Results 21 to 40 of 111
In that case you will probably be covered, for what that is worth.
However the full effects of this law won't kick in until 2014, from what I'm reading in news sources.
But for us socialists of all shades, this bill is an affront to what should be a guarantee for a human, especially in an industrialized nation.
No, that's not the case at all. Will the American left just fucking grow up and see that the Democratic Party is not something to be supported in any case? The Democrats are not the social democratic wing of the bourgeoisie, and the Republican party is not a fascist party. They are hardly fighting against each other -- in fact, they work together to further the aims of the American bourgeoisie. This can be seen in this bill -- the Democrats, supposedly the social democratic ones, have had numerous talks with insurance lobbyists but have never ever sat down with single-payer advocates. They, I repeat, aren't even social democratic because they're hardly proposing any uniform reform to the capitalist state whatsoever. They're just as bad as the Republicans, or even worse, because they pretend to represent the people when their minds and hands are in the hands of the bourgeoisie. And the Republican party is not fascist -- you have to read up on what fascism actually is. The tea baggers are fascists, but nobody's really sure if the Republican party will allow them to infiltrate its ranks. In fact, nobody's really sure if the American bourgeoisie is in need of fascism just yet. It's not like the worker movement is too strong here in the US. Thus, the left has to shut up and see that there is no fucking salvation in the Democrats -- they do not represent anything progressive and sure as hell they do not represent the proletariat. The CPUSA has gone down your path of thinking and now they're not even remotely the shadow of what they were in the 30s, for example. And even if we were waging a death struggle against the fascists, why would we back a capitalist party as a buffer, or shield? That's as smart of a strategy as using a tiger to fend off a lion in a locked room. They're gonna eat you up before they kill themselves. If we were to fight the fascists, we would do it in the streets, the poor communities, not somehow calling to our internet buddies to support some bourgeois law piece. God damn, this is the problem of the left internationally, but especially here in the US. We have to grow up and see and understand that the state is fundamentally an organ of class rule and little else. A capitalist state will not give a flying fuck about the state of the proletariat, just as a capitalist party will not give a fuck about poor people. So this is my note to the American left and people like you, good sir: The Democrats are the same side of the capitalist coin -- people over profits, over and over again. Maybe when we understand that we will have some influence in this blighted country.
Rant done.
"Face the world like a roaring blaze, before all the tears begin to turn silent. Burn down everything that stands in our way. Bang the drum."
Obama will never implement socialism. Not unless he ruled for something like 6 terms and advocated a peaceful revolution. Obama represents a liberal element of the capitalist class.
But that is the case. We are locked into a two party system because of the way elections are designed. Fascists here cannot take power in the same way they did in Europe because the same means are not open to them. They will have to usurp one of the two existing ruling parties.
I am not sure completely what can be done, but from a strategic viewpoint the best we can hope for is that the US does not go full fascist. We are on the defensive.
Thus far, I believe the only reason we have not gone full fascist is because the People's Republic prevented a total economic collapse. Any freedom or prosperity we have now we owe to the People's Republic.
Likewise, I have to note that State ownership even under capitalism is preferable to private ownership simply because those who control such economies have more interest in long-term development. State companies do not allow their controllers to simply sell off the industries when the economy hits a bump, whereas privately owned companies completely collapse. The US is militarily the strongest the world has ever seen, and has an extremely strong right wing element. Class consciousness is almost non-existent. Keep in mind, in times of crises power tends towards the most organized and numerical groups, at this point it would heavily favor fascistic elements.
Keep in mind when fascists took power in Germany and Italy they privatized multiple publicly/State owned industries almost immediately. Most people do not seem to realize fascists in no way advocated State ownership of the economy.
Last edited by Dermezel; 22nd March 2010 at 05:32.
Didn't Limbaugh promise to leave the country if it was passed? Also the coming Glenn Beck on-air freak out will be epic.
uphold juche-optimus prime thought
islamo-insurrecto commie destroi amerikkka
"When the peasant takes a gun in his hands, the old myths grow dim and the prohibitions are one by one forgotten." - Sartre; intro to Wretched of the Earth.
Democrats have indeed done more damage for the left in the United States than good.
That is true, but keep in mind the USSR collapsed when the Republicans were in charge. The GOP is far more anti-Communist then the Democrats. The Democrats are not so much our friend as much as a weaker and more fair enemy.
To make this concrete, I don't think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq if he was elected. I think he would have invaded Afghanistan and launched various Imperialist campaigns, and concentrated on Global Warming though he would have had little influence in the bourgeoisie system.
To be frank, I tend to like a lot of Democrats as people, but consider them monsters in their institutional role. The Republicans I despise on both counts and to greater degree. In fact, I like Obama as a person. After a revolution I would not propose executing him, I would consider far harsher punishments for Bush and Cheney.
What you just said is completely irrelevant though. So what if the Republicans were in power? By the late 80s, the USSR under Gorbachev was a capitalist regime, pure and simple. It only was socialist by name, and most socialists with a brain can attest to that fact. It's not like Reagan came into office and the healthy, socialist state just dismantled because of that. Numerous factors were involved, and which party ruled at that time was completely irrelevant. You have to see this as class-based, not in an idealistic fashion. The Democrats were just as anti-communist as Republicans because that fit the needs of the bourgeoisie at a time to create a scapegoat to distract average citizens (the same way the image of the terrorist, as anyone who opposes American rule, is being used today in political "discussions" to distract people from the fact that they live under a shit economic system).
The Democrats are not weaker and are not fairer. In fact, they're usually worse because they're so damn good at fooling people (like you) into thinking they're progressive.
First of all, as I know from previous experience, creating hypothetical scenarios in political discussions is a bad move because you've got no proof whatsoever to back up your claims. We cannot know what could've happened if Al Gore had been elected. Yet I'll look at your claim. I'm extremely skeptical that the election of Al Gore would have led to such a radical change in American foreign policy. You are thinking like a liberal in the sense that you completely forget a class analysis of this situation. Class conditions create leaders, not the other way around. That means Al Gore by himself would not have changed American policy that way. The American bourgeoisie now needs these wars as a way to maintain waning American hegemony internationally, and that's why it's so desperate to 'win'. Democrat presidents wouldn't have changed jack shit, just as Obama hasn't changed jack shit. He is fitting the role of the leader of a capitalist country.
So? It's funny you're even planning on a revolution when your talk is the model of the discourse bloating the American left for the past century. The first step to become an independent political force is to sever all ties with capitalist parties.
"Face the world like a roaring blaze, before all the tears begin to turn silent. Burn down everything that stands in our way. Bang the drum."
The democrats may be "progressive", but they have little drive to do any thing real for people. They may be the lesser of two evils, but it's still "evil".
They are doing A LOT of damage to the left. My point here is that you'll look that a lot of working class people have thrown their lot in with Republicans because of the failures of Democrats to deliver on their promises.
And the socialists of America saw this a long time ago (Eugene V. Debs)
"As a rule, large capitalists are Republicans and small capitalists are Democrats, but workingmen must remember that they are all capitalists, and that the many small ones, like the fewer large ones, are all politically supporting their class interests, and this is always and everywhere the capitalist class."
"The capitalist class is represented by the Republican, Democratic, Populist and Prohibition parties, all of which stand for private ownership of the means of production, and the triumph of any one of which will mean continued wage-slavery to the working class."
"The Republican and Democratic parties are alike capitalist parties — differing only in being committed to different sets of capitalist interests — they have the same principles under varying colors, are equally corrupt and are one in their subservience to capital and their hostility to labor."
The health care bill reeks with "hope" and "change" it's nauseating.
Oh wait... that must be something else... right... BULLSHIT!
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
The right, the Tea baggers- and the media- will still refer to this mess as "socialized" medicine, and irrevocably tie the negative impacts of this to "socialism", a word by itself which doesn't have good reputation in the states.
That is another thing I'm worried about here.
Republican/Democrat con game
The only real difference in the Democrats and the Republicans is their function and tactics, not overall goals and ideology. When capitalism is in crises, the Democrats will come in and make some half-assed reforms to assuage working class anger and stave off rebellion. When the Democrats predictably fail because they are unable and unwilling to address capitalism's structural problems, public indignation will sweep the Republicans back into power who will then proceed to tear apart any progressive gains that have been made. This has been the give and take between the two bourgeois parties for about the last 70+ years(since the New Deal). The only meaningful reforms that the working class has ever made in that time period has been through grassroots movements from below(labor unions, womens groups, black activists, antiwar and environmental movements) holding the Democrats feet to the fire and forcing them, kicking and screaming, to enact progressive change. The problem is that, under capitalism, even the best sort of reform is ephemeral, if bourgeois liberal politicians can give it can be taken away. Therin, the only long term solution is to do away with capitalism.
It's hard to tell sometimes if a reform (which is always incomplete in some way) is a step forward, step-back or just a misstep. I'm on the side of people who think that no bill would have been better than this.
For one thing, not one progressive demand was made or won on this bill. Before it even began, single-payer and other plans were taken off the table by the Democrats. Who goes into a heated negotiation with their most conservative offer first?! People who don't actually want to negotiate a good deal, that's who. This mess was compromised before a tea-bagger or republican ever even thought to be obstructionist and so when they did go on the offensive, the compromise was compromised further and further.
If health care supporters made some demands of their own and forced the Democrats to make concessions to left-populism and not just the conservatives, then it could be argued that the bill is a step in the right direction and people learned that they will need to push the government if they want anything good for workers, not just banks and the pentagon.
But we got the shaft and this corporate plan will fail and further help spread the myth that government programs are second-rate compared to the market.
Except for things like the Palmer raids and red scare under Woodrow Wilson (who also ordered the federal government facilities to be formally segregated), the Democrats who droped the atomic bombs, the Democrats that lied to convince the population to support the war in Vietnam, the Democrats who participated with McCarthy in the witch-hunts of reds.
They are far from weak, but they are definitely the enemy.
That's what-ifs. Concretely, as VP, Gore said nothing as Clinton intervined militarily in more countries that Regan or W. Bush.
As Howard Zinn said, change doesn't depend on who's sitting in the white house, it depends on who is sitting in.
The Democrats (well they used to) say some good things that we might agree with in terms of reforms or union rights, and so I think we can say that people who (mistakenly but sincerely) believe in what the Democrats seemingly represent, although liberal, are people who are potential allies and might be won to a class-conscious view of politics - the party and it's operatives are not.
The bill strengthens the chokehold that insurance has on the U.S.
From what I understand:
It forces people to buy insurance, or face a tax penalty. The people who this will most effect are the people for whom buying insurance is a losing gamble on the average (I.e. the average person he will lose money rather than break even or gain from services rendered), this is why the insurance companies were so eager for this provision.
That was included under the guise of "keeping costs down", but there is no actual regulation on price, it would take some sort of inexplicable change of behavior on the part of the insurance companies for this to be true. The business of business would suddenly have to stop being business.
The pre-existing condition thing seems to be a $100/day fine when your insurance company chooses to deny you coverage. It's a simple math exercise for them at that point (cost of fine v. cost of treatment), not a real legal impediment.
To pass this bill, Obama made a deal with the pharmaceuticals to continue the practice of not importing drugs, thus not even allowing other capitalists to compete in this market, as that would lower prices.
The government will still not use its massive purchasing power to negotiate drug prices either.
I'm also curious to see how the cuts in medicare will work out.
I mean the expanded medicaid thing is nice, as is the extension of family benefits, but the sum of the total parts is by no means a shining victory.
The Stalinists made similar arguments under the social fascism doctrine:
In that situation recognizing the lesser of two evils was the difference between a fatal and non-fatal mistake for the entire Communist movement of Germany.
You can argue that it is a unique historical situation, but I believe with a rising China the bourgeoisie will react much in the same way as when the Soviet Union began to rise.
The bourgeoisie Christian Right is in no way okay with the People's Republic owning the US debt and becoming the second largest economy in the world.
I'm totally gonna have to disagree with that. The USSR still had the means of production largely under collective ownership, this is why the economy completely collapsed under privatization:
Likewise there was a huge social safety net. Health care was free. Housing was guaranteed. Income was guaranteed. Education was extremely anti-racist, anti-discrimination against women. You could travel from the far East of the USSR to the Ukraine on one week's pay check because air transport was collectively owned and there were price controls. And at one point the USSR had a higher life expectancy rate then the US (now life expectancy is lower then India's ).
Almost the entire economy was owned by the State.
And the Communist Party had firm political control It wasn't socialist because there was no free association of workers, but it was a Workers State that had some real, concrete revolutionary gains.
ITS A JOKE !!!
socialised medicine is the only way of not breaking our human rights .
Or do only the rich have the right to live
Is Dermezel still going on about how the two classical liberalist parties are either social democratic or fascist? God-damnit.
I don't entirely agree. Probably, if the Republicans fail to tear up the reform in the following years, it would receive so much support that the Democrats and Republicans could continue to build on it. Sadly, this reform was probably the most theyc ould achieve, given how many Blue Dog Democrats there are.
I guess something is better than nothing. I'm still mad that a public option was not included.
