Health Care: The Rise of the Corporatist Dictatorship.

[DJ13]

Eighty years ago, when the greed of the wealthy and influential brought the nations economy to the ground, FDR and the Democratic Party used government in new and creative ways to solve the problems created by too much wealth being concentrated in to few hands. By the 1950's this nation had spread the economic benefits of our economy to more people than at any time in history. Eighty years later our leaders seem bent on a new and different and opposite idea.

I will admit it I didn't see this coming. I always thought the Right turned Marx on his head and in this country we had a revolt of the elites against the Middle Class but I never expected to see the Democratic Party turn FDR on his head by privatizing the New Deal. What most people have not grasped yet is that the Democrats are slowly unveiling a whole new theory where social welfare functions that used to be a government function are being sold to private business for profit and the lines between government and private enterprise blur to almost indistinguishable.

With Geithner, Bernanke and Summers running our economic policy it might as well be Goldman Sachs. The IRS is being turned from a tax agency to a debt collection agency for Corporate America. The health care mandate will hardly be the last collection necessitated by the coercive power of government being used to back up our mandatory purchase of private companies products.

There is something truly immoral about this bill because of how it screws over average Americans to the benefit of the rich and greedy. It forces some Americans to pay at least 8% of their income to private insurance monopolies, which is a historic first but a dubious and possibly unconstitutional one at that. Our Government telling us we have to buy a private company product even if we don't want it. That is absolutely dictatorial. Our fore fathers rebelled and created a new nation for far less tyranny than this so why are so tame in our response? This is much worse than taxation with no representation...........

http://www.examiner.com/x-3629-Philadelphia-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m12d23-Time-for-Progressives-to-join-the-Tea-Party?cid=channel-rss-Politics

[Odin2005]

1. K&R

[ProSense]

2. "The Rise of the Corporatist Dictatorship" What utter bullshit.

From the same people pushing the claim that everyone who has a say in the process is "President."

[DJ13]

3. If you hate it I figure the author is probably right

:hi:

[paulk]

7. have you read this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-democrats-authoritari_b_402146.html

[DJ13]

9. No, but I will

Thank you.

[DJ13]

14. In effect, this represents an historic defeat for the type of liberalism represented by the New Deal

and the ascendancy of a new type of corporatist liberalism.



Spot on.

Thanks again for the link!

[donheld]

31. Health care is not a right or a privilege, It's an OBLIGATION?

"Democrats in Congress, under the leadership of Barack Obama, have now turned that principal on its head and made health care neither a right, nor a privilege, but an obligation for individual citizens and a government-mandated profit center for private corporations."

[CrispyQ]

15. An excellent commentary.

Thanks for sharing.

[jonnyblitz]

11. that's what i figure as well. it's a good article. nt

[paulk]

5. hyperbole, perhaps

But the article gets one thing right - the Democratic Party has taken a step in a new direction - forcing citizens to purchase a product from a for profit business - without at least a foot in the door for a public plan - is the sort of thing I expected out of the Republican Party, not the Democratic.

[ProSense]

17. No utter nonsense

"is the sort of thing I expected out of the Republican Party, not the Democratic."

The Republicans are the ones trying to prove this is unconstitutional.

[paulk]

18. it very well could be unconstitutional

it's not just a concern of the Republican Party. It's a concern of anyone who cares about the precedent this legislation sets concerning the divide between government and private business. That's not "utter nonsense", that's a fundamental change - if this bill goes through as written.

[ProSense]

21. Highly

doubt it.

[paulk]

22. Robert Shaprio's opinion is hardly definitive

:shrug:

[ProSense]

23. Why? n/t

[paulk]

26. it's just one guy's opinion

it's not automatically more valid than, say, the writer of the article in the OP.

[ProSense]

27. It's not just one guy's opinion

It's one Constitutional expert's (Robert Schapiro) opinion and the Mass Supreme Court.

[paulk]

30. I don't even see where his opinion is relevent

it doesn't address the issue of whether the federal government can force individuals to buy a product from a for profit entity.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Wow. Poorly-written spewage.

[boppers]

6. Oligarchy! Capitalist running dogs!

Arise comrades! The 75% of you getting subsidies aren't protecting the wealth of the top 25%!

[paulk]

10. all you have is ridicule

if you have an argument, make it. This is a discussion board - and this needs to be discussed - there are a lot of Democrats unhappy with certain aspects of this legislation - trying to paint them all as radical left wingers is really a stupid way to go about convincing people - people you will eventually need on your side - that this legislation is worth supporting.

These things do need to be discussed - there is a real schism developing in the party, and the tactics you use only serve to make it wider.

[boppers]

16. Slow down! We need to discuss this more! Don't pass any bills!

Endless discussion is not a solution. It's been discussed for years now.

[paulk]

19. the points being raised have not been discussed

It's vitally important for the Democratic Party to be asking the questions asked in this editorial.

Is this sea change for the party - mandating that the public has to subsidize a private for profit industry, a road we want to go down?

[boppers]

34. Your premise is false.

"mandating that the public has to subsidize a private for profit industry..."

Non-profits are part of it, as well.

[paulk]

37. no, your premise is false

and shows a real unwillingness to address any of these issues.

Any money going to non profits is, at best, a small percentage. Your argument is weak.

[dflprincess]

25. Do you have a link for that 75% getting subsidies?

As well as how much those subsidies will be? And, do they only apply to premiums, or will they help with out of pocket expenses as well?

[boppers]

35. 75% of the population makes less than $50K

Subsidies end at $44K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

I'm doing some rounding, as well, by about 6 K a year.

[BlueJac]

8. What is wrong with everyone........

there is a lot of truth here!

[DJ13]

12. Politics as sport

No matter what, our team is always right.......

This seems to have migrated over to the Democratic party from the Republican party.

It wasnt that long ago when we used to lambast the GOP'ers for protecting Bush despite all his shortcomings.

[ShortnFiery]

33. They definitely use very similar tactics: Intimidation and threats of disenfranchisement. eom

[uponit7771]

13. Unrec, tripling the number of CHC's (US version of single payer) will grant access to low cost healt

...care in this country.

[dflprincess]

24. CHC's are not a U.S. version of single payer

not by a long shot.

[Armstead]

40. CHCs are a last resort form of healthcare -- Why not reduce the need for them instead?

Community Health centers are great. But they exist tom provide care because so many peopel have been kept out (or pushed out) of coverage by the costs and abuses of the private health insurance system.

Instead of dealing a symptom, why not deal with the cause of the problem.

[burning rain]

20. This theory of governance has a name: "compassionate conservatism."

The Democratic version is more compassionate and less conservative than George W. Bush's version, but still has the same crony capitalist base (cf. Medicare Part D, a "compassionate conservative" program par excellence).

[Narkos]

28. You know...whatever.....

[zulchzulu]

29. I'm glad Junior High loners get to write OP-Eds for the dying Examiner

This shit screed is proof that the the Examiner is on its last legs. The screed reads like some Teabagger's son doing crack after listening to Dad whining this shit while fucking their family dog in the ass.

[Armstead]

39. I love your reasoned criitique

Now can you tell me why it's inappropriate to be critical of a bill that is going to force Americans by law to buy a private product?

[ShortnFiery]

32. +10,000

:thumbsup:

[Vidar]

36. K&R.

[Armstead]

38. It sounds Tin Hattish -- But alas it is true

And it is baffling that so many so-called liberals and progressives don;t see what is resultingf from this.

This bill is a mandate to force the population to support monopolistic private corporate interests.

That's pretty damn close to Mussolini's definition of fascism as the merger of corporate and state power.

[ipaint]

41. I agree plus this is so obviously a bailout.

Private insurance companies push for 'individual mandate'

...Private insurers lost an estimated 9 million customers between 2000 and 2007. In many cases, people lost coverage because they or their employers could no longer afford it as premium increases outpaced wage growth and inflation.

Recession job losses are adding to the toll. Some economists estimate that every percentage-point increase in the jobless rate adds 1 million people to the ranks of the uninsured.

The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors.

"The rate of aging far and away exceeds the birth rate," said Sheryl Skolnick, a CRT Capital Group healthcare investment analyst. "That's got to be very scary. . . . This is the biggest fight for survival managed care has ever faced, at least since they went bankrupt in the late '80s."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7?pg=2