If the Left and Right hate this bill

[dem mba]

what do you make of it? How can a bill be a socialist power grab for bigger government AND be a capitalistic power grab for bigger corporate profits?

I can't think of any example of a bill that gives the Federal government and corporate interests increased power at the same time, over the same group of citizens.

When government controlled monopolies break up, power shifts to the corporations (and consumers usually win with lower prices, greater variety of services, etc). When corporations become heavily regulated or corporate monopolies busted, power shifts to the government (and consumers usually win with better safety standards, etc). I get that.

Now we have a bill that seems to protect more citizens from unfair practices of the industry, but still gives corporations more power. I think most on DU see that too. So how am I totally unable to see the RW perspective? Normally I disagree with it, but can at least understand it. How is this a government power grab? How is this socialism?

Somebody help me see what they see. I've been to their forums and read their articles, but I frankly just don't understand what their problem is. Even the WSJ opinion piece today didn't make sense to me. Is it 100% a political fight? Surely that's a part of it, but c'mon. Somebody please, how is this a government takeover of healthcare??

[WeekendWarrior]

1. The Left doesn't hate this bill

Only the idealists living in a fantasy world where nothing ever gets done hate it. On both sides.

The rest of us are celebrating it as a beginning of something good, and appreciate all the hard work that went into getting it done.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. What would you know about the Left?

Every post you have made on this subject is evidence that you have a level of hostility towards Liberals that just might rival that of your boss, who likes to call us "fucking retards".

[Individualist]

11. +1

[WeekendWarrior]

15. Been a diehard liberal all my life, campaigned for

diehard liberals (McGovern anyone?), and have contributed heavily to liberal causes. I've actually DONE something for the left instead of bitching and moaning that I didn't get my way because I live in some idealistic fantasyland where the world is supposed to stop and do what I want them to do.

I don't have ANY hostility toward liberals. I have hostility toward unrealistic idealists who can't understand that you have to work WITHIN the system to change it, not stand on the sidelines and snipe about it.

This health bill is a HUGE STEP FORWARD in many ways. And those who don't recognize it are fools.

[leftstreet]

28. +1

[uppityperson]

30. Which boss is that? nt

[provis99]

7. so you are calling out progressives? This thread should be locked.

[LWolf]

8. Not that you'd know anything about the left. nt

[SPedigrees]

16. +1000. I'm as left as they get, from the leftist state of VT, and I'm for it. nt

[Raineyb]

19. What exactly about wanting a health care system that is like the civilized world

do you find fantastical or unrealistic?

You wouldn't know anything about anything leftist if it bit you on your left hand. Your hostility speaks for itself.

[WeekendWarrior]

27. There's NOTHING wrong with wanting it

I want it, too. And plan to work toward it.

But those sniping about this bill simply have no clue -- or refuse to understand -- what it takes to get something passed in this country. You seem to expect instant gratification, and getting where we want to be will take a LONG time. This is just the first step.

And MY hostility? Every post I've commented on where I said that I thought this was a good start to something better has been greeted with constant derision and hostility. Pardon me if I take a bit of offense to it.

[Deep13]

2. I don't hate it, I would just rather have had something...

...that does not rely on the already failed, parasitic system.

[abq e streeter]

+1

of course, to some people, wanting something even remotely close to what virtually every civilized western democracy provides for their citizens means we're "living in a fantasy world'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. In America? Yes, frankly, it does.

I feel extremely guilty writing this sitting here in the UK with the NHS to take care of me, but to be brutally honest with you, I think that the idea that even a semi-decent health-care system can be established in the USA in the forseeable future could well be characterised as "living in a fantasy world".

On most issues, America is much, much further right than almost any other Western nation, sadly.

I wish that weren't so, but, for now, I think that you're going to have to make do without something that most of the rest of the civilised world quite rightly takes for granted, because you're living in a country with, if not a majority, at least a plurality of far right-wing nutjobs.

This bill represents a significant step forwards. The USA is still a very long way back, but I can't see any way a larger step forwards could have been taken any time soon - I just don't think the votes are there.

[LiberalLoner]

23. That's what I think too. rop

When I saw how hard they had to work to even get this bill, all my anger about not having a single payer plan vanished. At least all my anger at the politicians on the left. I want this country to change for the better, but I see now that it's not going to be a quick process, unfortunately.

[abq e streeter]

31. Good points; but I don't think we have a majority or even plurality of right wing nut jobs

not that there aren't a frighteningly large number of them around. But when polled about individual issues, the American people are at least moderately progressive; just have been brainwashed by the right to believe themselves to be "center-right" or whatever...And a spineless, sold -out Democratic party "leadership" has done little or nothing to counter this. At this moment, yes, it may be somewhat of a fantasy world, but only because of the gutlessness and corruption of its "leaders" and not of its people. If the party's leadership had some guts, what seems like a fantasy could, in my opinion, be made reality . Maybe not as far-reaching as some of the nations of Europe etc, but far more than what gets my blood boiling to hear referred to as "a uniquely American" solution; meaning, whatever the corporations are willing to allow.
Thank you for your thoughtful response/disagreement....I've gotten so used to disagreements here being expressed in an intolerant, angry, talking-past-each-other manner, that your reply , even in disagreement with me, was a breath of fresh air. Thank you again for your respect and civility, and I hope my response has come across the same way.

[bvar22]

32. Its NOT the People's fault.

LESS than 35% of ALL American people support Individual Mandates without a Public Option,
and yet, this is exactly what the Democratic Party Leadership delivered to The People.

Barack Obama (and the Democratic Party) campaigned on a Public Option like "Medicare" (Publicly Owned/Government Administered) to be paid for by raising taxes on the top 2%.
The American People liked that plan, and voted FOR it, but that does not even remotely resemble what was just passed.

Now WHERE could the problem be?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Direct democracy carries its own set of problems.

America is a representative Democracy, not a direct one. For what it's worth, I think that's a very good thing indeed, but good or bad, it's currently true and unlikely to change any time soon.

A high enough proportion of the electorate voted, and will continue to vote for, representatives who oppose any form of public health care provision that it is not likely to be achievable in the the forseeable future.

[Mari333]

3. read it and weep

“This bill is not about fiscal responsibility or the common good.”

“The bill is about increasing corporate profit at taxpayer expense,” Hedges wrote.

“It lavishes hundreds of billions in government subsidies on insurance and drug companies.”

“The some 3,000 (corporate) lobbyists in Washington, whose dirty little hands are all over the bill, have once more betrayed the American people for money.”

“The bill is another example of why change will never come from within the Democratic Party. The party is owned and managed by corporations.”

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=2421

yeah its a huge win win to force people to buy a product with no cost controls.

[golddigger]

22. You tell it Mari333.

[ixion]

24. Great Link, Mari

thanks for sharing. I'll keep that around for reference.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. +1000 It needs to be fixed now, not 5, 10, 20 years from now.

[Mari333]

29. they threw a bone out, fixed later my ass

the 3000 lobbyists crafting this bill are running the dems who ushered it in.

ridiculous. sad to watch people believe this shite.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. It is not a "government takeover" by any stretch of the imagination.

It bears much more resemblance to Mussolini style fascism (corporate power enforced by the state) than it does the Stalinist communism that Glenn BecKKK would have you believe it is.

[amborin]

10. +10000

that's one of the definitions of "corporatism:" the tripartite (agreement) of corporations, labor, and the state; only without labor, it does amount to fascism; there was some element of truth to the claims of 'fascism'; but the teabagges flat out don't know what 'socialism' means.

[leftstreet]

6. It's like fortifying hot dogs with vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants

Welcome to the Newspeak World

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. Great analogy!

Coming soon from Oscar Meyer... "Organic HealthDogs"!11!!1! :rofl:

[leftstreet]

13. LOL

hehe

Heart Healthy Cheetos

[amborin]

12. LOL! that captures it!

[Individualist]

17. Perfect!

[ixion]

25. spot on, that

:applause:

[hughee99]

14. I'm not saying I agree with that assessment of this bill, but

if a bill gives the government the authority to force people to spend their money on a specific product offered only by private industry, where previous people had the ability to decide whether they would by that product or not, the government as taken some power from the people. If as a result, the corporations become more profitable as well, then the government is taking some power from the people and corporations are taking money from the people.

Calling them "socialist" and "capitalistic" power grabs is a big leap, but the end result is that the government has the authority to tell someone that they have to give their money over to private industry for a product that they may not want (though should have).

[JackRiddler]

18. That's like asking how both Flat Earthers & modern astronomers could object to the Copernican model.

[Newest Reality]

20. Personally I have to reframe this ...

I don't hate the bill. I am just totally dismayed that what started out as a move for single payer Universal health care has turned into insurance industry protectionism. The difference is enormous and yet, we have both celebration and contention over the Bill while seemingly ignoring the original climate and the expectations that prompted the whole thing.

I understand compromise, but what is this, really?

At this point, the passing of the bill does not eclipse what was intended. It seems to have diffused the enthusiasm and support for the real deal and now we are hearing more expectations and hope that someday what we were given by the PTB will be improved on ... maybe ... if we are lucky. How is that satisfying or triumphant?

The amount of time allowed for various aspects of this bill to take effect are another issue. My impression is that, for the masses, this has been a crucial necessity for decades. Meanwhile, we will have more casualties, (untreated illness, unnecessary deaths and medically induced bankruptcies) while we wait for this long, slow fuse to burn.

Why is that acceptable and why does noting what you didn't get in your compromise anger people?

[bvar22]

33. There was no "compromise".

There was a year long theater of giving concession after concession to The Republicans until almost nothing "Democratic" remained in the bill, and the Democrats got back exactly NOTHING.

In a "compromise", both sides get something.
This was a capitulation.

[MellowDem]

34. Increased government regulations...

means that more power was NOT given to the corporations, but rather to government. Sure, there is a mandate, but it is a government-regulated mandate, and it is really quite light. Of course it's not a "government power grab" by any means, but it is more government power, which I for one am thankful for.