The DIFFERENCE between Social Security in 1935 & HCR in 2009 . . . . . :

[Faryn Balyncd]

"This will be the most important piece of social legislation since Social Security passed in the 1930s", Barack Obama (former champion of a "public option").





Important, yes. . . but there is a major difference.

Social Security in 1935 established a framework for future improvement.

Unlike the Senate HC "reform", Social Security did not lay its foundation upon a predatory, inefficient, and broken industry....And, again unlike the Senate HC "reform", improvements upon the 1935 act did not require that the fundamentally flawed framework of SS be first torn down.... And Social Security in 1935 did not give billions to enrich the very institutions that would use those billions to oppose future reforms.





And that's why, if we are to see HCR be a step in the right direction rather than a tragic sham, we must support those brave House truthtellers who are determined that the Senate's corporate-insurance-only "reform" will NOT prevail in conference, and that a sham "reform" lacking a public option, will NOT pass the House.







:kick:

[laughingliberal]

1. The article I posted last evening pointed out that this bill is the equivalent

to passing SS as a mandate for everyone to purchase an annuity from a for-profit financial institution that had 20% overhead. That is where the argument about how SS and Medicare were not perfect but got fixed breaks completely down. Yes, they were not perfect when passed but they were on the correct path.

[Faryn Balyncd]

2. Your analogy is right on.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Agreed

And we need to pressure those in the House and Senate to reduce private insurance impact on the legislation.

[juno jones]

10. +1 n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. The "Unrec Brigade" is hard at work to silence support for improvements in the US House.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Yeah ... little forward recon patrols out of .......

..... GDP.

[kirby]

6. The real difference...

The Soc Sec created a government program as a reaction to the massive failure of the private sector (and overwhelming of charities). It realized that a safety net was required.

This current health care bill promotes the private sector as the solution, while handing out huge subsidies.

[laughingliberal]

8. Yes, and it is setting the stage for privatization of Medicare

Guess we thought if we got a Democrat in the White House and held our majorities in the legislature we would be safe, for the time being, from the threat of privatization of Medicare and SS. We were wrong. This bill, taken with the statements of Obama's choice for chairman of the Fed about entitlement reform add up to a frightening scenario.

[highplainsdem]

7. K&R

[AzDar]

9. K & R

:kick:

[nightrain]

11. knr. I've heard Obama say he wants to be the last President to deal

with health care. Are these two bills in the House and Senate the best that he can do, or wants to do? Perhaps for him this is sufficient. That would be counter to the supposition that these bills would be a foot in the door. Hmm... which is it?

On another thread today, the dangerousness of the precedent-setting nature of mandating the purchase of a private program (health insurance) is being discussed.

I wonder if Congress and Obama/Emanuel brothers aren't moving in a terribly dangerous direction--the increased privatization of more programs/services. Zeke Emanuel has verbalized his perchant for privatizing Medicare. These actions/proposals bear watching and organizing around.

[Greyhound]

18. That's another frustrating/insulting aspect of this.

They've made their intentions completely clear yet we are told to ignore what they are doing and "trust them" to implement some secret plan, as if we are completely dim.

The Emanuel Bros. Inc. are set to pull a Rumsfeld and move into the very top tier. It's just too bad they have to destroy us to pull it off, but we were going to die anyway.

[nightrain]

19. Yes, if Obama signs this POS then I think we'll know more about

the direction Obama wants to take the nation--toward or away from fascism.

[AllentownJake]

20. The funniest thing I find is history is replete with members of our own party

doing some really fucking stupid things. Bill Clinton on NAFTA, Carter on deregulation, LBJ on Vietnam, FDR on Civil Rights. The thing is the Cheerleading class on here don't want to discuss that.

There have also been Republicans who have done good things (though none recently). George H.W. Bush on the American with disabilities act, Eisenhower on the Interstate highway system, Nixon with OSHA and the EPA.

People need to take off the party hat when they read a policy and forget the face than lend their support to the party policy. Just because Barack Obama thinks something is good, doesn't make it good.

[mainer]

12. It can still be fixed -- go the Dutch route

We just need to pass future legislation strictly limiting health insurance company profits and the cost of premiums.

The Dutch regulate their private insurers as if they were utilities. And their system does use private insurers, with universal mandates for all citizens. They've managed to achieve affordable, universal health care.

[nightrain]

13. From where I sit, that seems extremely naive and even more unlikely to happen.

[mainer]

14. Yet the Dutch managed to do it

even with the private insurance companies kicking and screaming. They're still allowed to make a profit -- but not enormous profits.

[AllentownJake]

16. What are the Dutch rules on campaign finance, elections, and lobbying

:rofl:

[nightrain]

17. yes. And the history of corporations in America demonstrates that corporations

have a myriad number of ways to avoid--taxes, enrolling people, paying claims, etc.

[AllentownJake]

15. Yeah that is going to happen

:rofl:

They've managed to wage a holy war against the public option and win, and you guys think that now they will somehow lose debates on regulation, which is much easier to take out.