A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Barack Obama Could Go After Supreme Court On Health Care, James Clyburn Suggests

Tuesday, April 3, 2012


YOur link regarding changing filibuster rules at any old time is not accurate. Further, reconciliation can only be used in budgetary matters. Get your facts right

===============================

I don't know where you get your facts, but I get mine directly from the source - The government, as the links indicate.

Healthcare is a budgetary matter, it's 1/6th of the US economy, and Obama's legislation was passed through reconciliation.

I am an old liberal Democrat. It's ironic that you accuse me of being a Republican when it's you who supports legislation that originated in the Heritage Foundation and is the federal equivalent of RomneyCare.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Confident That Supreme Court Will Let His Health Care Law Stand


Yes.  

As is Obama's continuing them, expanding the wars, and just as Obama's healthcare legislation is part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act.  Both parties are corrupt and on the take.  

I say that as an old liberal Democrat.  What you're doing is the equivalent of "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".  If you continue with, "Well Bush did it, too", or "first" as some kind of justification for Obama doing it, then whole country and world will be blind and toothless.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Could Go After Supreme Court On Health Care, James Clyburn Suggests


Most people would prefer not to spend money on car insurance. It's expensive and maybe you won't need it. However, it s MANDATED that everybody buy car insurance for the GOOD of everybody else. That's protecting ALL the American people because we all have to pick up the costs of uninsured motorists. Health care works the same way. 

How can you not get this?

=======================================

I've never been impressed with the analogy of car insurance to health insurance, because for one thing people don't have to drive.  

Perhaps a more equivalent comparison with healthcare in this democracy where everyone needs medical treatment throughout their lifetime might be other necessities for survival, such as food, water, and shelter (protection from the elements).   We subsidize food costs, heating oil expenses, housing, because it's necessary for human survival.  

There are resources that should be nationalized, such as water and oil and land.  They belong to all of us, as our birthright, to share, and not for the 1% to take and sell them for profit, for their own private gain.

There are services which we recognize are necessary, like fire-fighting and policing, that are non-profit.  Or used to be.  We chipped in through our taxes to pay for these services, in order to get these services for a reasonable price.  

The same should be true for medical treatment.  When Americans say, "Don't touch my Medicare", that is what they are saying that they want.  

Obama took single payer (Medicare For All) off the table, because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison.  He's preserving an anachronistic and failed insurance industry and employer-provided system for medical care. It's government-sanctioned racketeering.

Insurance adds NOTHING to the medical model. The insurance industry is the 'Don Fanucci' (Godfather, Part II -- "I don't want a lot...Just enough to wet my beak") of medical care, letting you get medical care only if you pay them a gratuity up front.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Confident That Supreme Court Will Let His Health Care Law Stand


Having health insurance ≠ medical treatment.

Obama's healthcare legislation doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).

People who voted for Obama and Democrats voted to get affordable, quality medical treatment.  That was NOT a vote to protect and further enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats into power to entrench the insurance industry as the gatekeepers to being able to get medical treatment.  Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats to Washington to continue tying insurance benefits to their employment.

Yet that is precisely what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats did.

Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:

Pity Wall Street's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay.  One example is Joel Gemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98 million.

Obama's healthcare legislation is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry.  It is one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation ever enacted by our government.

The health insurance industry provides no real service.  All it does is take money out of the system.  It's nothing more than a blood-sucking middleman.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Could Go After Supreme Court On Health Care, James Clyburn Suggests


How Obama has handled the massive problems is EXACTLY how Republicans would've handled them (and how BushCheney was handling them).  Obama's not governing as he had promised or as a real Democrat would have.

The real shame, the real tragedy for all of us is that Obama could have been a transcendent president, good for both business AND the People.  It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Cheney.

On the domestic front, the job creation possibilities were lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronistic and failed insurance industry and employer-provided system for medical care, which is government-sanctioned racketeering.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcing of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  

The SinglePayerUniversalHealthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance and Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance and Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physician practitioners (nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants, and other allied health professionals). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competently provided by this level practitioner. There's no reason to waste a physician's time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases. 

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs and non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.  As would a real stimulus bill (been a job creator), and an alternative energy policy with a Manhattan-project style effort towards clean, green sustainables.

These are all good things, but Obama and Democrats have chosen the dark side.  The corporate side.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Could Go After Supreme Court On Health Care, James Clyburn Suggests


Obama and DLC-controlled Democrats are in bed with the same industries and corporations as the  Republicans.  

If you don't want to believe that the two parties work in tandem, building upon each other's 'successes' (on behalf of corporations), how do you possibly explain Obama's embracing of 'Unitary Executive' put forth by BushCheney?  And Obama's expanding on it?  And Obama's war on whistleblowers and journalists?  And Obama expanding on the wars, the drones, the killing of civilians, the rendition and torture?  And shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries.  Not to mention the penny ante settlement on foreclosures.    

Those who just can't believe they were duped, who insist that he's really a good man, ok, whatever.  If you insist on deluding yourself, then consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate Masters of the Universe' have charted out their plans years in advance (governments do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personality that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments.

If you want to lie the country into war for oil and war-profiteering, then George W. Bush is the man to front it, with Dick Cheney, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizing of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows (neither one seems to care if they're caught in l!es, are hated, and if history judges them harshly).

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that.  They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust.  Barack Obama.  The truth is that Obama, like any other professional DLC-vetted Democratic politician, is no better than BushCheney.  Obama may even be worse -- BushCheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are.  Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better, and are continuing just about all of Bush's policies, and even going BushCheney one better.

Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better.  I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Could Go After Supreme Court On Health Care, James Clyburn Suggests


Certainly not ignorants like you.

I'm an old OLD liberal Democrat and the old "lesser of two eviIs" argument just doesn't work anymore.

Obama's continuing just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to kiII American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detentlon' and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  

At this point, I would argue that Obama and Democrats are worse.  Bush-Cheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better.

In budget talks, Obama has left EVERYTHING on the table.  That includes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Just as Obama ran on SinglePayer, then backed down, then said he wouldn't sign any legislation that didn't include a public option, and then reneged, I'm sure that should Obama get reelected he's going to be cutting more secret deals with Republicans, just like the one he cut on Bush's (now Obama's) tax cuts for the rich, that ends Great Society programs.  It's Obama's MO.  It's how he operates.  HE'S A REPUBLICAN-IN-DEMOCRATS'-CLOTHING.  Obama is not a man of the People; he's a tool of the Corporations.  

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Could Go After Supreme Court On Health Care, James Clyburn Suggests


If the SupremeCourt doesn't overturn ACA, Obama will have delivered to the CorporateMasters of the universe big time. Whether a one- or two-term president, he'll hand the baton off to the next corporately-bought president, Democrat or Republican, for the fleecing to continue and go on to reap the benefits from his treacherous betrayal of the People, i.e., the same sort of corporate payoffs that presidents since Gerald Ford have enjoyed: Paid seats on corporate boards.

Over the course of US history, corporations have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectively that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporations) is good for America (the People)".

Democrats (controlled by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republicans are corporate tools. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent, Republicans and DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, BigCorporations. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of thePeople.

If you must continue to delude yourself into thinking Obama's a good guy who never would have started those wars, and who has only the best of intentions but got a bad deal (I don't share that opinion anymore), then think of all this as a business plan where the CorporateMasters have charted out their plans years in advance (governments do them, too) and select the politician/personality best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments. If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profiteering, then GeorgeWBush is your man to front it (with DickCheney, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizing of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows).

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that. They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust. BarackObama.

The truth is that Obama is no better than BushCheney. Not better, not worse, but the same. His 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better. I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromising change to our campaign financing system, until corporations are no longer 'persons' and are prohibited from participating in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But that is NOT going to happen under Obama or the DLC-controlled Democratic Party as we'd hoped when we put them in power in 2008; it's not even on their 'To Do' list.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP