Looks like Obama's health care is going to pass.

[Hot Mega]

If george bush attempted to enact a line for line copy of yesterdays signed into law health care bill at any time during his 2 terms as potus, the libs would have gone ballistic and catastrophic on the country, you know it and I know it. Would that be ''genuine'' outrage ?


Aside : If four years prepayment doesn't have ponzi scheme written all over it, then the ponzi scheme just plain does not exist ! Seriously when would you ever be required to pay for something in advance . . . 4 years + in advance to be precise ? I'm sorry, any time you have to prepay for an item or service, there's something flakey going on. If I had to guess, this prepay scheme is one of rahm emanuel's creative financing ideas. :1orglaugh . . chicago style baby !!

. . .and if that wasn't enough, I like the way how the gumment will employ the irs to act as gestapo enforcer for prepayment compliance . . . Nice, I can see the home liens piling up already ! :thumbsup:

Really? Everyone who rents anything prepays (for example).:o Are those ponzi schemes?

Think before you type "Facetious".:tongue:

 

[Big Drake]

Non-partisan studies have shown that both parties get about the same financial support for election bids from "big business." They always cover both angles so they can have influence inside the national political system, and THAT is the systemic problem that keeps our so-called leaders from serving the people instead of looking for ways to control them... it all comes down to money.:2 cents:

That's true. Corporations like Wal-Mart, Pfizer, Verizon, etc., pump money into candidates from both parties. There's a lot at play. But those very corporations end up choosing which candidate will win by giving them more total funds. They cast the votes that count with their dollars for the candidate who proves to be the better servant of their interests.

Every president elected in recent history raised more in campaign donations than the other candidate. That's also the case with most congressional and local elections.

 

[Red Spyder]

Please, just roll that statement around in your head a little bit, think about things logically for a change and realize just how dumb the above is. I can't even say that's a gross exaggeration, because at least enormous exaggerations have the tiniest kernels of truth about them. How agonizing, we are finally getting to the point of recognizing a basic human right and acting upon it,...you know only after more than half of century after the rest of the civilized Western world did. I know this is probably a hard concept for people like you to grasp, but contributing back to the society that helped bring you about and even paying for things that don't directly benefit you when it's important to civilization and the well being of everybody in it as a whole isn't a violation of your fundamental rights. That only exist in some darwinistic anarcho fantasy land. Nobody here has gotten any property or made any wealth without the help of others and society in one form or another.

Yes, I have not reached my success without help from others, BUT I NEVER FORCED ANYBODY TO HELP ME. I am grateful for the help my family, friends, even some of my employers gave me to have a better life but they offered that help without coercion or force. Even when I was in college, taking advantage of pell grants and student loans, well, the loans have been repaid and the pell grant also paid back with all the taxes taken from me since then.

My point about "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", mostly focusing on the "right to life and liberty" means that, if you agree with the fact that we all should be forced to buy a product ( health insurance) or face a fine and potentially jail time if we don't then you now agree that life and freedom should now be privileges and not rights. The reason I mean that is because, for example, even though we are required to have car insurance, from what I remember from my driver's ed class, driving is not a right but a privilege so therefore to preserve that privilege we got to comply with the applicable driving laws and now saying that we HAVE to get health insurance or face fines that is an encroachment on our right to life and liberty.

Now, about contributing back to society, I'm all for it, but VOLUNTARILY. I mean, would you help the poor by making yourself poor? I don't think so.

So, if this new government program is so important for some people around here, let them pay for it themselves.

 

[Hot Mega]

That's true. Corporations like Wal-Mart, Pfizer, Verizon, etc., pump money into candidates from both parties. There's a lot at play. But those very corporations end up choosing which candidate will win by giving them more total funds. They cast the votes that count with their dollars for the candidate who proves to be the better servant of their interests.

Every president elected in recent history raised more in campaign donations than the other candidate. That's also the case with most congressional and local elections.

Donating to a campaign doesn't guarantee anything. Some corporations donate across party lines but rarely do they support 2 different candidates for the same office.

They donate primarily for the same reasons average Americans donate, because they feel the candidate's platform or principles will serve their interests through the policies they run on.

You can't give money to a public official in exchange for something (quid pro quo). That's illegal.

 

[CunningStunts]

You can't give money to a public official in exchange for something (quid pro quo). That's illegal.

True HM, but we all know that Washington DC trades favors for cash... unfortunately, it's just accepted that's the way things work. :dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

True HM, but we all know that Washington DC trades favors for cash... unfortunately, it's just accepted that's the way things work. :dunno:

I think quid pro quo happens far less than perceived. In the cases where it happens, those involved are usually arrested and charged.

Jefferson case...Abramoff, etc.

 

[pete rose]

I see our friends from across the Atlantic want us to have the same shifty health care that they have .
:glugglug:

How is it shifty? They're not using garden tools.

 

[titsrock]

The beautiful thing --really the only beautiful thing--about this healthcare reform is the position it forces the Republicans and Loonatarians into. If they campaign for 2010 on a platform of 'REPEAL THIS HEALTHCARE' than they are advocating for a return to the world of pre-existing payment rejections and personal bankruptcy.

I dunno about you but that's going to be a tough position to try to argue in favor of. :dunno: I know the typical white trash tea bagger militia is a thick-skull knuckledragger but even this person is going to smell how rotten returning to that "world" is...

Good luck Republicans :rofl:

 

[Trident1]

Is it jsut me or does she remind anyone else of Skeletor from He-Man?

BTW, national polls out this week put her approval rating at 11%.

That walking pile of steaming crap and her meat puppet Reid deserve their abysmal approval numbers.

 

[georges]

social is the equal distribution of misery. You wanted that shitty universal healthcare, you got it, but don't complain if you get too much indebted.

 

[Big Drake]

Donating to a campaign doesn't guarantee anything.

Fact: Every president elected in the last 60 years was the one that raised more money for campaigning. That's almost always been the case with congressional and local elections as well.

Some corporations donate across party lines but rarely do they support 2 different candidates for the same office.

Not true at all.

For example, in the 2008 elections Wal-Mart and Pfizer, two of the biggest corporations in the world, donated to both the McCain and Obama campaigns.

They donate primarily for the same reasons average Americans donate, because they feel the candidate's platform or principles will serve their interests through the policies they run on.

Average Americans don't donate. The average American doesn't even vote. Less people vote than don't. Most people already realize our "democratic" system is a sham.

And even those normal people who donate can't compare in any way to the multi-billionaire corporations.

Corporations rule this country. Deal with it. Change it.

You can't give money to a public official in exchange for something (quid pro quo). That's illegal.

Actually, it's the bed rock of representative politics in a capitalist society. The Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the capitalist party that rules this country. They rule in the interests of the capitalist class.

Every big of progress that's come for working people has been forced out of their hands with mass struggle.

Slavery was abolished only by a Civil War that raged for four years and cost the lives of 620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilians.

The eight-hour day was the result of mass strikes in the 1870s and 1880s that culminated in the Haymarket Massacre and the hanging of key leaders of the eight-hour movement.

The suffragettes endured repeated beatings and jailings in their battle for the right of women to vote.

Official recognition of the right to form industrial unions in America was the outcome of a 60-year struggle that began in the 1870s and continued even after Franklin Roosevelt recognized the right in 1934. It involved general strikes in major US cities, including the 1934 strikes in Toledo, Minneapolis and San Francisco.

In struggles such as the Flint sit-down strike, workers occupied factories and faced off against police and troops in industrial battles that verged on civil war. Ten workers were gunned down in cold blood and many others were wounded by Chicago police in the 1937 Memorial Day massacre.

It was in the context of such mass working class struggles fueled by the Great Depression that Roosevelt enacted Social Security.

The enactment of Medicare in the 1960s was the byproduct of the mass mobilization of African-Americans and their allies in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, in which hundreds of thousands marched in the face of killings and terror by vigilantes backed by the state. By the time of the passage of Medicare, the civil rights struggle had been joined by an upsurge of militant labor struggles and the initial eruption of the most oppressed sections of the working class in urban uprisings.

The right of 18-year-olds to vote was secured as a result of the mass movement against the Vietnam War.

In every case, the victories for social reform represented the frightened response of the ruling class to mass movements from below. And in every case, these victories were partial and limited, diluted with all sorts of caveats, and containing the seeds of their eventual undoing—due to the limited political perspective imposed on the insurgent movements by their reformist leaderships.

The moment the working class relaxed its pressure, the gains were watered down or eliminated.

 

[CunningStunts]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36016267/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

:rofl:

Is this funny or sad? I guess the Congressional leaders either didn't read the entire bill, or just didn't care they had items in it that weren't correct. Scary either way if you ask me...

 

[Hot Mega]

Fact: Every president elected in the last 60 years was the one that raised more money for campaigning. That's almost always been the case with congressional and local elections as well.

Donating to a candidate doesn't guarantee anything. Meaning it doesn't guarantee they will do your will. That's quid pro quo at least and in some cases bribery..which are illegal.

Not true at all.

For example, in the 2008 elections Wal-Mart and Pfizer, two of the biggest corporations in the world, donated to both the McCain and Obama campaigns.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said "rarely"..not.."not at all".

Average Americans don't donate. The average American doesn't even vote. Less people vote than don't. Most people already realize our "democratic" system is a sham.

And even those normal people who donate can't compare in any way to the multi-billionaire corporations.

Corporations rule this country. Deal with it. Change it.

Okay, the average voter who donates. Happy? Annd...the money corporations spend to get their voice heard is not by way of simply dropping money in the coffers of some candidate or politician. It's because they have people they pay called lobbyists who speak for then directly to the politician. But we have the same ability to pool our individual resources and do the same. AARP (among others) is a very strong organization politically made up of some of the "average" voting retired person.

Actually, it's the bed rock of representative politics in a capitalist society. The Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the capitalist party that rules this country. They rule in the interests of the capitalist class.

Every big of progress that's come for working people has been forced out of their hands with mass struggle.

Slavery was abolished only by a Civil War that raged for four years and cost the lives of 620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilians.

The eight-hour day was the result of mass strikes in the 1870s and 1880s that culminated in the Haymarket Massacre and the hanging of key leaders of the eight-hour movement.

The suffragettes endured repeated beatings and jailings in their battle for the right of women to vote.

Official recognition of the right to form industrial unions in America was the outcome of a 60-year struggle that began in the 1870s and continued even after Franklin Roosevelt recognized the right in 1934. It involved general strikes in major US cities, including the 1934 strikes in Toledo, Minneapolis and San Francisco.

In struggles such as the Flint sit-down strike, workers occupied factories and faced off against police and troops in industrial battles that verged on civil war. Ten workers were gunned down in cold blood and many others were wounded by Chicago police in the 1937 Memorial Day massacre.

It was in the context of such mass working class struggles fueled by the Great Depression that Roosevelt enacted Social Security.

The enactment of Medicare in the 1960s was the byproduct of the mass mobilization of African-Americans and their allies in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, in which hundreds of thousands marched in the face of killings and terror by vigilantes backed by the state. By the time of the passage of Medicare, the civil rights struggle had been joined by an upsurge of militant labor struggles and the initial eruption of the most oppressed sections of the working class in urban uprisings.

The right of 18-year-olds to vote was secured as a result of the mass movement against the Vietnam War.

In every case, the victories for social reform represented the frightened response of the ruling class to mass movements from below. And in every case, these victories were partial and limited, diluted with all sorts of caveats, and containing the seeds of their eventual undoing—due to the limited political perspective imposed on the insurgent movements by their reformist leaderships.

The moment the working class relaxed its pressure, the gains were watered down or eliminated.

No. The concept is that you find someone running for office who thinks like you, espouses policy you believe in and you help them get elected or stay in office by (among other ways) supporting their campaign financially. Then when they are elected, they will naturally support and enact policy consistent with your views...not because you paid them for a specific act.

 

[Big Drake]

Donating to a candidate doesn't guarantee anything. Meaning it doesn't guarantee they will do your will. That's quid pro quo at least and in some cases bribery..which are illegal.

When you donate, no it doesn't. When a corporation with more money than 45 countries combined (ie. Wal-Mart) does, yes it does. That's why there are no anti-capitalist politicians. Anyone opposing corporate control won't get enough funding to get in office. Anyone who magically transformed into someone opposing corporate control would be politically destroyed. They'd never get the funding to get into office again and they'd likely be driven out of office.

I won't even get into lobbying.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said "rarely"..not.."not at all".

I read it. Like I said, it's not true at all. It's not rare that a corporation financially supports both candidates in an election. It's actually very common.

No. The concept is that you find someone running for office who thinks like you, espouses policy you believe in and you help them get elected or stay in office by (among other ways) supporting their campaign financially. Then when they are elected, they will naturally support and enact policy consistent with your views...not because you paid them for a specific act.

That's the concept.. It's not the reality.

But it's really a moot point. We don't even have a party that pretends to represent the working class in this country. Both parties openly state that they represent corporate power. They administer their state, bail them out with tax dollars, send our children to fight their wars for resources and markets, send the cops to break up our strikes and protests and push the "what's good for business is good for everyone" crap down our throats at every chance they get.

 

[Hot Mega]

When you donate, no it doesn't. When a corporation with more money than 45 countries combined (ie. Wal-Mart) does, yes it does. That's why there are no anti-capitalist politicians. Anyone opposing corporate control won't get enough funding to get in office. Anyone who magically transformed into someone opposing corporate control would be politically destroyed. They'd never get the funding to get into office again and they'd likely be driven out of office.

I won't even get into lobbying.

I see you have a strong opinion about it but that's all it is. Lobbyists represent a constituency's views to a candidate or official. Corporations and organizations have them...the individual voter has his pen and paper and address of their office. One costs thousands of dollars, the other costs the 44 cents.

I read it. Like I said, it's not true at all. It's not rare that a corporation financially supports both candidates in an election. It's actually very common.

Of the top 20 contributors to Obama and McCain by corporation or organization they had five in common. That number is likely skewed off by the fact that when a person donates they list for whom they work and that's tabulated as being from that company or corporation. But then there is how much a corp or org donates to one candidate in proportion to what they donate to another. Not so cut and dried B/D.

That's the concept.. It's not the reality.

But it's really a moot point. We don't even have a party that pretends to represent the working class in this country. Both parties openly state that they represent corporate power. They administer their state, bail them out with tax dollars, send our children to fight their wars for resources and markets, send the cops to break up our strikes and protests and push the "what's good for business is good for everyone" crap down our throats at every chance they get.

Okay.:dunno:

 

[mrtrebus]

I see our friends from across the Atlantic want us to have the same shifty health care that they have .
:glugglug:

What's shifty about it?!?

 

[Ceska]

Yes, I have not reached my success without help from others, BUT I NEVER FORCED ANYBODY TO HELP ME.

Did every tax payer that provided you with pell grants and subsidized loans desire to do so? Were they given a choice or were they forced? What would happen if they refused to pay their taxes? Fines? Jail time?

...Even when I was in college, taking advantage of pell grants and student loans, well, the loans have been repaid and the pell grant also paid back with all the taxes taken from me since then.

So if a low income family receives health care support (based on your tax dollars) is it acceptable so long as they subsequently pay taxes like you did?

Did this kind of government support help you get the education you needed so that you could become more financially secure?
Does this financial security enable you to make more money and pay your taxes?

Is it possible that financial support in the form of health care could help other needy deserving people like yourself become more financially secure?

My point about "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", mostly focusing on the "right to life and liberty" means that, if you agree with the fact that we all should be forced to buy a product ( health insurance) or face a fine and potentially jail time if we don't then you now agree that life and freedom should now be privileges and not rights. The reason I mean that is because, for example, even though we are required to have car insurance, from what I remember from my driver's ed class, driving is not a right but a privilege so therefore to preserve that privilege we got to comply with the applicable driving laws and now saying that we HAVE to get health insurance or face fines that is an encroachment on our right to life and liberty.

Is health care a right or a privilege provided as a service?

If it is a right, then shouldn't it be provided for and protected?

If it is a service, like other services that protect and preserve life and health (police, fire, national defense, food processing inspections ...) shouldn't it be provided to everyone?

If not to everyone, then should these privileged services only be provided to those that can afford them?

Is it acceptable to require others to pay for these services even if they are provided to some people that cannot currently pay?

 

[Big Drake]

I see you have a strong opinion about it but that's all it is.

My opinion is strong because it's thought out and grounded in observable fact.

Lobbyists represent a constituency's views to a candidate or official. Corporations and organizations have them...the individual voter has his pen and paper and address of their office. One costs thousands of dollars, the other costs the 44 cents.

You've just illustrated my point. Corporations have lobbyists with permanent offices in the capital, constant and regular contact with politicians and untold dollars to throw around.

Workers can..... write a letter to a representative that will be read by one of their underlings and replied to with a form letter.

Yes, I have not reached my success without help from others, BUT I NEVER FORCED ANYBODY TO HELP ME.

So, if you get in a wreck, you will pay for all the damages and medical bills out of your own pocket, in cash, right? I mean, you don't want to "force" the other policy holders to help you...

And you're going to retire on money you've buried in jars too, right? I mean, you don't want to "force" people to pay your social security retirement benefits through mandatory taxes, right? And you don't want to take out a 401K or otherwise invest for your retirement, thereby "forcing" the people who work in the businesses you're investing in to help you through their productivity...

:yesyes:

 

[Big Drake]

Is health care a right or a privilege provided as a service?

That depends on the people.

Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace.

 

[Hot Mega]

You've just illustrated my point. Corporations have lobbyists with permanent offices in the capital, constant and regular contact with politicians and untold dollars to throw around.

Workers can..... write a letter to a representative that will be read by one of their underlings and replied to with a form letter.

No...."workers" or ANY constituency have the right to join together in organizations (such as the AARP for example) and expand the reach of their individual voices.

You say your perspective is well thought out. Well I guess it depends on your definition of that concept.

You say the system is inherently flawed and corrupted because of corporate influence (I believe at bottom that's your point. Forgive me if I'm wrong.).

I say the inherent flaw is the lack of voter participation, the political ignorance and lack of participation of the general public, the wasting of the right to organize politically and represent your case to the elected official are some of the inherent flaws that should be addressed first before we complain about those who exercise their means for having their cases heard.

What corporation has more money, voices or people than the general public??

Your argument seems to be since the general public won't live up to it's rights and/or responsibilities the game needs to be changed...that's not well thought out at all IMO.