Good article that looks back on the history of health-care reform ideas past and present. Those who scream about “socialism” and a “government takeover of health-care” are ignorant of not only what is in the bill itself, but of the very history that Mr. Dionne goes over. They’re angry, frustrated people who just parrot the talking points they hear on FOX News and right-wing talk radio. For them to be correct, Richard Nixon, the red-baiting former Republican Congressman and President, would have to have been a flaming socialist, as his health-care proposals made in the 70’s are eerily similar to what is now on the table. These people have no perspective whatsoever, and are darn proud of it.

Yep, the fight goes on and the concern is that the wealthy will divide and conquer as many have done in the past. Oh to be poor in a western country is never desirable, but wow to not care for those without saddens me and I am sure many from middle American who could be on the scrap heap, agree too. .

TYPO correction, the sentence should be corrected to:

I think every last Democrat in CONGRESS (House +  Senate) should have given UP their whole remaining career happily ...

You are kidding. “We will see if this market-based system works” must be tongue in cheek, because I am sure that it will work for the insurance companies, but we won’t see it until, what… five years from now when it “kicks” in then, maybe five more years to collect and analyze data, then fifty more years of fighting with the corporatists over it…..

New insurance exchanges giving individuals “a fighting change at a fair shake” is, please forgive me, stupid. No one, absolutely no one, outsmarts an insurance company. They will (probably already have) figure out ways of beating this mixed blessing. But we can only wait and see because it is private business, protected by secrecy laws (see above schedule plus twenty more years).

This is not saving lives, it is giving the piggy bank to the corporations who pay for elections (NOW that they have been granted personhood by the Supreme Court’s legislative activities): government of the people, for the corporations, and by the corporations.

I think every last Democrat in CONGRESS (House +  Senate) should have given their whole remaining career happily to pass one solid & irrefutable law which guarantees all Americans full healthcare benefits. We currently are sending our children, sisters and fathers to die in two corporatist wars for goals that can’t even be intelligently(or using a lesser standard, clearly) stated. They go to die, either for the money, or for patriotism – but WHY do we not expect the same dedication to this lesser task of comprehensive healthcare reform from elected officials? Why do they hold themselves to a lesser standard? Why are they less patriotic, especially when they authorize the very budgets for these wars that are killing our children and siblings? Why do we let them “get away” with it? Why do we re-elect them? What are we thinking?

I have lived in this country over 34 years and I still don’t understand this, please explain. This country can go to war based on lies, there is no political outrage, even after the incumbent party is voted out with a mission to end it the opposition seems to be not bothered and continues along the same path.
Health care for people is a basic human need, which 30-40 millions cannot afford, yet the screaming from Republicans is that the Bill passed is terrible, when it barely addresses the need, and on the Democrat side(the ones that should have been outraged by the war lies), they cave in their basic principles without any struggle.

Why was there no Democratic screaming and damning over Irag (which had massive public support)
Why didn’t the Democrats stick by their plan and offer to pay for it out of the funds we spend on war.  It doesn’t make sense, the rage is upside down

Gotta love it. Another “debate” that will make your head spin. Now Republican controlled states are lining up to sue the federal government over this bill, applying of all things- the Constitution.During the dictatorship of Bush-Cheney ( when the Patriot Act was being shoved down Congress’ throats) the US Constitution was an antiquated, quaint, outdated, useless document- or in the words of Bush- ( just a G——piece of paper.”  Now though all of a sudden its the most scared, sacrosanct documents of law with its lofty provisions of protection of states against the evil federal government. Unfrigginbelievable.

I think that one of the key motives behind this phony health reform bill is to protect the stock-market bubble that undergirds all the current pretenses of an economic “recovery.” Without that stock-market bubble, the brutal realities of this country’s economic pass could no longer be flim-flammed away by the political/economic/media elites.
So—if there had been a strong health-care bill, the health-care and Big Pharma stocks would have tanked, and the market bubble would have begun to deflate—maybe even burst. And then the stuff would really have hit the fan, necessitating urgent, real, and lasting economic stimulus and jobs programs. For now we have only that bubble. . . .
This stock market bubble is a tenuous one indeed, and will burst soon enough—this bill simply postpones the day of reckoning. Which leads to this thought—after the coming four years of soaring premiums and medical bankruptcies and galloping dysfunction and chaos in the health-care system, with health care devouring up to a quarter of GDP, people will finally wake up—-maybe—and realize that we need single payer; maybe even sections of the elite will realize that the health insurers need to be dumped to save the country (now the elite thinks it needs to prop up the insurers to “save” the country, in their myopic, venal, and dogmatic neoliberal view!). But by then the economy will be so far gone that we probably won’t be able to afford single payer or much else in the way of socially redemptive legislation.
So what lies ahead—barring a miraculous resurgence of an independent left—is a dystopian future of corporate peonage and economic dissolution—courtesy, in large measure, of this pathetic, convoluted, mendacious, cowardly boondoggle of a bill, which blows an opportunity to help salvage this economy of corporate waste and plunder. (And Obama will probably rank as one of this country’s worst presidents—a vacillating tool presiding when we need a courageous visionary.)

JDMystic,
Further explanation of what i meant regarding differences btwn the two wings of one party: Wars are approved by ab 98% of congress. It doesn’t mean that all of the 180 minor and major US invasions have been voted for by the same or similar proportion.
There is a 99% of congress people for denial for medical treatment; also denying the right to be informed-educated.
Once these issues are taken care of, i do not dwell on where else they differ or why.
In any case, there is the system which never changes or wavers.
Pols may differ, argue, talk all they want but there is only one constitution that demands wars-land grab, denial of medical treatment,institutionalized lying, etc. tnx

Republicans don’t have two brain cells to rub together.  They only know how to say ‘no’.

What a worthless bunch of miscreants.

The Dems are little better.  We’ll see what happens to reform the ‘reform bill’ and who steps up.  Don’t count on Republicans to do anything.

Lichen

“There is no dichotomy on principles, as balkas pointed out; absolutely none,”

“Absolutely none” is a bold assertion not supported by reality, or common sense.

If you had said that our government is currently controlled by Corporatists; I would not have disagreed with your statement at all.

I have publically stated, on this cite, that I believe the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, has been guilty of war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The Democratic Party has shown itself to be conflicted on this issue, while Republicans are not conflicted at all regarding this issue. About 30% of the Democrats in the House of Representatives recently voted to end funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I didn’t attempt to calculate the percentage of Republicans who voted for this legislation, because the percentage would have been negligible. Is this issue a matter of principle? Clearly it is. There are also many other issues that are concerned with matters of principle that have been a part of the political dialogue; anyone who fails to notice the difference of principles between the opposing sides is either blind, or ignoring reality.

I hate political expedience, but there is a difference between political expedience and political realities. Those who fail to recognize political realities, and advocate abandoning the Democratic Party, are playing into the hands of their enemies. When lunalady1 says, “Hum-m-m-m…  Is everybody sleeping????  The Tea Party is not just a group of ‘crazies’...they’ve seen the future and are just getting warmed up…” I couldn’t agree more. The Tea Partiers claim to be bi-partisan, but clearly they are extreme right in their political beliefs, and they express the same political beliefs that fascists do, they are reactionaries who are opposed to progressive ideals. They are the enemies of: progressive policies, Democratic Party policies, and social justice. The political reality is that only the Democratic Party has the political power to oppose the Tea Partiers, The Republicans, and their corporate supporters and sponsors.

I’m an unashamed supporter of social democracy and an opponent of many Democratic Party policies, but I see the political reality that supporting the Democratic Party is the only viable means of slowing and combating the rightward shift in our political spectrum, at the present time.

Social change has come slowly, and it has been in the decline for a number of decades now, but failing to support our only agents for social change is self defeating, misguided, a denial of political realities and doing so will only expedite the shift to the right.

Everyone who is complaining about the perceived cost of
this Health Bill over the next decade,  should stop and
think about the Five to Six Trillion dollars that this
country will spend during the same ten years on our
very bloated so called defense budget.  We must now
pause and debate on which of the two are more
important, health care for citizens of these United
States, or subsidiseing Israel in it’s conquest of the
middle east, and enforcing our failed foreign policy
and maintaining a hundred bases all over the world.

The Republicans should love this plan.  It has given
the Insurance Corps. just about everything they could
want to survive in this Corporate United States of
America.  When the GOP bad mouths the Democrats for
passing it, that gives them all the ammunition they
require to retake power this Fall. 

When the stupid workers who go on voting against
their own interest by supporting our one party
system, wake up and demand that the Congress does
something for them for a change.  Such as stopping
our beloved Corps. shipping the good paying jobs
overseas, then re-importing their products while
subsidising them, just so the american people can run
down to Walmart and get a bargain.

Hurray for Capitalism, it works wonders for a few at
the expense of the rest.  It sure did work wonders in
the health industry, just maybe it is now time to try
a little Social Justice,  it could not hurt and would
in some cases be a lot better for those who toil to
make the Rich Man Richer.  The so called Free Market
is like a Robin Hood stuck in reverse, taking from
the poor and giving to the rich.

Richard Nixon would be proud. 
Sadly this whole approach could have been in gear back in the 70’s and would have been modified 500 times since then - it might have been working closer to “correctly” by now. 

Maybe in the next 40 years all that phony “free” market BS will fall by the wayside and a working single payer approach will evolve - with private insurers bidding on doing the ONLY part they actually know how to do:  claims processing.  The Swiss model may take on appropriate appeal - but it will take lots of time and lots of pain.

“Free” market works for many things in business - it’s just that health care is not a good venue for it.  Treatments and cures should not ever be trade secrets or market leverage points.

Stuart Varney said this morning that we should decry the fact that the upper .001% of income earners will now pay billions more in taxes.  He said that the 1% of upper income earners are the “small business owners” and will bear a larger tax burden. 
As a former small business owner, I really never quite made it to that 1% income group. 

Faux Snooze and their big-money sycophants are crying in their beer.  So sad.  Here’s a bucket of crocodile tears for them.

We can refuse to participate.  We can demand Medicare
for all!

Mitt Romney may call himself a (R)epublican but he is no conservative.

Real liberals *and* real conservatives are (or used to be) against mandating the purchase of anything on a federal level.

The media have done a skillful job of keeping the constitutionality of the mandates off the debate table. But as more and more people find that this administration bases this mandate on the commerce clause hopefully they won’t be able to ignore it anymore.

When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: ‘Are You Serious?’
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

By Realist, March 20 at 7:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

The reality of this bill is that what little good it does is buried under the harm it does in cementing the existing private industry in place. I have been having serious difficulties with the existing industry, which is getting between me and my doctor in the very manner Sarah Palin rants about the government is to do. And under the bill’s provisions, I get to pay even more - both to the provider and in taxes to the government - and will probably get less for it at a time I need it most.

Realist, would you be willing to explain how this ‘gets between you and your doctor’? (and don’t ask me to know what palin is ranting about, because no one in their right OR left minds pays any attention to her).

Seriously, I’d like to know how this gets between you and your doctor, because I can’t see it. Is your doctor unwilling to accept your insurance? Are you in the socio-economic category (annual income of over $200K?) that would require that you pay .09% more for your medicare insurance. (if you have medicare). Or, do you have enough personal wealth to fund all health care costs out of your own pocket? (this goes to the complaint of ‘mandatory’ insurance)

Realistically speaking, the only semi-reasonable complaint about ‘mandatory insurance’ should only come from those who are independently wealthy and/or don’t ever plan to utilize medical services of any kind. There IS a solution to that, which is neither realist or pragmatic.

That is: Anyone who does NOT want or need access or help in covering medical costs can sign a waiver, sort of like a DNR. (Do not resuscitate) If you get cancer or something similar, and show up at a doctor or hospital for any kind of treatment, they just demand CASH in full, before they treat you. Or, you just die, probably sooner than later.

Now of course if you and your doctor have cool relationship, (without any of these mandates getting in the way of that) your doctor(s) will be happy to provide these services to you without cost, and they will pay for all of the related expenses out of their own pockets.

Can you tell us how realistic that is?

1 of 2

I’m posting this information for those who may actually be sincerely ignorant to the facts included in the health care reform legislation. Please take note that it is intended for the SINCERELY ignorant, as opposed to the WILLFULLY ignorant.

Now I don’t particularly like the language of this piece, because it doesn’t go far enough in explanations for the ignorant who must have help connecting the dots. For instance,

•  “The answer is that the money will be provided by new taxes, fees on industries involved in health care, and cuts in projected spending growth for existing government health efforts, primarily Medicare.”

Now the average citizen is only gonna see CUTS to Medicare. They will not understand that these cuts and fees are to ‘privatized’ insurance programs that are currently subsidized by the Medicare budget. In fact, most of the teapartiers don’t get this.

Here’s an example for superdummies. I am an ‘individual’ and my annual income is around $20K My medicare insurance costs me about $1,300.00 a year. (give or take because of the part D).  Currently, another individual with an annual income of TEN TIMES that much, (200.000) pays the SAME as I do for their medicare insurance.

With the reformed legislation, an individual with an annual income of OVER $200k, will be required to pay LESS THAN 1% (.09) more for their coverage, based on the amount of income that exceeds $200k. So, a person claiming $300,000K annual income will pay $900.00 a year more than I do, for the same coverage.

Health Care Reform Bill 101: Who Will Pay for Reform?
Sunday 21 March 2010
by: Peter Grier |  Christian Science Monitor
Washington - For the United States, health care reform would come with a hefty co-pay.
As we’ve noted throughout this series on what’s in the health care bill, the legislation, if the vote succeeds, would represent the most sweeping change in national domestic policy in a generation.
Among other things, it would provide or subsidize health coverage for 32 million currently uninsured people. That’s more than one-tenth of the entire population of the US.

Change like that doesn’t come cheap. More specifically, change like that would cost about $940 billion over its first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Add these two things together, throw in $40 billion worth of tax credits for small business, and you’re pretty close to the bill’s top line for expansion of health coverage.

So where’s the cash to pay for this coming from? Remember, CBO says this bill will actually cut the deficit over 10 years. That means it has to raise a little more money than it will spend.

The answer is that the money will be provided by new taxes, fees on industries involved in health care, and cuts in projected spending growth for existing government health efforts, primarily Medicare.
Here are specifics on some of the biggest money raisers:

Higher Medicare Taxes on Rich People
If you are an individual making more than $200,000 a year, or a married couple making more than $250,000 a year, get ready to pay more for your Medicare if health care reform passes.

First of all, your Medicare Part A (that’s hospital insurance) tax rate would be increased by 0.9 percent, to 2.35 percent. Second, the bill creates an entirely new tax of 3.8 percent on unearned income (dividends, interest, stuff like that) for people in those same income brackets.

TBC

JDmysticDJ, the rhetoric of the two parties is different, and they hate each other, have surface tribal differences, but the actual politics are the same.  There is no dichotomy on principles, as balkas pointed out; absolutely none, except there are petty games depending on who is in opposition and who is ruling.

2 of 2
The good news is that this would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2013. And it is a big money raiser, truth be told. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this would bring in $210 billion between 2013 and 2019.

New Tax on Expensive Health Insurance
They used to call this the “Cadillac tax,” but it’s been pared back enough so it might better be called the “Chevy with leather and A/C” tax.
The health care bill would impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans that cost more than $10,200 annually for individual coverage, or $27,500 annually for family coverage. The tax in question would be 40 percent of the cost of the plan that exceeds those dollar thresholds.
This tax would not kick in until 2018. The JCT figures it would bring in around $32 billion in its first two years.

Fees on Health Care Industries
The Obama administration figures it is only fair to slap some fees on health care industries, since they’d be getting lots of new customers if health care reform passes. So after negotiations with some big sectors, the White House struck a number of deals.

* Drug manufacturers would pay the US a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019.
* Health insurers would pay $47 billion over the same period.

* Medical device manufacturers would pay a 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any of their wares, beginning Jan. 1, 2013.
The Tanning Ttax

OK, it’s not a big money raiser, but we could not resist mentioning that health care reform would establish a tax of 10 percent on indoor tanning services. (Outdoor tanning services remain untaxed, of course.) This would raise $2.7 billion between 2010 and 2019.

Medicare Cuts

Government payments to Medicare Advantage – plans run by private insurers that are an alternative to traditional Medicare – would be reduced by $132 billion over 10 years under the health care reform bill. (Those plans now get around 14 percent more per person than traditional Medicare does.)
Medicare payments for home health care would also be reduced by $40 billion over 10 years. And cuts in certain payments to hospitals would raise another $22 billion by 2019.

http://www.truthout.org/health-care-reform-bill-101-who-will-pay-reform57859?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TRUTHOUT+(t+r+u+t+h+o+u+t+|+News+Politics)

“Republicans will not vote for a Democratic bill, period.  It doesn’t matter—they are playing politics and neutralizing the President to regain power in November trumps ANY problems they cause the nation.  In fact, there is NO justification for them opposing this bill on policy grounds—it’s everything they want.”

~*~*

You nailed it here ITW…it’s the party of NO.

It was Congressman John Lewis the teaparties spit on, and of course he’s used to it. Got nearly beaten to death by their relatives back in the ‘60’s during the CRM.

It’s not enough that they get what THEY want, if others benefit from it as well. That’s the logic. If somebody else benefits, they don’t want it. It’s the typical mentality of those determined to cut off their noses to spite their own faces.

I just got an idea: the reason the richest americans have only one party to represent them and not even three or four is because they don’t want to spend more money.

In US, one cld have ten parties if money wasn’t the problem.
But any of these parties cld overnight be proclaimed illegal or traitorous if it strayed beyond prescribed parameters of allowable activities laid dwn by the system.

For one thing the party head if elected to presidency wld have top swear allegience to US constitution under which US system of governance labors.

And it wld be the system or rather, part of the system, the supreme court, who wld decide whether a prez violates the constitution.

This means the system cannot work against self. Is this what nader sees by avoiding to set up a second and viable party in US?
Does he see he’d be a loser either via assassination or via supreme court’s findings that he had broken his vows?

And the system can be changed only two ways: a massive awakening by americans to the unjust system or a political party that wld ferociouosly defend american rights no matter what.

After all, chileans, venezuellans, nicaraguans, cubans,vietnamese, bolivians, et al have done just that and are still at it! tnx

Dionne did not list democratic principles. Is it as lichen says because: democrats=republicans; thus democratic principles=republican prinicples.

In any case, there is always the system to ignore. And no MSM collumnist misses the opportunity to even mention it let alone analyze it or invite others to examine it for justice, fairness, etc.

Kucinich may have seen the writing on the wall: support the system in which one has billionairs, multy-millionairs, homeless people, lower class people, masters of wars, cia terror, etc., or in next election the system wld surely be mad at u.

In short, the system demands that those cheques and balances for the sake of the americanism always balance out just right.  tnx

I’m curious as to why no one begs the question:  Why are the Republicans so willing to stir the pot of confusion, chaos, political fears of ‘government takeovers’ and socialism, while massaging that ol’ American underbelly of racial fear/hatred - when Obama is clearly trying to give them what they want?  Obama is, as Noam Chomsky identifies him, a lieutenant of Bush’s Regime. He’s been following Bush’s plan all along and has gone beyond what Bush accomplished - because of his gift of rhetoric.  And for all he’s done for them, he’s still getting all the racial slings & arrows.  And - what do all the obviously hypocritical republicans, certain democrats and corporate rulers have in common with the so-called religious right extremists - like the tea party folks and more?  Why is the blatant move to privatize democracy (health care, schools, military, puppet politicians, government, etc.) moving ahead so stealthily and unchallenged by the masses?  Hum-m-m-m…  Is everybody sleeping????  The Tea Party is not just a group of ‘crazies’...they’ve seen the future and are just getting warmed up…

How many American citizens would you screw over in order to get $74 million dollars every two years?

That’s the game that both parties are playing.

From maplight.org ....
http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest

Since Obama’s inagural, contributors in the ‘health’ industry have given over $74 million in contributions at the federal level.

The fight is over which party gets that money in the future.  The fight is over which party can deliver the greatest paybacks in terms of increased future profits to these contributors. 

Footnote…. the above figure does not include donations from the health insurance industry as they are categorized under ‘insurance’ instead of ‘health’.

Here’s what’s really going on in DC. 

In the last election, the big health corporations gave a lot of money to the Democrats to buy this corporate friendly bill.  The Republicans are mad they didn’t get the money.  The Republicans were in the rare position of having less money than the Democrats in the last election, and they don’t like it.

The Republicans want to kill this bill as a message to corporate America.  They want to tell every CEO that the big health corps just wasted $30 million dollars by giving it to Obama, because they could make sure he couldn’t deliver.

Its two groups of gangsters fighting over a cash cow.  Both sides want the money that these big health corps can pay into politics to get the increased profits and mandated customers they desire.  The Democrats are trying to show they can deliver what they promised when they got the millions in the last election.  The Republicans are trying to show that these corporations made a mistake by funding the Democrats and that the money should come back to the Republicans.

As this little gang war erupts over this piece of turf, neither side cares if Americans get gunned down and die in these political drive by shootings.  The CDC says 40,000 Americans die every year from lack of health care.  More will die next year, and the next while the gangsters keep shooting at each other over this piece of turf.

You wanna know what’s going on .... then do like Jerry McQuire and shout “SHOW ME THE MONEY”.  Everything else is just political theater designed to distract and mislead and to try to keep the fools still voting and supporting these two competing gangs.

JDmysticDJ, March 20 at 11:27 pm #

If democrat=republican, there would be bi-partisan support for rejection or approval of the Bill, right? Many of us would like to see a greater dichotomy, but there is a dichotomy, right?
****************************************

Newest member of “The Contingent” are we?  Republicans will not vote for a Democratic bill, period.  It doesn’t matter—they are playing politics and neutralizing the President to regain power in November trumps ANY problems they cause the nation.  In fact, there is NO justification for them opposing this bill on policy grounds—it’s everything they want.

But it’s the President’s bill and Reid’s and Pelosi’s bill and THAT means they won’t vote for it.  All the rhetoric from them is bullshit to cover up their purpose—to get the Dems to fail.

Now, of course, the Tea-baggers are revealed as the racists they are, standing outside the Capitol calling Black Congressmen “Nigger, Nigger, Nigger…” repeatedly, even spitting on one of them.

For:
JDmysticDJ, March 20 at 11:27

I have to honestly say that the only difference I perceive is that Democrats, in general, speak more compassionately about the underclasses. Their legislative “moves” are snail-like in speed and bovine in logic and intelligence. I really see two lumps of liars, with one of the lumps sticking together better. Snails and cows are Republican creatures.
Except for Kucinich, Sanders et alia there really is no second party. I am no longer a Democrat.

Democrat=republican?

Is someone using this situation as an opportunity to advance his faulty perception?

If democrat=republican, there would be bi-partisan support for rejection or approval of the Bill, right? Many of us would like to see a greater dichotomy, but there is a dichotomy, right?

It’s simple: 7 presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Barack Obama have tried to get this done. None have succeeded until maybe now.

This health care bill sucks and we all know that. But it has the best chance of passing and THAT takes us over the wall.  Once we FINALLY get a health care law, it’s a done deal. (and this Supreme Court will NEVER rule that it’s illegal to force us to give giant corporations money!)  Then, anything else is merely fixing it, even if fixing means completely changing it.

There once was a bankrupt America
Which cared less for its people than creditors,
  A proposed health care law
  Was designed with a flaw,
To become one colossal tax payer enema.

The real shame,  Mr. Dionne, is that the vast majority of American people who are suffering or will suffer from exhorbitant medical costs (or go without care) have no effective way, apparently, to make their misery felt by their government.

hello. anxious to subsidize health insurance with a new tax.

democrat=republican