The Democrats certainly won’t fix it, this bill passed by 100% Democratic votes in a hugely majority Democratic House and Democratic Senate. Nothing in the bill was put in there to get R votes, everything that’s in there is there because Democrats wanted it there. How is it possible then that the same party that built this, 100% on their own, will want to fix it?
In what universe was Sen Alan Specter a real Democrat, and not a moderate Republicans with a conscience who refused to be ruled by the dictates of McConnell and the right-wing?
In what universe do you consider Joe Lieberman, who endorsed John McCain over Obama, and who was rejected by the Democratic Party as their candidate for Senate, a Democrat?
Only 57 Democrats were elected to the Senate in the 2009 year, but that was only after June.
I know you believe the Republicans were cheated out of their up or down Senate votes while Bush was president to begin privatizing SS and Medicare because you clearly believe the majority must always act radically to reverse the opposite party policies. But most people want bipartisan agreement, even when they bizarrely vote Republican.
And let’s start with the basic design of Obamacare: the Republicans who used it to fight off every other Democratic plan. Where were you in 1994 making sure the Democrats won big victories getting to two-thirds control of the House and Senate after they used Obamacare to kill Clintoncare? Given the election results in 1994, clearly Obamacare was wanted by voters over Clintoncare because Clintoncare would have taken everyone’s health insurance away.
As much as Republicans deny it, Obamacare is a Republican creation, and the Republicans have been silenced by it – they can only call for repeal, but they can’t offer a Republican replacement for their Republican plan.
Why aren’t progressives demanding the Republicans campaign on replacing Obamacare with single payer? If they mumble something about “market oriented solution” you can jeer that that’s what Obamacare is.
mulp commented on the blog post Some Harry Reid Staffers Exempt From Obamacare Exchanges
If progressives had been much more involved in the political debate in the Republican circles, showing up with “repeal Obamacare and replace with Medicare for all” then you might have changed the nature of the debate of the opposition to one group of conservatives attacking Medicare as socialism, and other Republicans in the base, age 60+ defending Medicare with many thinking Medicare for all is a good idea.
Instead progressives have attacked Obama and Democrats for cutting deals with insurers, etc, just like the Republicans, without making the elections about an alternative to Obamacare, but instead making the debate essentially, “all change is bad, so you are better off dying under the bad system you know instead of risking change and maybe living”.
Republicans won elections by promising to make things worse than Obamacare because it was impossible to go back to 2008 and the dysfunctional health care system then.
Democrats could hardly do anything but defend Obamacare because the fear of the massive change that you wanting more was ten times as scary, as the Clinton’s discovered in 1994, as LBJ discovered in 1965, as Truman discovered in 1949.
When you can promise that everyone will be winners, as in no one takes a pay cut, no one sees their stock prices fall, no one pays higher taxes, no one loses great benefits, then you will have the winning health reform program, otherwise you must convince 75% of the people to sacrifice for your plan – you want everyone to lose their current health care insurance, after all.
Conventional analysis says that beginning in the 80s, as incomes began to stagnate, people financed their consumption through borrowing.
That defines the rejection of capitalism by all of society.
When individuals stop seeking to own capital free and clear, but instead they indebt themselves to lenders, these individuals have rejected capitalism and embraced slavery – they chose the easy way of selling themselves to the money lenders to avoid the sacrifice of capitalism. You can not consume more than you produce if you are a capitalist because a portion of your labor is devoted to building up the capital you own.
When you pay off the debt on your house by being frugal in your living, not going on vacation, not going out to eat, but instead investing in your property by growing your own fresh veggies and really enjoying a great meal you grew and fixed for your family and friends, when you enjoy the parks that are near almost everyone by hiking or playing ball, then you are embracing capitalism. When you refi your house to get money to fly away for a cruise, you are embracing slavery, because you are committing your future labor to the service of your lender.
Just because the backers of Reagan claimed that by going into debt and becoming a slave to the lenders is capitalism doesn’t mean Reaganomics wasn’t actually slavery. Since Reagan, government services have been paid for with debt instead of with taxes on the promise that debt will pay for itself. But instead we are enslaved by the debt of the 8 years of Reagan, the debt of the 4 years of Bush, the lower debt of the 8 years of Clinton, the explosion of debt of 8 years of Bush, and the ongoing enslavement of keeping Federal taxes at 15% of GDP while keeping consumption at 20% of a good economy.
Lower taxes have consistently delivered lower wages, and everyone needs to pay taxes to pay for the government services they want. There is no free lunch. If you want roads, bridges, clean water, sewer, reliable electric power and telco, you must pay for them. The past three decades have been a time of promising you can have them for less because we can just let the capital assets to rust and decay away without the sacrifice of replacing them and updating them with the times.
When you try to tax the rich to provide welfare to the poor, businesses are able to control the workers by paying them low enough wages they qualify for welfare, making the workers the slaves of government debt and the crumbs offered by WalMart in cheap imports and minimum wage jobs. If everyone in the middle classes are paying a high tax to provide welfare to the low wage workers so welfare is not cause increased debt, then the middle class is going to demand all jobs are paid enough to live on. They would organize unions to increase pay for everyone if they can’t act through government to boost pay for everyone to be middle class taxpayers.
Reagan dangled the shiny objects of tax cuts and free government in front of the middle class. Reagan dangled the shiny object of free money from your house inflating in price but not increasing in value and the middle class jump at the free lunch of money for nothing.
Taxes are the price of civilization – that is free market capitalism.
Reagan promised free with no sacrifice, and free for doing nothing to earn it. That is the promise of socialism and communism: you get what you need regardless of the labor you do because no one need sacrifice under socialism because everything is free.
The cheapest anything is when I take your capital and consume it as my own leaving nothing for you or me. The cheap energy is done by destroying capital forever. Take that oil and burn it so it is gone forever in an instant, and not available to lubricate things or to convert into some [...]
But the reason the Europeans produce half the carbon is they must pay high taxes to produce the carbon pollution, paying something like $10 per gallon for oil for their cars, paying more for electricity so move away from producing carbon pollution by turning on lights. If you are serious about eliminating the burning of [...]
the idea of socialism is one in which the human race is imagined in a revolutionary way to be free from economic compulsion to the extent necessary to deal with climate change. In this regard, you work to nurture human versatility, as the innate quality of the human species most likely to get everyone out [...]
You are clear thinking like Charles Krauthammer who saw the problem as simply providing Federal single payer to the uninsured. That must mean you are a conservative too. He has the same objection you do to forcing everyone into the same common insurance pool, forcing changes on over one-sixth of the economy.
On Charlie Rose, Charles Krauthammer has advocated for single payer for the uninsured as the alternative to Obamacare.
Of course, that would undoubtedly lead to most employers dropping health benefits because that would qualify them for Krauthammer’s Federal single payer.
Progressive need to talk with that conservative who wants more wars because you have common ground in Federal single payer health care.
He also called for a new tax to pay for it, so progressives should be finding common ground with Krauthammer on that as well.
Americans don’t want wars over there because Americans are too busy killing American here that they see no reason for the sacrifice of taxes and draft only to be ordered into harms way there when it is much easier to just go to war for the evening between drinks and b-ball.
Americans have killed more Americans here than in all the wars here and over there, so death and destruction and killing are not the issue.
The problem is victory requires sacrifice and taxes so high to wage war that they oppose Democratic wars, but Republicans wars are free lunch because a Republican war means tax cuts, going shopping, and easy victories that prove Americans are totally superior to everyone else and excepted from all sacrifice. Look at the clear and decisive victory in Granada. We damn well showed the British Empire whose boss – the Iron Lady merely groveled at Reagan’s feet bitching.
Americans are individuals that love war, and wage war individually. Not quite total victory over that grade school, but the message is clear. And who is going to see a movie this weekend without fearing defeat if someone objects to your freedom to see a violent movie without bleeding.
On Iran, Americans still won’t accept the defiance of Iranians toward the US trying to take all their oil for free. Americans still want the Iranian oil for free, along with all the other oil in the world.
If you asked Americans if they would seek global peace by banning all oil imports to eliminate the conflicts that American oil consumption cause, or whether the US should go to war to ensure the price of oil does not increase, I’m pretty sure the answer overwhelmingly would be for war to ensure cheap oil for Americans.
The premise of the topic is flawed because it asks people if they want a free lunch. Ask if they really want peace and will do whatever it takes for peace, they will prefer war because they expect war will bring tax cuts.
But according to the populists in the Tea Party, all the for-profit insurers are government agencies funneling money to all the for-profit drug company government agencies and the for profit hospital and doctor companies government agencies, all of it incompetently delivered by the Verizon government agency that can’t operate the government Internet.
So, why have progressives failed to rally the Tea Party to join with them for dramatic demonstrations and election takeovers demanding a pure private sector no government solution of either Medicare or Medicaid because they are totally free of government influence?
Obama solved the problem of killing off the effective counter solution of using a “marketplace to easily shop for private insurance giving the consumer the free market choice of cheap health care through competition” by successfully passing the Republican and conservative “solution”.
What you and other progressives have proposed has been defeated over and over by Republicans dangling the superior Obamacare solution.
Obama gave Republicans just what they said they wanted. Ever since they give all the reasons for a single payer system that automatically enrolls everyone with a Social Security Number. They have complained of the burden of employers providing health care so the solution is the government provide it. They complain of the cost of buying individual policies, so the solution is the government provides it. They complain of the burden on States of Medicaid so the solution is Federal government covering everyone.
So, who in the Tea Party have you joined with on a campaign to primary any candidate of any party that won’t commit to Federal government single payer? Something first proposed by a Republican more than a century ago.
Otherwise, just think about the lack of any alternatives other than expansion of single payer, unless the conservatives start taking in terms of the creative destruction of the marketplace by euthanizing the poor and sick so their body parts can be sold to pay for getting them out of the way, just like broken down cars are.
Your job now is to demand the Tea Party and conservatives and Republicans specify their solution in detail, and being quick to point out all their answers that are Obamacare. After all, even death panels has been declared to be part of Obamacare by the intellectual Sarah Palin, which means letting accountants decide who lives based on their bank account is Obamacare.
Yet after four years of Republicans giving all the reasons for single payer, progressives have not got even the loudest critics, the Tea Party to commit to Federal government single payer…. Must be harder than you think. Hell, the Georgia Tea Party has joined with the envirowackos in opposition to nuke power and demanding wind power, so why no alliance with the Tea Party for Federal single payer?
mulp commented on the blog post Minimum Wage Increase Might Be Put on California’s Ballot…By a Conservative
He’s discovered current minimum wage workers are getting food stamps, free school lunches, handouts at food pantries, free second hand clothes, Medicaid, housing assistance, and still can’t afford to buy a copy of “The American Conservative”.
mulp commented on the blog post CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Apparently Just Discovered Three Year Old CBO Report
Maybe if the media had done a better job pointing out Obama’s “if you like it you can keep it” promise was lie at the time, he wouldn’t have used it so often to stifle legitimate criticism and we might have ended up with a better bill.
You mean we would have stayed with the superior Clintoncare that got shot down by Obamacare in 1994?
Or are you saying that you have a plan with no losers, only winners, where everyone gets free healthcare just like Congress paid for by tax cuts and pay raises to doctors?
I see no evidence that progressives are willing to challenge the free lunch economics of pillage and plunder that conservatives and Republicans have convinced the voters will give them wealth with no effort and no sacrifice.
I have not seen anyone go out and seriously speak like JFK did all the time. Like telling everyone they must sacrifice for to meet the challenges of the times. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Nah, today conservatives have sold Americans on the idea of American Exceptionalism meaning not paying taxes and not having any government will result in a free lunch of wealth and prosperity without any sacrifice at all.
Why even in your claim that a “better law” was possible is all based on the free lunch of the media doing all the work of education because progressives can not be expected to sacrifice time to convince voters that higher taxes paid by everyone are necessary to have a better society.
Where was Snowden?? He failed to reveal the secret negotiations!
Why weren’t all the negotiations done in public so they could be sabotaged from all sides?
It must be Putin wants the sanctions against Iran dropped so he kept Snowden silenced.
Are you saying big oil doesn’t control Obama?
A $2 a barrel drop in profits overnight for a deal that does nothing to increase oil in the market, so imagine the result of Iran competing for market share to buy popular support by using oil export revenue to boost economic growth. Maybe not $10 oil, but a deal lifting sanctions would lead to hundreds of thousands lost jobs in the US oil industry as big oil is forced to cut way back.
mulp commented on the blog post Lamar Alexander Seems Really Bothered by the Idea of Democracy
But if we had had “democracy” in 2005, Obamacare would probably be unconstitutional because Bush would have been forced to move left on his judges only enough to get 51 Republicans in the Senate to confirm them. Given the Republicans then, he could have served his conservative base better if democracy had been the rule, and moved the court toward reversing Roe.
mulp commented on the blog post Lamar Alexander Seems Really Bothered by the Idea of Democracy
So, Jon Walker fully supports the obstructionism of the House because the voters in 2010 voted overwhelmingly to obstruct and then reaffirmed their commitment to obstruction of Obama’s radical leftist agenda in 2012??
Joh further supports slashing welfare and at the same time not doing anything to create jobs by simply agreeing to Reagan’s Jan 6, 1983 125% tax hike tax and spend to create jobs law signing because voters in the majority agree President Reagan was a radical leftist.
(Don’t argue that a conservative who didn’t vote in Nov 2012 because he considered Mitt a leftist but knew the Republicans for Congress were going to win in a landslide counts as being in favor of a Democratic House. If the House was elected by proportional representation nationwide, I bet conservatives alone would get a third of the vote, and Olympia Snowe Republicans a quarter because conservatives are much more focused on taking control of legislatures rather than on electing dictators or messiahs to the president or governor’s office.)
You obviously have no idea how costly Medicare is. If Medicare and Medicaid were as cost effective as you think, then they would provide universal coverage equivalent to Canada’s Medicare. Unless you believe the cost of everything doubles just from crossing from Canada into the US.
It would be far better if the populists here understood that the power is in the legislatures and every election matters because there are a hundred times as many elections that matter ten times as much as the elections for president and governor.
The Koch’s, Straus’, and other rich conservatives have built populist movements that focus on the elections the progressives ignore because progressives seek dictators to single handedly change everything.
Ironic given the progressives view religion and messiahs as stupid while conservatives claim to be doing the work of their messiah here on earth by electing loyal followers to legislatures while progresses put all their hopes behind electing a messiah, failing to understand the history where messiahs never lead them into the promised land and instead get crucified with their followers driven out into exile.
mulp commented on the blog post Next Open Enrollment Period Moved to After the Mid-Term Election
Right, Obama being advised by the smartest election strategists knows that no information totally prevents policial opponents from spreading FUD that you can’t counter, so Obama chose to ensure the Republicans have the best chance ever to win complete control of the Congress in 2014.
- Load More