If the health care bill is deemed constitutional under the commerce clause and general welfare clause, then, what is to prevent the government from forcing Americans to buy GM cars to reduce the cost of energy and lower green house gas emissions?
Comrade socialists, what say you?
Well, if you ask me . . . Oh, wait, I just realized you addressed your question to comrade socialists, so never mind.
That's okay, I already know you'd have no problem with that, comrade.
That little box you're trying to stuff me in is getting smaller and smaller, Poppa. And so is your credibility.
Sure, whatever, that's what all the progressives say. You're all so proud, but not so proud to admit that you think socialism is fine. That's okay, I get it. Soon though you'll all be able to wear your red shirts with pride!
Socialism is fine. Kind of. Needs some definite hybridization with capitalism and free market economics, to be sure. But in principle, as long as it is not adhered at the expense of other commonsensical, and important, ideas (like freedom of the individual, in general, if not necessarily on every single issue, hence taxes), then it's an important force. Imagine a world with no workers' comp, or minimum wage, or health and safety standards.
Communism, on the other hand, has generally seemed to suck every time it's been tried. Seems to generate into forms of government that are heinous. Don't know why. Blind belief in Socialism that includes apologizing for Stalin, for example, is dumb. Same goes for blind belief in free market capitalism, not tempered by regulation of any kind.
You left out pervert sodomite baby-killers.
No I don't think you socialists are evil, just misguided. And No, I'm not interested in taking part in threads with childish exaggerated descriptions of socialists.
By the way, I think I asked a valid question, but as is typical with the socialist posters here and elsewhere they refuse to answer and instead try to deflect the discussion onto another subject and make it personal. So, if there are any of you socialist democrats with any courage, I'd actually be interested in your thoughts.
Your question is valid, but the way you phrased it makes it clear that you are not interested in a productive discussion. Categorizing your "opponents" as something they are not just to make your own argument easier for you is cheap and easy. Having a true discussion requires more effort.
Did you notice in the US House Of Representatives yesterday that GOP speakers wrapped themselves in the flag and spouted quotes and never got down to issues. They had no plan to cover 32 million Americans - they had a plan to cover 3 million. They had no plan to address reducing the deficit - they preserved the status quo - they had no INTENTION of curbing the abuses of the insurance companies - they will protect free enterprise no matter how many Americans get killed off for profit.
This bill is not socialism. Theres no public option. The Veterans Administration could be called socialistic. Medicare and Social Security might be called socialistic - try running for office on repealing those. This law preserves the insurance companies and gives them a 32 million customer shot in the arm - with restrictions that makes them play fair.
Socialism my ass. But that's where the talking heads want to go - because discussing the ACTUAL features of this bill will make it more popular - not less popular.
Well it certainly is socialism. It is a redistribution of resources, taking health care from the old by cutting medicare and distributing it to the uninsured, whether they need it or want it or not. It's also taking from the "rich" or those with a good health care plan to produce a "right" to an entitlement.
It remains to be seen if private insurance companies will survive another 10 years. I think we'll see most of them fold since government will decide what they can sell, what they must cover, and how much they can charge. At some point government will be the only insurer so the public option won't just be an option it will be the ONLY choice. This is the goal. It's what Obama ran his campaign on and he, you, and everybody else knows that this is a transitional step toward that end.
As for keeping your insurance if you like it, I can guarantee, if your non-union employer is subsidizing your health care insurance that you will soon lose that benefit since it will be much cheaper to pay the fine and force your employees to get heir coverage from the "exchange".
It is NOT the kind of socialism that indeed in some cases crippled industry and the economy in some places, ie, takeover by Party elites wholesale of entire sectors (especially manufacturing), most notably Russia. It is NOTHING like that.
Marxism of any stripe does not involve compromise and backroom deals with immensely powerful corporations. It involves their dismantlement. What Europeans and Canadians have is a CAPITALIST system with "flavourings" of socialism.. but it is not Socialism, actually, it is "social democracy" strictly speaking...
In other words, the basic model is free market enterprise, but with REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT.
Irrespective of the merits of the new package, it is NOT SOCIALISM.
I believe backroom deals between government and corporations is Fascism.
There is ample evidence that Fascists did this. Plenty more that Western "democratic" governments do this, constantly. (Not to say the Soviets never did this also, of course...).
It's a bit of a mystery to me, frankly, that, after, what, eighteen months, people have forgotten about the gigantic corporate heist that screwed ninety percent of Americans over one way or another... suddenly it occurs to almost no-one that there are enormous corporate vested interests skulking about in this whole health care business -- maybe Obama has been bought off, but his is HARDLY the only political party known for such crap...
What actually got cut is corporate welfare - The medical insurance companies were offering medicare 'advantage'. The advantage is that the insurance companies took money from Medicare to provide Medicare at three times the administrative cost that Medicare does.
A real deal for the taxpayer. That's what got cut. The bill will EXTEND medicare for nearly an additional decade and benefits to the elderly will NOT be cut.
Popa Blues -
This is a classic example of just how deceptive or misinformed you are.
You base an entire argument on the intended goal of the government to force insurance companies out of businees so people have no choice except the public option. But there IS NO FREEKIN' PUBLIC OPTION!!
You are nearly the loudest opponent of a law - and you don't know what's in it... Pathetic..
I never said there was a public option. I said that was the "goal" of Obama. He ran his campaign on it! We'll have to see what happens but Pelosi and Obama have both intimated that this is just the beginning, that tweaks will have to be made.
We'll also have to see what happens to the insurance companies. The bill regulates what policies must contain. I believe it also regulates their rate increases. If they can't raise rates to cover costs, what do you think will happen to them? Do you think their just going to provide coverage at a loss? Maybe in Wonderland that's how it works but not here in the real world!
Yeah, I get it, you're sensitive to the label. Prove me wrong.
Brilliantly written, and very true.
Why bother even posting this in a forum atmosphere? Makes you wonder.
Yes, calling anyone who disagrees with your absurd views "Comrade Socialists" is indeed taking the high road.
You prove my point everytime you post. You just can't help it.
Corporate welfare...this is what this is really all about when you boil it down.
This is what the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail for and which throws them into demented hysterics!
They are losing the money-train. The cash cow, and it hurts! Dems too-just as piggish, BUT...the leadership at the top saw it through! Sayonara Big Money Stranglehold.
People matter. Profits are to be gained from people who have money to spare, not gained from butting your nose into basic human needs. Oink Oink
My mom lives in a senior apartment building....
One of the people there had a seizure and lost consciousness and is now in a coma.
Keeping him alive, but unconscious. Would you care to guess how much this costs daily...100's of thousand of dollars a day?
This will use up any monies he put into Social Security in a few days.
Socialism--and multiplied by millions.
Would you suggest they let him die?
Who will pay for him?
We will. And we do it gladly.--we just don't want it for poor working families, do we? Or poor single moms, or those nasty furiners, huh? Yeah--we much prefer giving it to a single CEO and his family. Let his kids go to Columbia on your dime....your kid can afford community college, right?
Which leads to another good piece of legislation passed...for students! OUR young people!
"You're taking billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies to student lenders and banks, and you're recycling that money on behalf of families and students to help pay for their college education," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee."
That's what happens when business butts out, gvt. butts in.
Get with the program Pubbies...or get out. Of politics that is...politics isn't supposed to be where you meet your business connections and run the show for their benefit and your own.
It's a noble calling---something else we've lost in the money hustle. The Capitalist Shake-Down. The Big Money Boogie....
Time to dance to a new tune....He aint heavy, he's my brother.
The total profit of all the big HMO's last year was something like 30 billion dollars. That would pay for 2 days worth of health care.
Obama cut deals with the insurance companies and with big pharma. Instead of allowing Americans to buy their drugs across the borders, he restricted those purchases to inside the borders exclusively, in opposition to some states laws, in order to negotiate an 80 billion dollar price cut from pharma.
Let's not forget, the insurance companies which he demonized every chance he could get will have the benefit of 30 million NEW customers, thanks to this bill which FORCES you to buy insurance!
I have to agree that there seems altogether too much schmoozing to gigantic corporations on Capitol Hill. And this, surprise surprise, has proven to continue to be the case under a Democratic president, just as it did under previous administrations.
The pharama industry supported HCR. The insurance industry made no deals wth the WH - they fought this every step of the way.
Bush - not Obama - went to Canada to demand that Canada block the importation of drugs to the US. I haven't seen any evidence of 'deals' with big pharma on HCR. They will benefit from 32 million extra customers.
If you want to provide evidence of 'deals' not speculation - then let's see it.
Why do you think big pharma supported this bill? Do you think they suddenly had an overwhelming feeling of affection for the ill?
You're wrong about the insurance companies fighting this bill. They were on board from the get go UNTIL the senate changed the provision determining the fine for not having insurance. The insurance companies felt that with the reduction in fines too many people would pay the fine rather than buy the insurance, or wait until they got sick (just like what is happening in MA).
I have insurance subsidized my my employer now, but I predict they will drop the coverage and pay the fine because it will be cheaper for them. When they do I will have to go to the exchange to buy insurance, and if it costs more than the fine, I too, will opt out and pay the fine. Either way I'm covered!
Oh, I presume you have google, so do your own research. You might want to look somewhere besides the Huffington Post blog for info though.
I generally follow the money through opensecrets.org.
The Medical Insurance Industry contributed substantially more over the past year to GOP Congresscritters than to democrats, and the GOP voted in a block against the bill. Money is sincere - I know where the insurance industry stands.
My biggest concern is that if it makes health insurance cost more, and if it punishes people for refusing to buy something they can't afford, I'm sorry. It's not health care reform.
The only group that CNN predicted will pay higher premiums will be families with a combined income over $88,000. Those who get insurance through their employer will see no change. Families making less than $88,000 who get insurance on their own (not through their employer) will see a decrease due to the subsidies. This is what CNN reported this morning based on CBO estimates. I don't make this up.
When you consider that the change in premiums has been steadily up and up over the years, for the majority to see no increase or decrease (unless you make over $88,000) is a HUGE benefit.
The other fable out there is that it lays a burden of debt on future generations. Totally BOGUS! The reform package not only defined the benefit, but how it's paid for. There is NO BURDEN ON FUTURE GENERATIONS. It's NOT financed with borrowed money.
The deficit will go DOWN 130 billion in the first decade and 1.3 TRILLION in the next decade, when everything is fully implemented.
Right it's not financed with borrowed money, it's financed with 569 billion in NEW taxes. Of course the 500 billion they are expecting to save in medicare cuts which they're using to pay for the rest of this boondoggle is a one time savings, and even Obama admitted doesn't solve the medicare problem. That means more revenues will be required down the road in other words additional tax increases.
Those that get insurance through their employer MIGHT see a change, if your coverage is considered a "Cadillac plan", you'll be taxed on it.
Oh, and let's not forget the 200 billion dollar Medicare doctor fix bill which wasn't included in all the calculations by the CBO. I'm not sure if that's paid for yet, but we all know how fiscally responsible the democrats are!
They want everybody in the pool, that's all. More putting in, bigger pool. If we all pay, it's cheaper for everybody. Versus private policies for each individual or each family, with the Insurance company deciding the coverage, dropping you whenever, not taking you whenever, all to make a profit. It's sick!
This will make us all better--you'll see.
Still not a single one answered the original question. Tsk-tsk.
Comrade socialists what say you?
You really expected an answer?
Your social skills are as sharply honed as your knowledge of the constitution.
immediate is that the insurance companies will find a way to increase rates,
Here is what R. Reagan said:
Most middle class families can afford to pay for their doctors' visits, dental cleanings, eye exams, and so forth. The main reason why a lot of US families are uninsured is not because they can't afford the health care, need the coverage to help them pay for it, and are denied, but because it costs so much to pay for premiums as well as copays and all that other stuff insurance doesn't cover. In a lot of middle class households, health insurance premiums are the largest or second largest monthly expense, up there with the mortgage or rent.
The difference is that the money paid for housing pays for a tangible necessity you enjoy every day. With health insurance, particularly with a "lower" cost high deductible plan, you pay nearly the same amount of money and get... just about nothing. When I needed surgery, it was much less expensive to work out a plan with the doctor and the hospital and pay for the whole thing than to pay for what insurance didn't cover, plus the premiums.
In my opinion, even if health care "reform" didn't raise premiums for middle class families, a lack of change isn't reform either.
From having had conversations with Americans on this forum, my impression is that it would actually work out a LOT cheaper just to have a "pay as you go" healthcare system, rather than one funded by private insurance.
The other option would be to have a system like the NHS in Britain, paid for out of taxes and free at the point of delivery. In Britain we actually pay less per head for our healthcare and yet it seems that our system, while massively flawed and bureaucratic, is actually no worse than yours in terms of what it delivers to patients.
Getting back to insurance, the only analagous situation that I have personal experience of is veterinary care. My vet's surgery offered me a plan for each cat that looked good on the surface, until you read the small print - there was an excess (=copay?) for each procedure, and certain things like vaccinations weren't covered. So we'd have ended up paying more, unless one of our cats needed emergency treatment worth - say - £500 or more.
The system you have in Britain is what many had hoped for. But we have a little problem here called "The Constitution" which limits what power of the federal government. It's analogous to France passing a health care law that covers all of Europe. Somehow I think the people in Great Britain might object to paying France taxes for something they have no right to regulate.
Of course our government tends to ignore the Constitution when they feel it's necessary, and this health care reform bill is a case in point.
Anyone in America that wants government health care can get it simply by moving to the state of Massachusetts, or lobbying their state to pass such a law.
Thanks for explaining that one.
Some of our taxes do go to France and other countries in the EU, to pay for all sorts of cr*p (don't get me started LOL). But even I, as a dyed-in-the-wool Eurosceptic, have to admit that the actual financial outlay on EU stuff is quite small compared with what Britain spends the most money on, i.e. pensions and benefits/welfare.
Pensions, benefits and welfare... promises made by the government that they never financed are weighing down your country, all of EU and America as well, and now we're going to institute another entitlement program costing 2.5 trillion dollars! The "good" news is, it's payed for with new taxes! Whoopee! Isn't fun spending money when it's not yours?
by ga anderson 11 days ago
To correctly reflect the point of this blog post the title should be expanded to:The Adverse Unintended Consequences of [Government Mandated] Paid Sick Leave"Democrats in Congress have a cure for the coronavirus crisis: a nationwide paid sick-leave mandate. …Ms. Murray and Ms. DeLauro began...
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...
by Deidra26 10 years ago
I know this topic can be a lightning rod, but i believe that a civilized people or even a civilized society must be able to have a public discourse on vital issues without vitriol or caricature. I may not always agree with someone or even the entirety of an idea or a sentence for that matter, but i...
by TimTurner 10 years ago
Ok so I'm watching CNN this morning and they have 3 Democrats talking about the healthcare plan and how it's going to be great for Americans.They talked about ways they were going to pay for the plan and two of the ways contradict everything about the plan.They want to raise taxes by 40% for...
by SparklingJewel 9 years ago
I truly want to know if these are valid reasons...or are they perspective on what "could" happen, or just totally absurd possibilities. If you have proof to validate or deny these reasonings, I genuinely would like to hear them?Here are just some of them, from a conservatives view: ...
by lady_love158 9 years ago
http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2 … -companiesThere it is in his own words... get rid of the insurance companies. Sanders is an avowed socialist and is reflecting the desire of Obama and the democrats to lead America down that road.
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|