- ‹ previous
- 109 of 8902
- next ›
Obama's Unhealthy Victory
Despite all the town hall protests, the astroturf campaigns and the hysterical talk of death panels, Democrats made history on Saturday night when their health care bill passed the House by a nail-biting margin of 220-215. But while Republicans may have lost this battle, they continue to draw blood in the larger war. And that doesn't bode well for prospects of health care reform now that the action is moving on to the Senate.
One after another, GOP members of Congress on Saturday denounced the Democratic health care plan as a socialistic plot that will bankrupt the country. Many also blamed Democratic policies for rising unemployment and other problems caused by the recession. It’s the height of gall, of course, for the Republicans to lay any of our economic woes at the feet of the current administration. The frenzy of deregulation and speculation that has left a reported 10 percent of Americans jobless (with the real unemployment figure running over 17 percent) can be traced directly to conservative policies, which got a leg-up during the Clinton years and flourished under Bush. So why can’t the Democrats seem to fight back? In part, perhaps, it's because they aren’t willing to engage in the kind of brazen, incendiary lying that’s become de rigeur within the GOP. But there are other reasons as well.
I know the prevailing opinon among the mainstream punditocracy is that Obama is in trouble because he is trying to do too much, too fast. I think it’s the other way around. The Democrats are vulnerable to conservative attacks because they have no compelling message of their own to offer—certainly nothing that matches the soaring rhetoric of the Obama campaign. Instead, they tiptoe cautiously down the middle of the road, and wonder why no one feels terribly inspired to follow them.
The health care legislation is Exhibit A for this problem. When Obama adressed the Democratic caucus on the Hill on the day of the vote, they reportedly responded with "scattered chants of 'fired up, ready to go." But fired up is exactly what reform supporters are not. There’s nothing in the bill to inspire any fervor on the left to rival the tea parties. In fact, Republicans are partly right when they say the leading proposals won’t do much of anything but run up the deficit. The reason for this is not, as they claim, because it’s a socialistic big-government plot to take over the private medical system; the reason is that it isn’t any of those things—not by a long shot. The Democratic legislation is a costly, futile mess because it refuses to rein in the industries that have been ripping off the American public year after year.
Obama and the Democrats have no real vision for a transformed health care system, so they’ve gone for a slightly modified version of business as usual. They’ve cut backroom deals that win a few meager concessions toward the public good, while at the same time ensuring the profits of the insurance companies, Big Pharma, and other health care profiteers by entrenching their control of the health care system and rewarding them with larger markets and fatter profits. They’re doing what Democrats have done since at least the Clinton years—acting like kinder, gentler Republicans rather than the defenders of the common people.
A whole lot of Americans don’t like the current health care system, and a whole lot more hate insurance companies. The Democrats should have been able to translate that into some kind of populist support for real change. Instead, they dithered and compromised, and failed to invoke any compelling ideology. Health care ought to have nothing to do with profits or even with "affordability." It should be a basic human right in a civilized society. But that’s precisely the kind of statement the Democrats are unwilling to make—so they end up saying nothing at all.
Likewise, the Obama White House has yet to take any strong, principled action against the forces responsible for wrecking the economy. And how could it, since it is staffed by the old Clinton economic team that helped to set the financial debacle in motion a decade ago? The key to the economic mess was the decision to rip down Glass-Steagall, the act that separated Wall Street from commercial banking. One of the men at the center of that endeavor was Larry Summers. And where is Larry Summers today? Ensconsed in the White House, running the Obama economic program.
There was a time, shortly after Obama took office, when a rising populist rage at Wall Street greed might have been harnassed to fuel some genuinely meaningful regulatory action. Instead, with men like Summers and Tim Geithner at the helm, we’ve seen Wall Street recover while Main Street continues to suffer. We’ve seen a large portion of the stimulus funds chanelled through the private sector, where they’ve yet to trickle down to the people who need help most. Obama says his goal is for every American who wants a job to have one. So why not start creating government-funded jobs, as FDR did in the early years of the Depression? Why not launch federal projects to create a new green energy industry, instead of waiting for the energy monopolies to come up with a way of making a killing off it?
Obama was elected because people took him seriously when he promised real change. So why won’t he take bold action on any of these fronts? Is it because if he did, the Republicans would abandon him and crush his dream of bipartisanship? Or because he doesn’t want the Democratic party to lose electoral ground? Or because he’s afraid of being branded a crazy maniacal socialist? Oh wait—all those things have happened already. So what does the president have to lose? If he’s going to be called a radical when he’s acting like a timid moderate, why not be a little more radical (or mildly progressive, even) in service of the public good? Then he might actually bring about some change we could believe in.
Winning the Health Care Fight...
tagged as:- result
There is no one who has professed to me that they "favor" abortion.What is a stake is the right to make one's own decisions, with their doctor,regarding their health and their body. For all of those who want the government to stay out of their private lives, yet demand the government step in to monitor the existence of those with whom they disagree, please "exorcise" your right to dictate your beliefs to the rest of the world.
As a side bar: I favor
As a side bar:
I favor abortion. On demand. No apologies.
There's 1 for you.
Amazing...
Have you ever seen the ultrasound of a 12 week old fetus? I just saw the DVD of my 20 week old grandson. Amazing... his little heart is beating, his body parts are clearly distinguishable, his kidneys are functioning.
One of my friends is a pediatric cardiologist. He operates on children all the time. He also operates on fetus' in utero.
Courts in many states provide the fetus rights and when a pregnant women is murdered, the perp is charge with double homicide.
When does life begin, Curly? Is a fetus really part of a women's body, like a wart or ingrown toenail available for removal on demand? Or is the fetus, the result of two people's interation, living in a human incubator with rights, including the pursuit of happiness?
You pose the question about
You pose the question about when life begins. That IS a valid question and the answer is usually based on religious and moral beliefs. And it can be very complex. If saving a woman's life will cause her fetus to die is it OK to do so? If it was your wife and there was only a 1% chance that both could survive without radical treatment, but a 99% chance that the mother could survive with treatment that was sure to kill the fetus, what would you do? Should a raped 12 year old be forced to carry a pregnancy her and her parents do not want? These unique circumstances do happen. Who should decide? If you will make exceptions in these cases your argument does not hold up.
A fetus is different in that it cannot have a life independent of the mother and this fact makes the argument complex. While your beliefs offer a reasonable argument, does that mean your beliefs should be forced on everyone else under penalty of law? In a democracy should it be put to a vote or should a minority be able to decide for everyone?
Why not let women and their doctors choose for themselves rather than you making the choice for them. I am certain that many who want to restrict what others can do would not want those restrictions imposed on them should certain circumstances they don't expect come to them.
i second..
I second that. Every life is sacred so Suzie can't go abort her rape child, but let's go get some veal, drive my suffocating SUV around while drinking gin and blame my woes on you Socialists.
Go ahead and kill the child girl, take some pictures and post em online while you're at it.
Quite right. Let us
tagged as:- solution
Quite right.
Let us continue to be vigilant in the fight to keep government out of health care decisions entirely, whether it is right-wing extremists casting moral judgments on medical treatments, or socialists attempting to nationalize health care.
"Let us continue to be
"Let us continue to be vigilant in the fight to keep government out of health care decisions entirely"
you're obviously one of millions saying that same thing but this is just the comment i happen to chose to respond to...
why!? who really cares. in canada (where i live as a content evil-socialist) there is a government insurance system for healthcare. they don't run hospitals or employ doctors... all that remains good and capitalist. you know what? i don't miss not having a 'choice' in terms of health insurance providers. whenever i've ever needed care, i've had it and that's true for anyone i know.
are you also arguing for 'choice' for other government-run ('evil socialist') things? like how it really sucks and is 'anti-freedom' that you don't get to choose which police or fire departments will get your 'business' because they're all government run?
my take on this as a, you know, EVIL socialist is that anything that is crucial to society functioning, such as courts, police, fire departments, military, etc, should not be run as for-profit because we don't have the choice to consume those things as goods. i firmly believe that access to care when you're health is a problem should be included in those things.
i know... you'll be praying for my freedom-hating soul.
I support reproductive
I support reproductive rights in all instances. I certainly don't think it's an easy, or a painless choice, but one that should be made by women and their doctors. The furor surrounding the Stupak amendment has me wondering how the Right can reconcile their views on diverting taxes monies from certain legal procedures but not others. I, for example, am against the War in Iraq, but I have no choice but to support it though my taxes. Why should there be an exception for those who have a qualm with reproductive rights?
Because...
Abortion is a concious decision to take the life of a child. A specific child. Killing innocent lives is murder.
The war in Iraq did result in innocent lives lost. However, that is the case in every war since Caine and Able. If specific innocents were targeted, soldiers were charged and found guilty of murder... murder is the taking of an innocent life.
We can all argue if the lives taken in Iraq were innocent, guilty, or whatever, but the life of an unborn child is always innocent. Clear cut. No arguement. No one supports murder and certainly no one wants their tax dollars murdering people.
Are you from this planet?
"Health care ought to have nothing to do with profits or even with "affordability." It should be a basic human right in a civilized society. But that’s precisely the kind of statement the Democrats are unwilling to make—so they end up saying nothing at all."
Have you noticed it's been a tough road for what they are trying to get. I have no doubt Obama could bring the American public with him. But a bought off Senator or Congressman, forget it.
Not really...
Obama's "change you can believe in" has become change we cannot afford...plus it really doesn't do what is needed... lower health costs and make the system available to more people.
The country understands this. Rasmussen, the highest rated survey company that focus' on "likely votoers," says this:
"The president is also suffering from the public’s unhappiness with the health care reform plan he has proposed with congressional Democrats. Forty-two percent (42%) now favor the plan, but 54% oppose it. These numbers have been roughly the same for weeks."
Congress and Obama are takinga beating on this issue. 220 to 215 is not much of a victory when the Dems have a much larger majority. After two big wins by Republicans in NJ and VA...states that went big time Dem in 2008...Dems in Congress are worried about their jobs.
btw... is Congress going to get the same health care plan they just voted for? Tell you what, when they pass a bill that gives me the same health care they have, I'll support that change.
Not possible
I agree with your comments, but I suspect there are not enough true Democrats to support such an agenda. The only thing that one can hope for is gradual/incremental change. Even this highly compromised bill barely squeaked through. But I will take this bill rather than nothing for now.
If they had just offered to allow everyone to access the federal insurance exchange together with insurance reform for preexisting conditions and expansion of Medicaid and Medicare, there might have been less opposition.
But no............ they wanted to create a monstrosity of a bill to provide all the loop holes required by the insurance lobby.
Despite all this, the bill may finally turn out 'better than nothing'.
Absolutely Agree
I may have been a little on the fence about this debate for a while, but no more. I'm ready to get radical. Why not? What is there to lose? If the Democrat politicians are so afraid to vote against the Republican agenda what's the difference? I now only hope this bombs in the Senate. Let the Blue Dogs start their own party. If the Dems don't start getting it together, I'll be ready to support a new one altogether. Maybe that's what we need. This is so disappointing it's sickening. I am so proud of Kucinich.
We do not have two political
We do not have two political parties in this country, friends. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms. Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.
When recently asked, Congressman James Clyburn the third ranking Democrat in the House, Where in the Constitution the federal government is "authorized to regulate everyones healthcare", he replied that, "Most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.
Nope !
This is really not about the bloated bill as much as it is about losing power. If the GOP lets this bill through and it does anything to alleviate the Health Care mess in this country,... the GOP is finished as a viable political party in the U.S. They know this,... they are fighting for their political lives. It will get much worse before it gets better.
Healthcare
It appears the Democrats are their own worst enemy. This is their one and only chance to pass healthcare reform with a public option. Several polls seem to indicate that most people WANT healthcare reform. WHY are Democrats shooting themselves in the foot on this? I just don't get it! It's obvious the healthcare insurance and drug industry are paying off a lot of our elected officials. I think they should be outed and exposed for the corrupt scum they are. If their only loyalty lies in getting reelected , then maybe its time for strict term limits on Congress. No more free rides! This is all just SO DISGUSTING!
Passed for now then repealed
Some variant of this plan will be squeaked throught by the "democrats". As Howard Dean has warned, the Achilles heel is the effective date. One hidden core truth of the plan is that it spares the national debt by plowing debt into the middle class. Springboarding from that reality the republicans will demogogue the price and penalties during the 2010 election cycle with the democrats able only to issue anemic denials. After a re-run of the 1994 mid terms, Congress will repeal and Obama capitulate. Contrary to some of the opinions above, the lasting harm will be the untouchability of health care reform by either major party until the populist storm lands on the doorstep; by which time the national debt may stand as an insuperable impediment.
This bill will never see the
This bill will never see the light of day. Unlike those that voted for it, those that will destroy it actually have brains and a "pair: sorry Liberals, your fifteen minutes are up?
Let's get Obama a new address...
Just do it!
tagged as:- solution
Fuck public opinion! Just do what needs to be done.
The health care system in the US is a crock of shit and there are too many dumb fucks living there to even realize that a public system would actually benefit the majority of the idiots that are complaining.
For fuck sakes, stand up, and have some balls! Fuck these loud mouthed dip shits!
The head butt pro....butting one head at a time.
Hello, and yes,.....
It's truly refreshing to hear from a Democrat's Democrat in full umbrage----a rare event. You are absolutely right---the "health care reform" is such a "mess" that it doesn't deserve to live from EITHER perspective, right or left. You are also right about Summers and the economic debacle and the jobs programs and the federal green industry effort---all of it. If YOU were in the White House instead of BHO, not only would the Democratic Party at least have my respect (which it does not have now) but people would see that we were going somewhere and would have some idea of why and how. All that "soaring rhetoric" is what it is, and the "mess" is spreading from the Wall Street debacle to the health care debate to the Cap and Trade---all of it. The Obama White House can't seem to find any part of its anatomy with both hands, and Pelosi wouldn't know what to do if her groping did result in a "find". So---when are you running for office?
One of the worst pieces of
One of the worst pieces of socialist propaganda that I've ever read.
What Ever it Takes
Most of the people in my family do not have healthcare coverage. They work pay check to paycheck and if they have a major health issue it will be catastrphic for them and when multiplied by millions of people across the economy, it will be catastrophic for all of us. We need to stop comoditizing things that should be related to as a fundamental right. Healthcare is one of them.
Whoooaaa now hold your horses!
God. It makes me sick to see how reactionary people are in this country. On one side we have the "left" screaming bloody murder because Speak Pelosi and President Obama did not order troops to occupy the medical insurance industry and burn the CEO's at the stake. While the "right" has got themselves all riled up to stop the reincarnation of Hitler\Stalin. Can we all pls take a breath, count to 10, and at least wait until the bill reaches conference before we storm the Bastille? Besides I doubt any of you (myself included) has taken the time to read the entire 1,000+ page bill that just passed the House. So chill out!!!
Here's a thought or two...
Yes, we would all like everything to be better. We just all have varying ideas on what better means.
For example, I do not think health care is a right... anymore than housing, food, or unemployment checks for that matter. The US Constitution describes certain rights for all citizens and the above just aren't there. We have vastly overstepped the boundaries of the US Constitution and the powers granted the federal government.
If the State government, through its legislative process decides to offer welfare benefits, including health care, that is their perogative. They must also decide how to fund it. The only source of funding is taxes, user fees, and borrowing. Who pays taxes? You and I. Tax corporations and they just include that in the price or cost of goods sold...so you and I actually pay corporate taxes.
If you and I work really hard and earn more, we must pay more in taxes that then goes to those with less. Soon you and I will have no incentive to work and be productive because what we take home will equal what the government will give us regardless of our work status. Then what happens?
I taught the local kids a civics lesson this Halloween. Two kids came to the door at the same time. I looked into their treat bags and one had much more candy. So I took candy from his bag and gave it to the other kid so they were both even. One was happy the other cried. "Why did you take my candy?" "Because you had more and it's the other kid's right to have as much you whether or not you worked harder, faster, or longer out here on the streets...if you don't understand, go home, tell your parents what happened, and then ask them who they voted for."
Like health care... a small business can subsidize employee health insurance plans or be fined 8% of wages. If health care costs more than 8% of wages, guess what... small business person makes a business decision and you and I are in the public health care plan.
Just ask your Democratic congressperson this question: Is the system you just voted for going to apply to members of Congress?
Has it occurred to you...
That Obama and the Dems are right where they expected to be at this point? IOW, maybe this months long theater of the absurd is part of the plan to pass a health care "reform" bill that doesn't reform anything. It's a marketing campaign, not unlike the award-winning hope & change campaign of last year.
So "change" isn't really change and "reform" doesn't reform anything. Next we will be pouring electrolytes on the crops.
While the US Congress debates the efficacy of price fixing,
While the US Congress debates the efficacy of price fixing, monopoly powers, collusion and exclusion among the purveyors of “our” health care system, 46,000 Americans will die needlessly every year from the lack of basic medical care. This is the end product of two political parties that would be just one conservative party in an actual representative democracy, both deluged by special interest money from the same entrenched powers that have a huge financial stake in maintaining the status quo no matter how many Americans it kills. Two political parties in name only that are united in their resolve to erect insurmountable barriers to any organized opposition from the right or the left of the political spectrum.
Subsidies and bailouts to wealthy political donors. Voter fraud, kickbacks, insider deals, boondoggles, bridges to nowhere, bridges collapsing, earmarks, gerrymandered districts awarding lifetime political offices and legislators acquiring inexplicable wealth are all condoned by a powerless citizenry as just business as usual. Exemptions are granted from taxation, product liability, competition, even rape and crimes against humanity for all those that are “well connected”.
Back to the enlightened world, to September of 2008, while the US was well into the second year of its multi-billion dollar election process, the Canadian government called for national elections of their own. There were dozens of debates held among their many viable political parties (no "big tent" nonsense there, conservatives are Conservative, liberals are Liberal, socialists are Socialist and so on) viewed on the free airwaves owned by the people of that nation and operated in their interests. Each party was permitted to spend up to twelve million dollars to get their messages out and the whole process was over in five weeks. Five weeks! In Canada, as in all representative democracies, elections are simply a part of their democratic process. In the United States its just another multi-billion dollar industry, which like most entertainment productions is of little or no political consequence.
Majority of Voters Dislinke Dem's Health Plan
For the latest numbers, see:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/h...
This is also why 58% of those most likely to vote believe the next president will be a Republican and that the generic ballot right now shows Republicans leading Dems by 8 points.
Nationalized health care nearly tanked Clinton and forced him to tell Hilly to sit down and shut up... he moved to a centrist position and got re-elected.
healthcare and abortion
tagged as:- solution
I wonder how many of you merciful pro-lifers are also pro healthcare specifically single payer.If you are truly prolife than you must be for healthy life!C'mon speak up!!You must be for both or your a hypocrite!!!
Mixing your arguements, Anon
Pro-Life typically refers specifically to those that believe the unborn are human beings and thus deserve a chance to live.
I am Pro-Choice... I want to choose which schools my kids go to, I want to choose which brand of car I buy, and I want to choose which health care plan suits me best.
I am not pro-national health care. States have the right to determine what if any level of welfare they wish to administer. Welfare is not a Federal responsibility, even though we have moved down that slippery slope since FDR. If your state wants an early childhood or prenatal state paid health program, then let their legistlature approve that and the means to fund it. If your state wants to provide free hospital stays for everyone, fine. But they become more accountable because they represent you and the desires of the "local" population vs. the national population.
Governance close to home is the best governance. Federal governance is too disconnected with reality. The Feds should stick to what the constitution says they should: provide an army for the nation's defense and insure no laws are passed that restrict interstate commerce... The Bill of Rights does enumerate individual inalienable rights, but mostly speaks out against a strong centralized government as the Founding Fathers knew where that would lead.
Can and should we reform our health care system? Yes. Does that mean the only way to reform is nationalize one-sixth of our economy? No. We can do what the constitution says and allow health insurance companies to operate across state lines and encourage competition, which will lower prices and encourage more options, such as portability. We can also look at tort reform as well as lowering administration costs and ensure faster payment for services rendered. For example, my daughter is pregnant. She and her husband do not have maternity health insurance. Instead of looking to the government, they went to the OB/GYN and hospital and asked..."what if we pay you in cash up front...?" Each cut their bills over 50%. They will have their baby for $3000 total vs the normal $7000 to $10,000 when insurance pays. Why? Certainty and timeliness of payment.
Anon...You need to think about these things independently vs. listening/reading one party's or one website's side of the issue. Be pro-choice...choice that allows you as an adult to make the right decisions for you and still protects the rights of others, including the unborn.
Take Action for True Reform
tagged as:- solution
Last week, House Democrats killed two provisions that could have given us the best health care in the world: single-payer. But we've still got a chance in the U.S. Senate.
Tell your senators to support single-payer health care by co-sponsoring S. 703, the American Health Security Act.
Help me understand...
Tell me three or four good reasons you support the single payer concept.
Specifically:
1. What will it do for you personally
2. What will it do for the country
3. What will it do for the economy
abortion is not murder.
If abortion is murder, then the mother must face punishment. Jail time, maybe life sentence? Maybe the death penalty? The mother did murder her child through abortion after all.
Then we also might have to punish the doctor for willfully going alone with his/her patients request. Though thats like an innocent soldier following through with his orders and firing into a crowed area with civilian causalities. He was just following orders after all. What a shitty argument. abortion is no more a type of murder as putting a condom on or using the day after bill. Give me a break! You crazy should just go home, your opinions are old news and we grown ups are talking about more serious issues here. We're finally one step closer to getting health-care as a right and not as a commodity to be traded like a bottle of poison. Health-care is a right.
It should have been in the constitution in the first place, but the founding fathers could not account for everything. Oh-wait, they forgot about more than just health-care. They didn't allow men without property to vote. They didn't allow 3/4 of a person aka minorities to vote. They didn't even want their wives voting aka women voting. Hmm the founding fathers were rich slave owners who didn't want freedom for their country but for their money!!!! Oh yeah thats right because we live in amerika. Not the land of the free but the land of the cheating lying sons of bitches we call the business community. We're through with that dark warmongering chapter in american history. This generation will be a whole new America!
But we have to choose to be that change, and enact it ourselves. We must organize or the corporations who put us through this hell will continue to do so, and they will never show remorse. Nor should we.
Anon...nice rant
You brought up abortion... I responded. Again you mix things... one is morality and the other is punishment.
Killing is the taking of a life. Murder is the taking of innocent life. Killing may be justified and is not typically punished in our judicial system. Murder is punished.
Firing into a crowd of innocents, even when ordered, is against the UMCJ... Uniform Military Code of Justice, and therefore punishable. Think back to a young lieutenant named Calley... something called the Mai (or My) Lai Massacre.
You make a good point regarding the norms of the day in the late 1700s. However, the principles still hold true today regarding individual rights and keeping federal governments out of people's individual lives. Much of what you talk about was done to ensure the Southern States would join the confederation against the British. Doesn't make it right, but it was according the cultural norms of the day, not unusual. Women's suffrage was not a large movement in any major country until the 1800s.
Again... if your state would like to implement fully paid health care for all, the I am fine with that. That is a state's right and also within the domain of what states should do. The Federal Gov't has no business being there...unless individual rights are being trampled, as was the case regarding segregation laws.
Greenferret, et al on Single Payer Nationalized Health Care
Any of you in support of the current Democratic plan for nationalizing health care into a single payer system should be able to articulate three or four good reasons for this takeover of one-sixth of our economy.
Doesn't that seem reasonable? Give me three good reasons.
If you cannot, then you must question this lemming like behavior to follow Obama and Pelosi over an economic cliff!
Sure, we need some reform, but the current house version will tax small business owners if they do not participate or provide equal insurance... and if not, they will pay fines or even face criminal charges... so we plan to send people to jail for not wanting to support Obama's plan.
Three good reasons. Can you do that?