It is official, we now live in a corporately controlled country

[MadHound]

Actually that fact has been obvious for a long while now, but with the passage of HCR legislation it has become official.

In order to be a law abiding citizen of this country, you now have to purchase a product.

Wrap your head around that for a minute, with all of its implications.

This is a radical departure from what this country once was. At one point citizens of this country were praised for being self sufficient and independent. It wasn't that long ago, within memory of my mother and father, that many people managed to have a decent living, one that didn't involve purchasing products. If they didn't grow or make it themselves, then they bartered for it or did without. You can still find this sort of ethic in remote and isolated pockets throughout the country.

The homeless in this country live a life where they purchase little or nothing. I was homeless for a couple of years many, many years ago, and I rarely had money in my pocket. Yet I managed to eek out an existence without resorting to money.

Granted, living without making a cash purchase is a life that not many of us want to do, but until now, you could still legally do so.

Now however, with the passage of this bill, you are mandated to become a consumer. To be a law abiding citizen you must, by law purchase a product.

Thus, we have now officially ceased to be citizens in this country, but instead have been reduced to the role of consumers. We can no longer legally refuse to purchase a product, we no longer have the freedom to withhold our money if we so wish.

We are no longer citizens, but rather consumers. It is official. That is what this bill means.

Brought to you by the Democratic Party, formerly the party of the working stiff, the ordinary person. No longer, they're just another tool of the corporate state, bought and paid for corporate whores just like the Republicans. Reducing America to a nation of consumers. How undemocratic is that?

[fascisthunter]

1. It's a form of Fascism

And unfortunately it's become acceptable to people even in our own party. I expected the GOP to embrace such a decision but then again, they are more interested in presenting a front, because they are through and through fascists.

[MadHound]

3. It is fascism, and we've been going down that road for a long while now

But the concept that we're now going to be legally required to purchase a product, just to live in this country astonishes me.

I wonder if this is even Constitutional. Given the corporately friendly makeup of the current court, it would probably be found to be Constitutional.

[fascisthunter]

6. yup... and that's why it was done

any doubt people on both sides of the aisle had no idea what was going to happen to the Supremely perverted Court, and notice how little the Dem's did to turn down Bush's picks? I believe the push to the right has been planned a long time ago, and too many Dem's are going along with it all.

[Echo In Light]

14. America represents the most expansive manifestation of fascism the world has experienced thus far

Little wonder it's been able to flourish to the fantastic extent it has, basically vis a vis mass denial of the obvious signs that become so pervasive and overwhelming that they constitute the entire social/cultural backdrop in the daily round of life.

[fascisthunter]

17. I think people have forgotten history

and what happens whren private interests run the show. If only we had a time-machine, then we could send some of these folks back to a time when people had no control over their government and the only people who did have control were royalty.

[dixiegrrrrl]

43. Yeah.. guess people wanted a neon sign to warn them.

[Echo In Light]

47. Actually, it has much more to do with this >>>>

[rudy23]

25. And what low-information voter could be convinced that Obama is a Fascist?

Fascists are Italians in military uniforms! Obama's a cool dude and he doesn't talk all dumb like the President.

[fascisthunter]

28. I Know... people's notions of fascism are from Hollywood

and the history channel, as if the ideology belonged only to a certain people of a certain time.

[rudy23]

31. As long as our leaders stick to 3 piece suits over military garb, they can get away with whatever.

Our voting public is that superficial. It's frustrating, but especially now that our low-info friends cheer on Obama simply for not being Bush. They're slowly waking up to it, though.

[fascisthunter]

39. they are, which is a good thing

[kctim]

2. Are you surprised in any way?

"we no longer have the freedom to withhold our money if we so wish"

Its been that way since 1935 and has progressed into what it is now. It will only get worse from here.

[MadHound]

5. Actually I am,

I recognize that for many practical purposes, citizens of this country have been forced towards buying various products for years now. But this is the first time that it will be legally mandated that I have to purchase a product. This is an entirely new concept in this country. Before one always had the option of not purchasing whatever product was offered, though one did have to suffer the consequences. For instance one could not purchase auto insurance, but that meant that one wouldn't drive, at least legally. You could go without purchasing food, but that meant that you had to either grow your own and accept charity.

But with this, it is official, you have to buy a product just to be a law abiding citizen in this country. This is new, and signals the death of Americans as citizens in this country, we're now all just consumers.

[kctim]

20. It is all very interesting

my right-wing friends have been saying the same thing for about 20 years now, only they use the term dependents instead of consumers.
It does make one think.

[RKP5637]

10. Sadly, I think you are quite correct, "It will only get worse from here." n/t

[Barack_America]

4. That's the conclusion that I am coming to. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Just a

kick and rec. :pals:

[FarLeftFist]

8. We have always lived in a corporate controlled country.

Since the industrial revolution.

[MadHound]

11. To a greater or lesser extent, you are correct.

However this legislation sets a huge precedent. It is basically saying that if you want to live in this country legally, you must purchase a product.

That's a new, radical departure from the philosophy of our founding fathers, from the democratic and Enlightenment principles that this country was founded on.

We are no longer citizens with rights, we are consumers who must fulfill mandates to buy stuff.

[FarLeftFist]

13. The mandates are not mandatory. n/t

[MadHound]

16. If you are referring to the thread Thickasabrick has going about no IRS penalties,

You're in for a sorry disappointment. You will be penalized, under the force of law, and your future tax refunds will go to pay your penalties.

If you are referring to something else, please enlighten us.

[hfojvt]

26. here's what HopeforChange posted

"In the house version of the bill HR3962

Section 501 - Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

‘‘TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.”"


So the 'penalty' is apparently equal to 2.5% of AGI OVER a specified minimum AGI. If your income is low enough and you cannot afford any insurance, then there is no penalty, just like in Massachusetts.

You (or I) could look it up here
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

or here

http://thomas.loc.gov/

[MadHound]

36. Yes, but for the vast majority of people, it is a mandate,

One that is enforced with, as you pointed out, penalties implemented by the IRS.

So what, exactly, is your point?

[JustAnotherGen]

9. Eh?

I was just going to k/r but. . .

This also forces a woman to buy something that does NOT cover her entire reproductive health. So it's very very very A Handmaid's Tale as far as I'm concerned.

So when the ONE thing she needs is an abortion - she can't afford it - because she is shelling out money to some dickweed in a mansion that runs a Health Insurance Co.

[MadHound]

12. A very good point,

A very apt comparison. I read that book when it was first released and have found that it has been followed quite faithfully in a lot of ways.

With the Nelson "compromise" and the Stupak amendment, one wonders what is going to come out of conference. Nothing good, that's for sure.

[JustAnotherGen]

33. Yep

Read this almost 20 years ago while a young Feminist who loved (still do) Naiomi Wolf and Susan Faludi. They both suggested it as reading materials for young feminists in spring of 1992 on 'talk shows'. Half my dorm floor ran out and bought it. :rofl: What we thought was a Horror novel - is on the verge of becoming a reality.

[Bitwit1234]

15. Since the days of

the robber barons in the late 1800's and early 1900's we have lived in a corporate run country. They only difference now is they know they are in charge and make no bones about it. Truthfully I don't think that there are many countries in the world that aren't run by corporations, behind the scenes. They just aren't as arrogant as they are here in this country. They don't care who knows they are in charge, I think they enjoy it.

And til we put our foot down with term limits and kick the congress people out after one term, they will continue to pull the puppets who fill the seat of congress' strings.

[OneBlueSky]

18. gee . . . when did you first notice? . . . n/t

[hfojvt]

19. I guess you were paid by some corporation to write that then, eh

Obama has made this argument, suppose we get rid of the mandate and goto single payer. What happens then? You are required, by law, to pay taxes to pay for this single payer system. Sure, maybe single payer would be cheaper, but that's only a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. You are still required, by law, to pay for it.

Also, per the example that you used. A homeless person is not affected by this mandate. They can still legally (sort of) eke out an existence without purchasing insurance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. You do understand that there is a fundamental difference between a tax

paid to the government and a payment made to a private corporation interested in maintaining its profit margin, don't you?

[marmar]

21. Newsflash: It's been that way for at least three decades....

nt

[DisgustedInMN]

22. k&r n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

23. The Fascist States of America or...

The Corporate States of America

No difference, but which sounds better to repeat over and over, just to stoke that rage in the American People?

[swilton]

24. Coming to a world near you

Globalized corporate governance - Imperial America - RIP

[ixion]

27. Indeed... It sets a very dangerous precedent...

it starts with one. Soon, we'll be required to purchase all sorts of crap from government-favored verticals, whether we like it or not.

Unless we fight.

The mandate MUST be defeated.

[closeupready]

29. Oh, you know that once the mandate is deemed constitutional, every other industry

is going to be clamoring Congress for a law mandating that consumers buy their products.

There is NO question that is the road down which we are going.

[Odin2005]

53. Bingo! +1

[Bullet1987]

30. The HCR bill is a victory for the insurance industry and Big Pharma

but one thing is clear. There is a very real populist outrage crossing party lines that is growing every year. We can't count on our elected officials (even the Progressive ones like Feingold and Boxer) to defend us anymore. This HCR bill was a gut check, and the Progressives caved way too quickly without even putting up much of a fight. This is the world we live in now. A world of sheer control, a world where the healthcare industry has deep roots dug into the establishment and they don't have any plans to ease their grip even a little. Once again, the MSM is making this about a Left-Right paradigm when the debate is really Populism vs. Corporatism. Control vs. Individual Freedom/Workers Rights.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. It was official several decades ago. nt.

[Last Stand]

35. just catching on?

:hi:
Welcome aboard my misery train. I just don't know what stop to get off.

I guess I did delude myself into thinking Obama might actually be different.

NOT.

[MadHound]

37. No, not just catching on,

As myself and many others have noted, we've been headed in this direction for many, many years. However what is different about this move is that it is up front and obvious, you must purchase a product to live in these United States, mandated by law. That is something new and different, and rather chilling.

[NNN0LHI]

38. I thought you belonged to a union?

You must have health insurance coverage in your contract? No?

Don

[MadHound]

40. While I have unionized workplaces, and have belonged to a union,

Currently I'm a student, graduating next spring, hoping that I can find a teaching job. So, until then, I'm unionless. I pay for a paltry student insurance plan out of my own pocket.

[The2ndWheel]

41. How else does anything get done?

To be a law abiding citizen you must, by law help pay for wars that you may be against, under threat of penalty, and by default. How much say does a citizen have in that? Sure, we can vote. Name a decade where the US Government hasn't been involved somewhere militarily though. That's how much our vote matters.

[MadHound]

42. Paying taxes isn't a purchase of a commercial product however

This is the first time that we the people are mandated to purchase a commercial product from a private corporation.

[The2ndWheel]

44. No, but you're still going to jail or paying a fine if you don't pay up

Although, who's making the bombs that we pay for?

That's really where I draw the line. It's about having to pay for something, and if you choose not to, you pay an arbitrary penalty designed by people you have little contact with who set up the system to attain more power. So I completely agree with you to that point, but I just think it's the same game with taxes. We're already an opt-out society, but if you do just that, you're paying a penalty. If we were really about choice, citizenship, responsibility, independence, etc, we'd throw everything up in the air, everyone would get to pick and choose what they want to pay for, and we'd let the chips fall where they may. I doubt this mass society would survive very long if we did that, but the threat of penalty from a distant center of authority for the wrong choice wouldn't be there either. There are positives and negatives to anything we do, so everything up in the air would be far from the perfect thing to do, but I think it should be at least an option. Although it's not an option, because it can't be. At least not a voluntary option.

We force people to live with each other. It's just one of those cultural contradictions. Individually, we don't want to force people to live with anyone they don't want to. Pro-choice and all. Collectively though, everyone has to see it through to the bitter end, regardless of the consequences. Why? How? I know how; by penalizing those who choose not to participate. Why do we do it? Probably a much more complicated answer which gets into the deep roots of many thousands of years of history.

[tomg]

45. So what product do you think

we will have to buy next. I'm betting it is deodorant. I even have the motto of the government: "We can treat you like shit, but you can't smell like shit."

[treestar]

46. Sort of sounds like Republicans

Waxing nostalgic for the good old days of independence.

this is a product everyone would buy if they could. This makes it so more people can.

[amborin]

48. America, Inc. k&r

[Echo In Light]

49. Kick

[Odin2005]

50. Fascism: The fusion of the State and Corporate Power.

[Wardoc]

51. 99% agree. In order to be a law abiding citizen of this country, you must buy a DEFECTIVE product.

[Generator]

52. Yah know I'd be down with a mandate IF

health care was actually health care. If it was actually affordable. If there was a guarantee that there would never ever be a claim denied that wasn't frivolous-cosmetic surgery for looks for instance. (yes I know some comedic surgery is very necessary, breast cancer etc.) AND the incentive wouldn't be in the tax code. It would be in the cost itself. Buy it and have it taken out of your salary and pay 20% less. Buy it at age 20 and pay 30% less. That would make everyone want to play. The mandate would be in the cost. Not in the denial of coverage and threatening to take your money away.

All those that pay could never be denied. Others who didn't want to contribute-assuming they could-would pay more later. But this is health reform is not health or reform. It's profit for insurance companies. We are not fools.

[mdmc]

54. forced consumerism

heil!

[TicketyBoo]

55. Look,

if we wanted the pre-existing conditions clauses done away with, there had to be mandated coverage. Otherwise, people would just wait until they needed insurance to purchase it. This is the only way that it would work. It's better to have mandated coverage than those darned pre-existing condition clauses, at least that is my opinion about it.