"We are ceding control of the government to private corporations, not figuratively but literally."

[Better Believe It]

Right and Left Agree: Mandates are the Road to Neo-Feudalism
By: Jane Hamsher
December 30, 2009

There is tremendous fear rising on both the right and the left that the announced intention of Congress — to force every American to pay tribute to private corporations, with no government alternative — sets a dangerous and frightening precedent with implications far outside the scope of health care.

If the health care bill written by the Senate is passed, middle class Americans will be mandated to pay almost as much to private insurance companies as they do to the federal government in taxes, with the IRS acting as a collection agency for penalties of 2% of your annual income for refusing to comply.

We are ceding control of the government to private corporations, not figuratively but literally. When the Senate Finance Committee bill was released earlier this year, the “author” was a former VP of Wellpoint. Liberals, conservatives and independents alike are all justifiably alarmed at what this represents.

Just as those on the libertarian right were demonized by the Republican establishment for opposing the Iraq war during the Bush years, so progressives on the left are being pilloried for “damaging the cause” by joining with Republicans to oppose these extreme measures. It’s ironic that the most virulent supporters of a President who ran on “bipartisanship” should reject it so vehemently when it becomes critical of the policies pursued by his White House.

It’s foolish to say that only those who agree with you on every issue are allowed to share your opinion when it comes to opposing something like the mandated bailout of Aetna — it isn’t necessary to achieve health care reform. As Jon Walker notes, removing the mandate would reduce the CBO score and its inclusion in the health care bill with no government alternative is unacceptable for moral, political and policy reasons.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/30/right-and-left-agree-mandates-are-the-road-to-neo-feudalism/

[DJ13]

1. K&R (back to 0)

Thanks for posting this!

[Tansy_Gold]

2. It's being done in education, so why not health care? :sarcasm:

see also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7363733





Tansy Gold

[OHdem10]

3. And to think the Democratic Party would be doing this, is hearbreaking

We can thank the DLC for this.

Continuing the GOP Philosophy will lead to further recession.

We never seem to learn.

[ProSense]

4. So Hamsher is back to scare mongering using the Finance Committee bill? It's not the Senate bill

She's not saying anything new:

Gibbs said it is "not surprising" that K Street lobbyists have the proposal, which does not include the controversial public-option plan, before the president does.

link

This is part of what is so disingenuous about this debate. People post old crap and pretend they're uncovering something new. Everyone followed the drama of the Finance Committee bill being amended. The amendments that Kerry, Rockefeller and others were able to add to the bill. It still didn't come out of committee in an acceptable form, but then it was merged with the HELP bill. When Reid produced the merged version, it included a public option and was significantly different from the original Finance bill.

[MNDemNY]

5. Well, wcontinue to vote "them" in office.

[kenfrequed]

6. False backspin

"...so progressives on the left are being pilloried for “damaging the cause” by joining with Republicans to oppose these extreme measures."


We are NOT joining with republicans. We never did. We are standing up For the public option and For single payer.

By slipping in a sentence of us joining with repukes it justifies some of the DLC jerks on this board throwing out their usual spin about how progressives are allied with republicans on the right.

[nashville_brook]

9. it's not that progressives "are joining" 'pukes regarding mandates -- rather it's that

both groups object to the power grab for different reasons. i think that's a really astute point she makes about bipartisanship, and it highlights what's most troubling to me about this part of the bill -- that, it's the weakest link. it's the most vulnerable to election year backlash. Rahm knows he needs swing voters to keep Obama in office -- so, why threaten that coalition?

[kenfrequed]

10. Overall the point was good

But the framing of it makes all the difference in the world. Sadly.

[ima_sinnic]

15. Rahm is not known to be the sharpest knife in the drawer

His alienation and dismissal of large contingencies of voters is going to cost the Democrats.

[nashville_brook]

17. well, i'm not ready to say he's not smart per se, for me it's that he's

figuratively 'praying' to one of Rove's many demon-gods. it's a sort of 'politics before policy', but he's throwing his political weight to the monied interests at the expense of The People. He's the anti-Dean, and his rejection of the 50-state solution was proven to be wrong...and still he's polishing that turd. so, there's a stupidity there, but it's because of his addiction to a certain kind of power. insert Lord of the Ring/Gollum analogy.

[johnaries]

7. Hamsher jumped the shark for me when she criticized an

amendment for "hindering" bio-generics that actually aided and expedited the development of bio-generics.

She is passionate but clueless.

[Better Believe It]

11. More specific details please

[nashville_brook]

8. mandated public support of private for-profit corporations is about as UnAmerican as it gets.

This will be our Achilles Heel in the midterms. Hope ya'll enjoyed the majorities while you had them.

[Odin2005]

12. This healthcare bill is FASCIST ECONOMICS.

[NJmaverick]

13. More fiction By: Jane Hamsher

[Armstead]

14. What's fictional about a MANDATE to buy private insurance?

[SpartanDem]

19. You act as if there is nothing else to the bill

besides the mandate you can't just ignore the other reforms in the bill. What's your opinion of healthcare systems like those the Netherlands or Switzlerland where universal care isn't provided by public programs? Are they wrong for making their citizen buy private insurance.

[Armstead]

24. This is no Swisss or Dutch health system

The reforms are crumbs compared to the basic structural screwed upedness of this approach to reform. And a simple question. What is the benefit of spending gillions of taxpayer money to subsidize private insurance, instead of using it to expand Medicare or some other public program?

As for the Swiss and Dutch systems -- I'd rather see Canadian stykle system.

But even with that said, the Swiss and Dutch systems are a lot better than this.

Switzerland has a basic insurance policy that all insurers must offer but they are also forbidden to make a profit on basic insurance. They also cannot charge differently baseed on age and are subjected to other regulations.

Dutch is also highly controlled.

Yes there are a few kinda controls on insurers in this bill but they are still basically free to jack up rates and discriminate based on age and otherwise game the system to their heart's content....And the percent that that has to go for coverage? Well, that simply is likely to add to upward pressure on rates.

[ima_sinnic]

16. please point out the "fictitious" parts

you falsely believe that the mere name "Jane Hamsher" will send people cringing away with their tails between their legs.

[AzDar]

18. K & R

[LWolf]

20. K & R

[2 Much Tribulation]

21. K&R n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

22. When the democrats wonder why the base stops turning out for them at the ballot box...

They need look no further than the health insurance bill.

[freddie mertz]

23. All too true, and quite possibly the death-knell of the Dem party as we once knew it.

Lots to celebrate here.

Not.

[burning rain]

25. K & R for useful criticism.

.