Obama-Care

Just some stuff I read right now. Some of the stuff we talked about in the chat box the other nite and most of the shit I was trying to explain.



Is Obamacare Republican?

Bookmark and Share
Posted by Anthony Gregory on 04/04/10
Last updated 04/04/10

The corporatist aspect of it anyway, the propping up of the insurance industry — which is why that industry was behind Obama and Pelosi's socialist scheme — has long been a pro-big business, Republican proposal. Romneycare, "free-market" thinktanks, and the health insurance lobby all supported versions of Obamacare. See Jon Walker at firedoglake.

However, progressives and left-liberals need to acknowledge another side to this: This was always inevitable. More government intervention in a mixed economy is always corporatist, always moving us toward fascism, not a socialist dream. This is because the socialist dream is itself an illusion. In all economic systems, there are private interests and some who profit more than others. Full-blown communism is the worst possible system, as far as the common man is concerned, but thank goodness it's not really attainable — however, the more a state tries to force it, the more civilization itself is destroyed from in the inside out (see Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al.). Meanwhile, anything short of total socialism is quasi-fascist, as some connected private interests benefit at the expense of the victimized taxpayers and subjects of the regime.

The free market is the only economic system known to man that respects the rights of the individual and can provide the masses with ever increasing opportunity and material wealth and access to the basic needs, as well as to an expanding array of luxury items. While Obamacare is indeed a corporatist scam, rather than a pure public-sector boon for the common man, the latter is an impossibility. All big-government operations in America — the Progressive era, the New Deal, the Great Society, Compassionate Conservatiam and Obamanomics — are corporatist.



-------------------------------------------------------
New Health Care Law a Republican Plan That Should Make Insurance Companies Proud
By: Jon Walker Tuesday March 30, 2010 2:22 pm
TweetTweet27 Share72 digg reddit stumbleupon

Now that President Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership no longer need to hide from their base that the new health care law is in fact a pro-health insurance industry Republican plan as part of a push to enact the law, they are openly admitting the plan’s true origins. This bill is a not a “progressive” or “centrist” piece of legislation but a Republican idea put forward by the Heritage foundation and is almost identical to the reform advocated by the health insurance lobby.

In his first interview since signing the new bill into law Obama acknowledges that the bill is basically Romneycare and clearly based of a decades old proposal from the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to Bill Clinton’s health care plan. Last week, Nancy Pelosi basically made the same acknowledgment.

Romneycare

There are no significant differences between the new health care law and the one proudly signed into law by Mitt Romney. The very poor were put on Medicaid. People with employer provide insurance kept it and employers faced a small penalty for not offering insurance. Those without either Medicaid or employer provide insurance are force to buy mildly regulated private health insurance. There is a new purchasing pool marketplace, called the connector, (basically the new state-based exchanges) for people to buy private insurance and there is some subsidies meant to help people afford it.

Heritage Foundation plan from the ’90s

The new health care law championed by Obama is strikingly similar to the Republican alternative to Clinton’s health care plan put forward by Sen. John Chafee (R-RI), and has basically the same structure as the Heritage Foundation plan from the same time. Does this description of it in Reason sound familiar?

In a nutshell, Heritage proposes that consumers be able to choose from among a host of health-care options ranging from traditional insurers to health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Using refundable tax credits that decrease as income grows, Heritage would empower families to choose plans on the basis of coverage, service, and price. As part of the “healthcare social contract” thus formed, Butler says, heads of households would be required by law to buy basic health-care coverage “to protect society from citizens who would try to exploit the good nature of ordinary Americans” by free-riding on the system.

The tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance would be phased out, in favor of the family-based tax credit. Families could still choose to join group plans. But by helping people buy insurance directly, rather than relying on employers to provide it, Heritage would solve the “portability” problem, in which employees are trapped in undesirable jobs because they’re afraid of losing health coverage.

Butler and health-care analyst Edmund Haislmaier introduced the key elements of the Heritage plan in a 1989 book, A National Health System for America. In 1992, Heritage began to tout the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as a model for how a national consumer-choice system in health insurance might function. Robert Moffit, deputy director of domestic policy studies at Heritage and a former manager of FEHBP, became one of the foundation’s key spokesmen on the issue.

Heritage’s embrace of FEHBP–a regulated and flawed government program, according to some critics–nevertheless provided a great “hook” that may well have enhanced the foundation’s overall sales pitch on health-care reform. As voter disaffection with elected leaders soared, Heritage could say, “What is available for Congress and its employees should be made available to every American family.” This message resonated with the public.

An individual mandate forcing people to buy private insurance on an exchange with a sliding scale of tax credits and the program is paid for by phasing out the tax deduction for employer-provided insurance. Sound familiar?

AHIP plan

Most disturbing, though, is how closely this new law mirrors the health care reform proposal put forward by the health insurance lobby, AHIP, in December of 2008. (PDF, short, but well worth a read)

AHIP’s plan to expand coverage had several key components:

* Provide Medicaid to all those under 100% FPL.
* Provide tax credits for those up to 400% FPL to buy private insurance
* Force everyone to buy private health insurance with an individual mandate
* Some new regulations like ending guaranteed issue
* Have state agencies one stop place to buy insurance for small employers and individuals (state-based exchanges)
* “Allowing benefit packages to vary based on actuarial equivalence”

Not surprisingly, the health insurance companies are very supportive of the idea of forcing people to be their customers and having the federal government pick up the tab. Massive government subsidies and a forced, captive customer base for the only major industry exempt from federal anti-trust laws sounds like a winning combination for the health insurance industry no matter how you slice it. Also, AHIP does not really seem interested in covering poor people who are more likely to have chronic health problems.

While there are a few difference between the new health care law from President Obama and AHIP’s reform plan, they are minor compared to the overwhelming similarities. If AHIP did not get everything they wanted, they sure got pretty close to it.

Time to stop pretending

This new law at its heart is a pro-private health insurance, pro-big business Republican bill. It is not liberal or progressive, and it would be hard to justify even calling the law “centrist” because it lacks very popular elements like a public option and drug re-importation–reforms wanted by the broad “center” of the country.

It is nearly identical to previous Republican bills and laws. It is strikingly similar to a plan from the Heritage Foundation. It almost exactly follows the same proposal put forward over a year ago by the health insurance industry itself. After it passed, the drug companies spent big on ads thanking Democrats for passing this massive giveaway to their industry.

The law is a completely wasteful and poorly designed piece of corporate welfare. It is nothing for progressives to be proud of. If you want to argue that we should have supported it because the rampant corruption in our Congress and the fact that a huge number of senators are wholly owned by the health care industry means that this wasteful, pro-corporate bill was the only way to get some help to some people in need, I can at least accept the honesty of that argument. But let’s all stop pretending this was some great victory over the health care industry and for progressive policy.

from
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/30/new-health-care-law-a-republican-plan-that-should-make-insurance-companies-proud/

thats good writing for a blog...everyone has there opinions. weird how republicans hate this republican law.....with a fierce passion.

DONTxTRIP wrote:thats good writing for a blog...everyone has there opinions. weird how republicans hate this republican law.....with a fierce passion.

C'mon DxT. I know you know better than to fall for fake political debates!

Once you come to realize that the insurance and drug industry wins either way(if the democrats get their way or if we keep things the same), then you finally understand the republicans screaming and yelling about this is much more about creating the illusion that their are major differences in ideology between the two parties so that people can vote them back into power in November (and in future Presidential elections) so that they can go back to spending this country into the ground and not giving a mad fuck about "fiscal conservitivisim" as we seen during the Bush years.. and more proof. Look at ROMNEYCARE as talked about above. Mitt Romney who is loved by the republican estalishment, passed a similar bill in his state when he was Governer, yet, now Mitt Romney is known as one of Obama and the democrats worst critics when it comes to the bill, even though in reality they have the same ideas. "its okay when my party does it but not when yours"

Its like watching WWE and woundering why Stone Cold acted like he hated the Rock with a passion but behind the scenes they were really friends, because it was all an act so he can stay in the business..but they both work for the same company !

i aint falling for nuffin son. i dont watch fox news, i dont read the papers. i dont read political blogs on the net. i read about the shit on my own and formed my own opinion based on my own views. im not a obama freak, i dotn like politics that much, but i will debate you on yours based on my own personal views. i think your thinking that im trying to debate you on some general broad political view that i have. i debate you on this based on what i think, not what i read on the net that someone else wrote, or not what i hear on the fake ass news networks... i dont have a political view, i have my view, and i dont align myself with a political party, i support my own theories and beliefs. just so happens i think your wrong on this one loc.

oh and one thing that i dont beleive in is a vast political conspiracy that involves every politicain and government official....there may be a gerneral mindset that is not healthy for the political sytem, a kinda good ole boys club mentality. lets try and keep this up. but nothing that can be as far reaching as all of them new world order the mans out to get us theories out there. just dudes tryig to keep there jobs and get the most outta it, just like anyone else does. not saying its right but it is what it is loc. now i do beleive that soemone should do soemthing about it, dont know who but someone...

[quote="CRAYZ"]

DONTxTRIP wrote:
Its like watching WWE and woundering why Stone Cold acted like he hated the Rock with a passion but behind the scenes they were really friends, because it was all an act so he can stay in the business..but they both work for the same company !

you're so full of shit, stone cold is the rock killa...fuck the rock and all his gay fans..


Yeah im talking about you!

In the US there's two kinds of money...old and new, most of it controlled by white people...and the underprivileged look upwards to a glass ceiling...money+politics=power...simple equation.

CELEBRITY APPRENTICE VS TOOTH FAIRY....

DONTxTRIP wrote:weird how republicans hate this republican law.....with a fierce passion.

Mainly because it's being forced upon us, where we still get taxed even if we don't want it. I already have decent (free) health care through the VA. Although Ron Paul is sponsoring a bill that will make it so you don't have to pay taxes if you don't want it, it doesn't change the fact they're hiring 60,000 IRS agents to go after people that don't pay up. Why should we be forced to pay for other peoples' health care?

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

There are different types of Republicans. Traditionally, Republicans have been about less government involvement in personal lives, which I agree with. The country is already bankrupt. I wonder how they're going to pay for all this free health care? The Democrats created the welfare state and rely on people being dependent on it. This new health care system is no different than that. Personally, I don't like being in the position of having to rely on a government check, or relying on someone else to take care of me. That just means someone else owns you and dictates where you can go in life.

The thing is, people fail to see American politics for what it really is. Democrats try to portray themselves as a party that changes things for the people. However, the Republican & Democratic parties are both owned by the same corporations. Obama is no different than Bush. He just had a different slogan. People think one man has the power to change all that. Guess again. He'll "change" the things that his corporate backers tell him to. Why do you think there were so many bail-outs at the beginning of Obama's presidency? That was pay-off money for the people that helped put him in office. American citizens didn't benefit from that, no new jobs were created as a result of it. It just put us deeper in the hole.

The other thing is, if Obama was about change, why are our troops still dying in the Middle East? All during his campaign, you heard about an exit strategy and bringing the troops home, etc. Do they even talk about Iraq & Afghanistan on the news anymore? Out of sight, out of mind I guess. What makes Obama different from Bush? Nothing.

Were you nominated for membership into the
American Legion for your war-time service?

I guess I could join the American Legion, but never really thought about it. I think you'd still have to pay money to join them.

DONTxTRIP wrote:i aint falling for nuffin son. i dont watch fox news, i dont read the papers. i dont read political blogs on the net.

and its showing ! lol. read something gotdamit.

i read about the shit on my own and formed my own opinion based on my own views.

No Tv, no papers, nothing on the net that you read, so what else is left?

i think your thinking that im trying to debate you on some general broad political view that i have.

Nah, its not that. Just that I was trying to explain my view to you in the chat box and it didn't seem like you understood what I was saying and I happen to come across a blog that put it together alot better than I did. Thats all. No big deal.

i debate you on this based on what i think, not what i read on the net that someone else wrote, or not what i hear on the fake ass news networks... i dont have a political view, i have my view, and i dont align myself with a political party, i support my own theories and beliefs. just so happens i think your wrong on this one loc.

I don't align myself with a political party either, I just try my best to dig for the truth. Everybody has their own opinion, nothing wrong with that, but their is certain truths that can't be ignored before a debate can even start or else the debate will just be based on false info or myths.

DONTxTRIP wrote:oh and one thing that i dont beleive in is a vast political conspiracy that involves every politicain and government official....there may be a gerneral mindset that is not healthy for the political sytem, a kinda good ole boys club mentality. lets try and keep this up. but nothing that can be as far reaching as all of them new world order the mans out to get us theories out there. just dudes tryig to keep there jobs and get the most outta it, just like anyone else does. not saying its right but it is what it is loc. now i do beleive that soemone should do soemthing about it, dont know who but someone...

Well I wasn't bringing up anything about the New World Order, or any big conspiracies. I'm just talking about how much power the corporations have over these issues like healthcare. That is no conspiracy at all. Their is not one political group out there that even tries to refute that side of things. So this topic doesn't even involve any far fetched conspiracies at all. You said the republicans were pretty much on the side of the insurance companies, which I said is true, I agreed with you on that, my main point was to show how the democrats, atleast in this case, are on the side of the insurance companies too. I guess that was the main point I tried to get across.

SFxSTONER wrote:

DONTxTRIP wrote:weird how republicans hate this republican law.....with a fierce passion.

Mainly because it's being forced upon us, where we still get taxed even if we don't want it. I already have decent (free) health care through the VA. Although Ron Paul is sponsoring a bill that will make it so you don't have to pay taxes if you don't want it, it doesn't change the fact they're hiring 60,000 IRS agents to go after people that don't pay up. Why should we be forced to pay for other peoples' health care?

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

There are different types of Republicans. Traditionally, Republicans have been about less government involvement in personal lives, which I agree with. The country is already bankrupt. I wonder how they're going to pay for all this free health care? The Democrats created the welfare state and rely on people being dependent on it. This new health care system is no different than that. Personally, I don't like being in the position of having to rely on a government check, or relying on someone else to take care of me. That just means someone else owns you and dictates where you can go in life.

The thing is, people fail to see American politics for what it really is. Democrats try to portray themselves as a party that changes things for the people. However, the Republican & Democratic parties are both owned by the same corporations. Obama is no different than Bush. He just had a different slogan. People think one man has the power to change all that. Guess again. He'll "change" the things that his corporate backers tell him to. Why do you think there were so many bail-outs at the beginning of Obama's presidency? That was pay-off money for the people that helped put him in office. American citizens didn't benefit from that, no new jobs were created as a result of it. It just put us deeper in the hole.

The other thing is, if Obama was about change, why are our troops still dying in the Middle East? All during his campaign, you heard about an exit strategy and bringing the troops home, etc. Do they even talk about Iraq & Afghanistan on the news anymore? Out of sight, out of mind I guess. What makes Obama different from Bush? Nothing.

Obama is Bush on steriods, too bad that by having a man who has a different skin color, different political party, in office, it blinds so many of this. I think Obama already renewed the patriot act, Ill have to look it up, but if this is true than it just goes to show even further how the two party system really works...Especially after all those years the democrats opposed and spoke out against it (including Obama himself). So why should we think the republican establishment now is actually serious on the things they oppose the democrats on?...Thats where I been getting at with this whole issue.

CRAYZ wrote:Obama is Bush on steriods, too bad that by having a man who has a different skin color, different political party, in office, it blinds so many of this. I think Obama already renewed the patriot act, Ill have to look it up, but if this is true than it just goes to show even further how the two party system really works...Especially after all those years the democrats opposed and spoke out against it (including Obama himself). So why should we think the republican establishment now is actually serious on the things they oppose the democrats on?...Thats where I been getting at with this whole issue.

I think he did renew the Patriot Act. The country is screwed, either way you look at it. We're in so much debt, it's not even funny. There was an economist in the 60's, can't remember his name off-hand, but he talked about economic theories that would destroy a country from the inside out (I believe Socialism was part of his thing). If you think about it, that sounds like what's going on with the U.S. right now.

The way it's gonna happen now, as far as presidential elections, it's going to go back & forth. You didn't like Bush, so vote for Obama. You don't like Obama, so vote for this other guy. Meanwhile things get screwed up even more, and the people suffer for it. All it does is increase the divide between rich & poor. There's hardly any middle class anymore. As long as jobs are unavailable, with more people losing their homes, people become more dependent on government services. Eventually people are gonna get tired of being broke & getting screwed around. That's one reason why they wanted the Patriot Act to begin with.

SFxSTONER wrote:

CRAYZ wrote:Obama is Bush on steriods, too bad that by having a man who has a different skin color, different political party, in office, it blinds so many of this. I think Obama already renewed the patriot act, Ill have to look it up, but if this is true than it just goes to show even further how the two party system really works...Especially after all those years the democrats opposed and spoke out against it (including Obama himself). So why should we think the republican establishment now is actually serious on the things they oppose the democrats on?...Thats where I been getting at with this whole issue.

I think he did renew the Patriot Act. The country is screwed, either way you look at it. We're in so much debt, it's not even funny. There was an economist in the 60's, can't remember his name off-hand, but he talked about economic theories that would destroy a country from the inside out (I believe Socialism was part of his thing). If you think about it, that sounds like what's going on with the U.S. right now.

The way it's gonna happen now, as far as presidential elections, it's going to go back & forth. You didn't like Bush, so vote for Obama. You don't like Obama, so vote for this other guy. Meanwhile things get screwed up even more, and the people suffer for it. All it does is increase the divide between rich & poor. There's hardly any middle class anymore. As long as jobs are unavailable, with more people losing their homes, people become more dependent on government services. Eventually people are gonna get tired of being broke & getting screwed around. That's one reason why they wanted the Patriot Act to begin with.

Speaking of economists in the 60s, one of my favorite economists to read is Murray Rothbard. One of my favorite quotes

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard

I think maybe socialism at one time, and even now was something that works out real well on paper, on a simple, on the surface level, but in the real world fails because it ignores human action..Thats why so many "smart" experts probably fell for it so much, because on paper some things sound good. Problem is, like the first article explains, any move towards socialism without pure socialism automatically becomes a soft form of fascism instead, and to me that makes alot of sense when you think about it.. Government control but with private profits still being made..I don't have to be an economist to realize monopolies bring quality down.