Obamas stake to get socialistic NHS system in the US!

[Acid King]

Yeah, I like how we are basically losing health care reform at the same time they're removing the caps on corporations donations.

Things in this country just keep getting better and better. And you can blame the first one on the people. I'm really shocked that Mass. basically spit in the face of Ted Kennedy who served them for so long..basically killing one of his most dear causes.

And hell, people are getting mad at the Democrats for not being able to revive the economy yet. Well, the Republicans getting rid of so many regulations have let the companies set up shop in Asian countries, where the labor is CHEAP. I mean, you can't even get a fucking consumer help operator in the U.S.. I don't know if we're going to recover much, since so many jobs are gone. Gone for good. What are we going to replace them with? Even the green jobs theoretically will only replace so many.
Well, the American people will get mad at the Democrats for not fixing things, then throw the people who fucked everything up right back in. And they'll just shoot everything else further down the tube until people get sick of it, and the cycle continues until we're so far down the hole no one could save us. I'm moving to Canada. I like the weather.

This country surprises me all the time. Usually not in a good way. Ah, but we love our wars! Kill 'em all!

I hate democracy too.

[BryanM]

It would be nice if there wasn't a steel wall guarded with flying laser sharks blocking off 3rd parties.

How would we go about reforming that a bit?

........................

....yeah...

[Acid King]

I agree. But any third party is going to have a hard time because most third parties are more toward the ideological extremes which limits their appeal and they would still have to achieve a plurality against the more moderate parties to win seats. Plus you still have the functional problem of people having to learn about the parties and vote for them and the vast majority of the electorate doesn't pay attention to that kind of stuff nor do they vote based on policy preferences. No matter what you do elections are still going to be decided by that huge group of largely clueless voters.

[Ex-Cyber]

Third parties have a hard time because the system structurally favors two large parties. In a simple plurality election, the only way to win is to get the largest number of votes for your candidate. The most straightforward way to do that is to make your political party as large as possible, principles be damned.

[BryanM]

Yeah, proportional representation will never happen here in a thousand million years.

Crazy obsessed people just care more. No stopping them. You can't. Time to lay down and take a nap...

As of January 2009, the annual salary of each Representative is $174,000.[9] The Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority Leaders earn more, $223,500 for the Speaker and $193,400 for their party leaders (the same as Senate leaders). A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. Congress sets members' salaries; however, the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a change in salary (but not COLA[10]) from taking effect until after the next general election. Representatives are eligible for lifetime benefits after serving for five years, including a pension, health benefits, and social security benefits.

<3

[Acid King]

Yeah, proportional representation will never happen here in a thousand million years.

The constitution could be amended. We already changed it to make senators popularly elected, it could be amended to change how representatives are elected. But that would require work and interest and no one really cares.

[BulletMagnet]

I hate democracy too.

If you ask me, declaring that not only the ACTUAL individual beings who run the corporations, but the corporations THEMSELVES qualify as "people" is about as undemocratic as it gets. As far as I'm concerned the maxim of "one person, one vote" has been put through the gold-plated paper shredder.

[Acid King]

If you ask me, declaring that not only the ACTUAL individual beings who run the corporations, but the corporations THEMSELVES qualify as "people" is about as undemocratic as it gets. As far as I'm concerned the maxim of "one person, one vote" has been put through the gold-plated paper shredder.

Wait, when did corporations get the right to vote?

[ColonelFatso]

They get a shitload more than just one vote as of last week.

[Ex-Cyber]

They get a shitload more than just one vote as of last week.

I'm not convinced that the ruling changes much in practical terms. McCain-Feingold already had loopholes big enough to drive a truck through (e.g. if you don't actually name any candidates, it's not considered "electioneering").

[BulletMagnet]

Wait, when did corporations get the right to vote?

I wouldn't be half surprised to hear that a totally literal interpretation like this one is next on this Court's to-do list, honestly. In any case, in terms of a corporation's legal power to influence the outcome of elections, even if it can't "directly" vote in them, this is still, from my viewpoint at least, a troubling decision. As Cyber mentioned it's not like they don't hold enough sway as it is, but the last thing the situation needs is a ruling authority to stand up and say "there's absolutely nothing wrong with this" - then again, you're already familiar with my viewpoint when it comes to putting property (especially malleable, conglomerated, somewhat abstract property like "a company") on an even par with individual human beings.

[BryanM]

It's just depressing they aren't even bothering to try and keep it on the down-low anymore. ExxonMobil 4 prez 2012.

One of my hippy acquiescences actually thought the speech yesterday would have content something along the lines of "you cockblocking bitches won't let us do anything". So naive.

[Acid King]

I wouldn't be half surprised to hear that a totally literal interpretation like this one is next on this Court's to-do list, honestly. In any case, in terms of a corporation's legal power to influence the outcome of elections, even if it can't "directly" vote in them, this is still, from my viewpoint at least, a troubling decision. As Cyber mentioned it's not like they don't hold enough sway as it is, but the last thing the situation needs is a ruling authority to stand up and say "there's absolutely nothing wrong with this" - then again, you're already familiar with my viewpoint when it comes to putting property (especially malleable, conglomerated, somewhat abstract property like "a company") on an even par with individual human beings.

Well, it's a not only corporations as usually maligned, as in "Corporations are evil, maaaaaan", but also non-profit organizations as well. Citizen's United was a non-profit entity and most of their funding came from individuals and not for-profit corporations (or so claims Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion). If it means "ExxonMobil4prez" it also means MoveOn.org4prez, TeaParty4prez, NORML4prez, NAMBLA4prez, ACLU4prez etc etc... I think how it opens up speech to those kinds of corporations is the interesting thing about it. Those are the groups that really have something to gain from a public appeals and electioneering. I think the corporations that are feared to gain influence from this may not want to engage in too much of it because it could potentially cause consumer backlash and I'd wager that it's much more efficient to have lobbyists influencing the policymaking process itself since a lot of what they may want to influence may be too esoteric for the average voter to pay attention to. I don't think the results will be as dire as many seem to be making them, but it'll definitely be interesting to see what happens in the next election cycles.

[BulletMagnet]

Well, it's a not only corporations as usually maligned, as in "Corporations are evil, maaaaaan", but also non-profit organizations as well.

I'm aware of this, but it does nothing to change my viewpoint - I'll be the first one to urge any non-profits or other such organizations who support this decision to reconsider their position, regardless of whether or not I personally agree with what they do. As it stands, the Court has effectively redefined free speech (or, more accurately, free speech with the power to enact widespread change) as not a right, but a commodity, and as is the case with all commodities, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. While anybody can still say what they please, the scope and effectiveness of what's said is now tied (even more) directly to how much money you can put behind it - voices not backed up by media outlets and highly-paid consultants can be drowned out at the drop of a hat, in the name of "free speech for all". And yes, I'm aware that "alternative" means of getting a message out there exist, but if you think those are somehow immune to the same diamond-encrusted muffler as the rest at the end of the day then I don't know what to tell you.

I think the corporations that are feared to gain influence from this may not want to engage in too much of it because it could potentially cause consumer backlash

To some extent you're probably right, especially in your follow-up comments about lobbying in a less-obvious manner, but there are still plenty of ways to simplify and distort (or actively lie about) issues in ways that any average Joe can understand (cost-control measures = DEATH PANELS) - not to mention, of course, that as far as I'm concerned most corporations aren't nearly as concerned with "consumer backlash" as they'd like us to think. Seriously, how many people have answered the call (and a more publicized one than most, at that) to pull their money out of banks whose executives are using taxpayer dollars to give themselves bonuses? How many shoppers has Wal-Mart lost due to how it exploits its employees? How many fewer Happy Meals does McDonald's sell thanks to chopping down rainforest to graze cattle? Again, in a country and a culture that's prone (and actively encouraged) to value property over people, "consumer backlash" just doesn't hold much water.

[antron]

6 months from now sick children in the US will be guaranteed health insurance. Just in time to be on stage with their Democratic congressman for the November elections.

correction: in 3 months anyone with a pre-existing condition can buy a plan, at standard rates, from the government's high risk pool.

the insurance companies must eventually work this way to, 6 months from now for children, and by 2014 for adults.

[Ganelon]

6 months from now, my dermatologist will finally have time to see me (well, it normally takes 2 months from the scheduled date now; now add 32 million?).

[Ed Oscuro]

Did anybody mention N*****s and baby killers? Very classy, Team Teabrains.

Recently I had the privilege of being called ignorant about healthcare. Somebody just couldn't understand that the bill will allow people with preexisting conditions to be insured, and seemed to insist that insuring everybody would mean that people with such conditions couldn't be insured. Aside from the larger pool helping defray costs of risky individuals, I really can't imagine how this person came to such a conclusion. I am laughing at the idea of another right-winger swearing to leave the country if this bill passes - where will they go, I wonder?

[ED-057]

If they pass a bill mandating that everyone buy health insurance from for-profit insurance companies I will consider that an epic fail. Of course it wouldn't be surprising. Insurance co's probably wouldn't mind the extra revenue, dems can exclaim "everyone is covered lolol" and repubs can cheer "we successfully dodged the socialist, communist, eurofag version of health care omg" and the only people who lose are everyone who has to pay the premiums. Well, providers might also find themselves in a weaker position wrt negotiating prices with the insurance co's.

Continuing to have insurance coverage linked with employment is also a loser. It gives employers a monetary incentive to keep their workforce small and hit them with a greater workload, rather than hiring more and having to pay out more premiums. It also makes businesses employing workers in the USA less competitive.

If they were to include the proper "public option" with their mandatory purchasing of insurance, that would be less bad for everyone except private insurers. Still, I would be worried about the ways in which government will justify various nanny-state laws with the excuse of "reducing health care costs." There will be a study showing that treatment of heart conditions aggravated by high sodium intake cost the nation $123,456,789 per second and the next thing you know there will be a ban on instant ramen.

I think the best bill would be one page long and would say this: Health care providers must make available, at no cost, a price list covering every service and product they sell, and those prices shall apply for all customers.

Then there would be some actual market pressure on prices. A lot of administrative costs would disappear. And perhaps it would push insurance policies toward sanity, where people buy insurance to cover costly but unlikely needs rather than cheap, mundane ones. (insurance is for when your car gets wrecked, not for when it needs an oil change)

[Ex-Cyber]

If they pass a bill mandating that everyone buy health insurance from for-profit insurance companies I will consider that an epic fail. Of course it wouldn't be surprising. Insurance co's probably wouldn't mind the extra revenue, dems can exclaim "everyone is covered lolol" and repubs can cheer "we successfully dodged the socialist, communist, eurofag version of health care omg" and the only people who lose are everyone who has to pay the premiums. Well, providers might also find themselves in a weaker position wrt negotiating prices with the insurance co's.

Yeah, I had a feeling that the outcome would be something like that. There seem to be some good regulations in the bill, at least.

If they were to include the proper "public option" with their mandatory purchasing of insurance, that would be less bad for everyone except private insurers.

I think what a lot of people (including a lot of Democrats) don't appreciate is that to a lot of liberals, the public option was never supposed to be a sacrificial lamb. The liberal position was more or less that single-payer (e.g. expanding Medicare to cover everyone) was the way to go, but that was ceded from the start as "unrealistic" and nobody really argued for it. The public option was already the sort of centrist compromise position, but since the Democrats opened with it as their most extreme position, the proposal inevitably got watered down further in the debate.

Still, I would be worried about the ways in which government will justify various nanny-state laws with the excuse of "reducing health care costs." There will be a study showing that treatment of heart conditions aggravated by high sodium intake cost the nation $123,456,789 per second and the next thing you know there will be a ban on instant ramen.

Do laws like this actually exist anywhere? It seems like Republicans would have brought it up if it had happened in any of the existing public health systems.

I think the best bill would be one page long and would say this: Health care providers must make available, at no cost, a price list covering every service and product they sell, and those prices shall apply for all customers.

Interesting idea, but the insurance companies would fight it like hell, since they've cut their own special deals.

[ncp]

I think the best bill would be one page long and would say this: Health care providers must make available, at no cost, a price list covering every service and product they sell, and those prices shall apply for all customers.

What do you mean by this? You mean those prices should apply regardless of the customer's health? I sure as hell wouldn't expect a 500lb smoker to pay the same price as someone who is healthy.

[Acid King]

I think what a lot of people (including a lot of Democrats) don't appreciate is that to a lot of liberals, the public option was never supposed to be a sacrificial lamb. The liberal position was more or less that single-payer (e.g. expanding Medicare to cover everyone) was the way to go, but that was ceded from the start as "unrealistic" and nobody really argued for it. The public option was already the sort of centrist compromise position, but since the Democrats opened with it as their most extreme position, the proposal inevitably got watered down further in the debate.

I think the Dems would have had an easier time if they would have implemented even a few of the features Republicans were asking for. Adding some additional tort reform provisions or lifting the restriction of interstate insurance sales would have said "Hey we're trying to compromise" without pissing off their base. Hats off to them though, they managed to get it through but the whole process certainly didn't do much for the image of politicians. The whole thing was a partisan shitstorm with the poor saps who were unlucky enough to win competitive seats stuck in the middle.

[BulletMagnet]

I think the Dems would have had an easier time if they would have implemented even a few of the features Republicans were asking for. Adding some additional tort reform provisions or lifting the restriction of interstate insurance sales would have said "Hey we're trying to compromise" without pissing off their base.

Considering the heap of concessions that the Dems had already made to the Reps (the big one being killing off the public option), plus the fact that even at that point the latter were still accusing the former of enacting "death panels" and "creeping socialism" and "stealth reparations" and demanding that they "scrap the whole thing and start over", do you really think that the conservatives would have finally started cooperating if tort reform and inter-state sales (which, to the best of my knowledge, would have had negligible effects on the underlying problems at work) were included? Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned the right never intended to do anything but obstruct from the word "go" - unless the Dems decided to enact a bill that gave Bush a third term as President and legally designated throwing poor people into incinerators as an "alternative energy source" they weren't going to even pretend to support it.

The bill they passed is a joke compared to what should have been passed, but at least they finally managed to do SOMEthing to change the way things are a little bit. Hopefully when the country sees that this meager effort doesn't spell the end of all of our freedoms they'll be willing to consider taking it further.

[JoshF]

Adding some additional tort reform provisions or lifting the restriction of interstate insurance sales would have said "Hey we're trying to compromise" without pissing off their base.

This and drug importation. If Obama was anywhere near a liberal (let alone a socialist) he would have done that, and exposed free market touting Republicans as corporatist/protectionist shills when they inevitably opposed it. But you can't throw that stone with a glass house Democratic party (blue dawgs). Until public financing, we're in a one party state.

[Domino]

Why Heathcare? People want jobs more than anything else nowadays. Obama should do that and not this pisspaper bill.

[Ex-Cyber]

IIRC, "tort reform" has been tried at the state level and has failed to significantly reduce costs, which is why it's no longer a major part of the debate.

Likewise, I don't see how "interstate insurance sales" fixes anything. Can anyone explain how that doesn't end with the insurance companies all selling from Delaware while mooning the state legislatures of 99% of their customers?

[Acid King]

Considering the heap of concessions that the Dems had already made to the Reps (the big one being killing off the public option), plus the fact that even at that point the latter were still accusing the former of enacting "death panels" and "creeping socialism" and "stealth reparations" and demanding that they "scrap the whole thing and start over", do you really think that the conservatives would have finally started cooperating if tort reform and inter-state sales (which, to the best of my knowledge, would have had negligible effects on the underlying problems at work) were included? Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned the right never intended to do anything but obstruct from the word "go" - unless the Dems decided to enact a bill that gave Bush a third term as President and legally designated throwing poor people into incinerators as an "alternative energy source" they weren't going to even pretend to support it.

If they wanted it to appear that they were trying to construct a bipartisan bill then it's exactly what they should have done, as the majority party they were the one in position to make concessions, not the Republicans. As much as I know people love to blame them for everything, the Republicans were not the problem here. They controlled dick in this process, they're the minority party by a sound margin in both houses. The Democrats only have themselves and the electorate to blame for this shitty process. Sorry, BM but the public option was not a concession to the Republicans, it was a concession to the political reality of the looming election. They were barely able to push it through the House, not because of partisan bickering but because people were afraid to lose their seats. Push the elections back a few years and you probably wouldn't have as much resistance from fiscally conservative Democrats.

This and drug importation. If Obama was anywhere near a liberal (let alone a socialist) he would have done that, and exposed free market touting Republicans as corporatist/protectionist shills when they inevitably opposed it. But you can't throw that stone with a glass house Democratic party (blue dawgs). Until public financing, we're in a one party state.

Personally, I think we should switch to proportional representation in the house and the 17th amendment should be repealed to allow states to appoint senators again.

Likewise, I don't see how "interstate insurance sales" fixes anything. Can anyone explain how that doesn't end with the insurance companies all selling from Delaware while mooning the state legislatures of 99% of their customers?

Considering their current anti-trust exemption, I don't see how that wouldn't atleast give some semblance of competition. Even if the real effect was nothing, the Republicans who proposed the idea would have to explain why it didn't work, and potentially help Democrats by discrediting Republican policy proposals in the future so I don't see why they wouldn't implement it.

[Ex-Cyber]

It's not like most Republican members really wanted a bipartisan bill either; that would have meant that the Democrats could take credit for passing popular reforms and look extremely reasonable in the process. The Republicans' idea of "bipartisanship" here was pretty much that the Republicans write the bill and the Democrats pass it.

[BulletMagnet]

As much as I know people love to blame them for everything, the Republicans were not the problem here. They controlled dick in this process, they're the minority party by a sound margin in both houses.

Considering the ability of a lone jackass like Jim DeMint to single-handedly block an extension of unemployment benefits (and then complain how HE is the true sufferer here, as he had to miss a sports game on TV to do it), not to mention how the Reps are touting an endless stream of pointless amendments as a legitimate legislative strategy (but of course the Dems are the ones who shamelessly exploit "Parliamentary tricks"), I'm afraid that the party's minority status doesn't convince me of its inability to throw as many monkey wrenches into the gears as it pleases, especially when the Dems are the only ones who are ever accused of "hyper-partisanship" and are constantly running scared of the label. I only wish that somebody would recall to mind how anybody to the left of Rush Limbaugh was pretty much completely shut out of any legislative discussion from Bush's election through at least 2006, but nobody ever demanded bipartisanship from the ruling party then.

[Acid King]

I only wish that somebody would recall to mind how anybody to the left of Rush Limbaugh was pretty much completely shut out of any legislative discussion from Bush's election through at least 2006, but nobody ever demanded bipartisanship from the ruling party then.

No one's demanding anything. If you believe that it's better for the Democratic party's electoral future to act as though the Republicans, their policy suggestions and the voters who they will be appealing to in the midterm elections don't exist, then that's just like, your opinion, man.

[antron]

I only wish that somebody would recall to mind how anybody to the left of Rush Limbaugh was pretty much completely shut out of any legislative discussion from Bush's election through at least 2006, but nobody ever demanded bipartisanship from the ruling party then.

No one's demanding anything. If you believe that it's better for the Democratic party's electoral future to act as though the Republicans, their policy suggestions and the voters who they will be appealing to in the midterm elections don't exist, then that's just like, your opinion, man.

They set out from the very beginning to make this Obama's Waterloo. They even called it that. Pure obstructionism.
Here's a respected conservative's brutal assessment:
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

choice quote:

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?