are probably young and healthy. And probably feel indestructible. I did too when I was your age. You will find out in time, comrade, what I mean.


How can you be this naive, for real?

Can you offer up a healthcare plan for the working class? (please don't say "via a bloody civil war")



Anyone have (good) ideas on how to go about getting affordable healthcare to the working class?

[#FF0000]

Can you offer up a healthcare plan for the working class? (please don't say "via a bloody civil war")

Anyone have (good) ideas on how to go about getting affordable healthcare to the working class?

I don't think it's possible right now. There's no political will for it. There's no big ol' militant worker's movement to put pressure on the folks setting up these absurd systems, and the people who put it together aren't interested in getting it right. There is no good, immediate alternative. That does not mean that Obamacare's anything close to a solution. Like I said, the health insurance companies already know how to make their money off of this, and you're a fool if you didn't see that coming.

Honestly, we would have been better off expanding Medicare. That is how shitty this thing is.

[#FF0000]

I'm kind of reeling here. ACA has set up a situation in which people are now required to buy whatever the insurance companies are selling as long as the companies follow certain guidelines, and a situation in which companies aren't being forced by employers to cover certain things (like pregnancies, which are one of the most expensive things you can put on an insurance company). And you think this is a good thing?

Christ.

[Red_Banner]

We all know about the corporate government huggie-huggie-kissie-kissie relationship. Do you think you are the only one who resents this? Like it or not, we have to get healthcare to the people. That is the number one thing. So what are your suggestions? Or do you just want to whine about those dirty capitalists? What is YOUR PLAN? Any ideas?

If you think that you do not deserve affordable healthcare, that's fine. Lament capitalist skullduggery all you want (I'm with you on that!) But I have to pay thousands of $ for medical bills, while you are probably young and healthy. And probably feel indestructible. I did too when I was your age. You will find out in time, comrade, what I mean.



Can you offer up a healthcare plan for the working class? (please don't say "via a bloody civil war")



Anyone have (good) ideas on how to go about getting affordable healthcare to the working class?

Mao's "Barefoot Doctors" program was healthcare, insurance is not.

How does Obamacare hold the hospitals, doctors, nurses, EMTs, paramedics, x-ray technicians, food staff, and drug companies accountable? Does it make them any more efficient? Does it actually control what they charge?

[HumanRightsGuy]

:laugh:

"This is exactly how the government will eventually take full control of the healthcare system. For them to be involved is a part of the plan."

You sure it isn't how corporations will take more control of the government?



BINGO!!!!

You've got it, Red_Banner!!!!!

[Klaatu]

I don't think it's possible right now. There's no political will for it. There's no big ol' militant worker's movement to put pressure on the folks setting up these absurd systems, and the people who put it together aren't interested in getting it right. There is no good, immediate alternative. That does not mean that Obamacare's anything close to a solution. Like I said, the health insurance companies already know how to make their money off of this, and you're a fool if you didn't see that coming.

So we are better off with astronomically-rising costs, and the old way of denying coverage to sick people (or kicking very sick people off of their own insurance plans, for which they had paid thousands of $ into?... or the tightly-restricted marketplace which did not foster competitive pricing? Or the runaway health-industry CEO incomes? (for example, Aetna CEO Mark T. Bertolini raked in $36 million)
Aetna CEO @mtbert Sees Salary Triple (Well, Quadruple); Company Plans To Spit On ObamaCare Regs
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/11/1201045/-Aetna-CEO-mtbert-Sees-Salary-Triple-Well-Quadruple-Company-Plans-To-Spit-On-ObamaCare-Regs#



Honestly, we would have been better off expanding Medicare. That is how shitty this thing is.
[/QUOTE]
I agree! We SHOULD expand Medicare. But that has not happened (yet) but will, I predict, as people will demand it.

I had followed the healthcare debate all the way through the process before it became law. I was very disappointed that the "single-payer" plan did not pass. That would have been the better outcome.



I'm kind of reeling here. ACA has set up a situation in which people are now required to buy whatever the insurance companies are selling as long as the companies follow certain guidelines, and a situation in which companies aren't being forced by employers to cover certain things (like pregnancies, which are one of the most expensive things you can put on an insurance company). And you think this is a good thing?


So we have to deal with this. I am not saying that the ACA is the best solution, I am saying that ACA is a starting point. Of course ACA needs to improve --- but what is the alternative --- nothing at all?

And I will reiterate my idea that the entire industry will eventually become socialized medicine. If you do not believe this is possible, consider the fact that Obama has recently nationalized the college student loan program (thus making college loans more affordable)
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Feds-take-over-student-loan-program-from-banks-3193888.php

If this can be done, so can health insurance.



How does Obamacare hold the hospitals, doctors, nurses, EMTs, paramedics, x-ray technicians, food staff, and drug companies accountable? Does it make them any more efficient? Does it actually control what they charge?

That is the next step in the process. Already, profits are under control. And there can be no surcharges (except for tobacco users and possibly abortion providers)

[revolutionarymir]

Mao's "Barefoot Doctors" program was healthcare, insurance is not.

How does Obamacare hold the hospitals, doctors, nurses, EMTs, paramedics, x-ray technicians, food staff, and drug companies accountable? Does it make them any more efficient? Does it actually control what they charge?

This was a great program; I wish we had something like this in the United States - I would instantly sign up. I'm studying a subset of the medical field (no, I'm not planning on becoming an M.D.; too expensive) and it's a damned shame that this is a for-profit industry. I study what I study to help people and because I care about...well, good care. Any doctor, nurse, or professional worth their salt should be of that opinion.

[argeiphontes]

kicking very sick people off of their own insurance plans, for which they had paid thousands of $ into?

Yeah, about 10-11 yrs ago my insurance tried to ditch me on the basis of outright lies. (Based on what I assume were projections over how expensive I would be.) So, it's in my interests to support the ACA despite its flaws. It's all relative. Many people will benefit even though insurers will make out really well too.

edit: The lie was that I had a preexisting condition, which wasn't true and was a complete fabrication on their part. I should have contacted the attorney general. Oh wait, it's capitalism, never mind...

[Popular Front of Judea]

The grocery chains Safeway and Albertsons, along with Fred Meyer and QFC (subsidiaries of*Kroger Co., the largest supermarket owner in the country), are seeking to eliminate healthcare coverage for a total of 8,000 union members who work 30 hours or less per week, citing the Obamacare provision that says employers are not required to cover part-timers, according to Geiger.
“They are trying to make a bogeyman out of Obamacare," Geiger says. "Obamacare is supposed to provide coverage for the uninsured, but our members are insured right now. There is nothing in the law that requires them to eliminate coverage. It’s just an attempt to save money."
The four supermarket operators are negotiating jointly with a union coalition that includes Local 21, Tacoma-based*UFCW Local 367*and Everett-based*Teamsters Local 38.*Teamster Joint Council 28, a statewide group of 12 Teamster locals with contracts at many warehouses and trucking companies that supply the supermarkets, is backing up the grocery workers with a pledge to honor any legally constituted picket lines. The unions also have the support of the Washington State Labor Council, a statewide federation of about 600 local unions, including all of the major AFL-CIO members.
“Hiding behind the Affordable Care Act is disingenuous and immoral,” Council President Jeff Johnson told*The Stand, the Council’s daily online newspaper. Should the supermarket operators provoke a strike, “then the Council and our 400,000 members will do everything we can to support the grocery workers until a fair and just contract is signed,” Johnson stated.
At the other end of the country,*UFCW Local 1500*is at loggerheads with two supermarket companies that employ about 10,000 union members in New York City, Long Island and the Hudson River Valley. The union contracts with regional chains*Stop & Shop*and*King Cullen*are due to expire Oct. 12, according to*information posted*on the union website.
Unlike Seattle Local 21's Geiger, who says Obamacare is being exploited by the grocery chains, Local 1500 President Bruce Both has explicitly blamed Obamacare for protracted and difficult negotiations. In a statement last month, Both explained the “Affordable Care Act is presenting tremendous and unprecedented challenges to these negotiations. The complexity of this 22,000 page law, combined with confusing interpretations of the law by various federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor, IRS and Treasury Department, has left union negotiators with no choice but to proceed slowly as we negotiate the legally required changes.”
“All our members wanted was what Congress promised them when this bill was passed: a law that would not require them to change their coverage or their doctors. They did not get that from this law. Regardless of what takes place in Washington, D.C., the leadership of UFCW Local 1500 is going to fight any effort by anyone to undermine the excellent union contracts our members have fought for and earned over these many years,” Both stated.
Although Both's statement did not emphasize*the issue of part-time workers, labor sources indicate that Local 1500 is facing the same pressure to cut health insurance benefits that the Seattle local is experiencing. These pressures were foreshadowed earlier this year in New England, where a coalition of five UFCW locals*struggled with a separate division of Stop & Shop*over health care costs. In the New England contract settlement, UFCW ultimately agreed to shift some workers out of the existing labor-management health plan, but only if Stop & Shop ensured that the affected workers would have access to new insurance of similar quality.
The same issues*have led to*another stalemate*between Stop & Shop/King Kullen and UFCW Local 342, which represents about 1,200 meat cutters, deli workers and seafood specialists at the two chains. Local 342 Vice President Lisa O’Leary told Working In These Times that any contract settlement will likely be linked to a final agreement covering Local 1500.

Obamacare Complicates UFCW Talks; Seattle Workers on Brink of Strike | In These Times (http://nthesetimes.com/working/entry/15706/tense_obamacare_deadlines_loom_for_grocery_workers _in_seattle_ny/)

Oops.

[#FF0000]

So we are better off-

Stop.

Saying "It's better than the alternative" is not an argument. It's terrible, half-measure legislation one way or the other. On the positive side, a lot of people will have insurance now, and access to healthcare in America. On the negative side: it's going to be the same overly-expensive, poor-outcome healthcare as before, if slightly less expensive. Old problems haven't been fixed -- just replaced with new ones.

[/QUOTE]
I agree! We SHOULD expand Medicare. But that has not happened (yet) but will, I predict, as people will demand it.[/quote]

I never said we should, because medicare itself is a terrible, obtuse system. I'm saying that this garbage is worse than that.


So we have to deal with this.

As if we have a choice either way. "Dealing with it", however, doesn't mean we can't recognize that it's a garbage plan.


I am not saying that the ACA is the best solution, I am saying that ACA is a starting point. Of course ACA needs to improve --- but what is the alternative --- nothing at all?

And I will reiterate my idea that the entire industry will eventually become socialized medicine...

Like I said -- saying the alternative is worse is not an argument when we're saying that the new plan is terrible.

But what I'm surprised with is that anyone can be so naive as to think this is a "starting point". I mean, you don't have to be a revolutionary socialist (lucky for you) to recognize that the American government is not one that operates on any rational basis or deals with "cause and effect". American government is dominated by tribal "my team yay your team boo" nonsense between the two parties and they'll only do what they have to to get re-elected. The people who wrote (aside from the insurance lobby) don't care about fixing it's problems. They're patting themselves on the back and declaring victory for their team -- and leaving it where it is.

This isn't anything new. It's theoretically possible that ACA will be amended and improved over the years the same way it's theoretically possible for there to be an alien civilization living on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. No one can prove that it's false but you'd be insane to believe it's true.


If you do not believe this is possible, consider the fact that Obama has recently nationalized the college student loan program (thus making college loans more affordable)
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Feds-take-over-student-loan-program-from-banks-3193888.php

If this can be done, so can health insurance.


What's cool is that my brother and I were both going to college when this came into effect and neither of us got nearly enough from our Pell Grants and subsidized loans to cover our college expenses, so that shows how great a step forward that was.

That 1% drop in interest is a big help though. That'll knock a couple months off of the 50 years it will take to pay them back for the education I couldn't afford to complete.

This is all so quaint, though. "Socialists" who have more faith in the bourgeois state than the people who actively participate it -- who are more enthusiastic about the ACA than people who campaigned for Obama.

[Klaatu]

Methinks that some people on this thread watch too much Fox News.

[#FF0000]

Methinks that some people on this thread watch too much Fox News.

Well that's just not fair, after I went through all that effort to keep from making a DailyKos joke.

[Slavic]

I do not understand where all the hostility toward the ACA is coming from on this thread. This law was created and passed in the US congress. The congress, not some revolutionary committee; stop comparing it to some idealized version of what you think healthcare in America should be. Instead the ACA should be compared to what is real, and what is real is the expensive and discriminative healthcare system that was in place in the US.

Insurers are now required to spend more on healthcare procedures then their own infrastructure. This itself forces inefficient insurance companies to either lower their premium costs or spend more on the healthcare they provide.

The increase of the age in which a dependent can stay on their parents healthcare plan will save young Americans thousands of dollars they previously would have to spend if this law was not in place.

The elimination of discriminative practices such as coverage denial and premiums hikes based on pre-existing conditions is a huge benefit. Certain pre-existing conditions can make receiving appropriate medical treatment impossible unless you are of the upper class.

I understand that the ACA does not cater to the needs and desires that a typical socialist would want. I understand, I think the ACA falls shorts significantly of tackling the problems of the current US healthcare industry. It at best applies another bandage to cover the gaping wound in healthcare (ha medical metaphor).

To those who are most affected by the expense of the healthcare system such as Klaatu and myself, this bandage of a law has made our lives better. It is nowhere near great, but hell man I'd be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt if it wasn't for particularities in this law.

[Klaatu]

Well that's just not fair, after I went through all that effort to keep from making a DailyKos joke.

Sorry for going "nuclear" on you comrade, but it's true that Fox (and that big steaming turd they pushed out, known as the "Tea Party")
is trying just as hard to dis and destroy the ACA. Really, it's not the best we could get, but be realistic now, do you think you will get something better from a Republican Congress??? Well, no, those people are out to take away what's rightfully ours! They'll take away what little there is.

[ckaihatsu]

At Labor Notes: Organizing Our Way Out of “Labor’s Healthcare Muddle”

http://www.laborforsinglepayer.org/2014/04/at-labor-notes-organizing-our-way-out-of-labors-healthcare-muddle/