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

Health Law Costs, Benefits Can Add Up To A Win For Young And Old

Monday, July 16, 2012


The enmeshment between wealth and the repubs makes it a certainty that they are not ever, ever going to do anything to help working people improve the quality of their lives.

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

Most Members of Congress Enjoy Robust Financial Status, Despite Nation's Sluggish Economic Recovery

And Democrats in Congress are wealthier than Republicans in Congress.  

Obama broke all fundraising records in 2008, out raising McCain almost 2 to 1.

Stop with the BS.  They ALL work for the 1%.  


Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Health Law Costs, Benefits Can Add Up To A Win For Young And Old


Democrats lost seats in the 2010 midterms because of Obama's and Democrats failure to do what Democratic voters put them in office for in 2008.  It was BlueDogs who lost their seats in huge numbers, and lost Democrats control over the House and lowered the total in the Senate -- Progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLin­coln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLi­ncoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a PublicOpti­on for healthcare­. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't (and doesn't).

The Progressiv­eCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOpti­on. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­eCaucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that (since you mention Nelson), when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmen­dment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People and blame it on Republican­s. Because they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Health Law Costs, Benefits Can Add Up To A Win For Young And Old


Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse­, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind BlueDogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLin­coln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter­. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent ArlenSpect­er over progressiv­e Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent LincolnCha­ffee over Democrat FrankCapri­o (which, in turn, was an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican JohnLoughl­in over Democrat DavidCicil­line for the congressio­nal seat Democrat PatrickKen­nedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIslan­d). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent CharlieCri­st over liberal Democrat KendrickMe­ek. 

Republican­s, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republican­s controllin­g the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republican­s' continuing legislatio­n like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Health Law Costs, Benefits Can Add Up To A Win For Young And Old


it was the best that could be gotten with only 2 or 3 repubs signing on in the Senate.

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

It didn't need any Republicans -- Ultimately it was done through reconciliation.  50 + 1.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Health Law Costs, Benefits Can Add Up To A Win For Young And Old


So you think if there were price controls, there would be long lines for mammograms ("Get yer mammogram now, because at these cheap prices we may run out of mammograms in the future!")?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Health Law Costs, Benefits Can Add Up To A Win For Young And Old


I am not sure if you are aware of this but CEO salaries are aproved by shareholders.  Shareholders who are in the 99%.

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

This is where I lose respect for people like you.  Having some money in mutual funds doesn't get you a vote in setting CEO salaries.  

The health care system is set up to generate profits NOT to provide care.  To pay for care, we rely on hundreds of investor-owned insurance companies that profit by refusing coverage to the sickest patients and limiting services to the others.  And they cream roughly 20% off the top of the premium dollar for profits and overhead.  

Our method of delivering care is no better than our method of paying for it.  We provide much of the care in investor-owned health facilities that profit by providing too many services for the well-insured and too few for those who cannot pay.  Most doctors are paid fee-for-service which gives them a similar incentive to focus on profitable services, particularly specialists, who receive very high fees for expensive tests and procedures.  In sum, health care is for maximizing income and not maximizing health. 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Health Law Costs, Benefits Can Add Up To A Win For Young And Old


There are many methods to lowering costs, which would only improve the economy and which now are arbitrary and for the purpose of PRIVATE gain.  They don't necessarily reflect the real costs.

Why would you choose a system with shareholders get dividends and CEOs get bloated salaries/benefits/bonuses from denying you medical care over a non-profit single payer universal healthcare system like Medicare?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP