Critics don't like the current version of HCR because we believe Reaganism is wrong

[Armstead]

In a nutshell this version of health care "reform" like so many other "reforms" supported by the Democratic Conservative Centrist Elites over the last 20 years is totally in line with the Gospel of Reagan.

It enshrines the workings of "markets" as the sole basis of healthcare. Government's only role is to facilitate the working of "market forces" in the belief that the corporations that control those markets will benevolently serve society.

Actually, with the mandates for private insurance, it is Corporate Authoritarianism.
It will embed the power of private insurance by imposing mandates that force people to buy private insurance from large power insurance companies. Not even Republicans would be that blatant as to directly impose Corporate Authoritarianism by force of law.

Forget the smoke and mirrors that are being used to distract from the core principles of this conservative bill. Yes there are some things that may help some people in the short run. But the damage that will be done in the long run far outweighs it. It basically admits "This system will require more charity because a lot of people are going to continue to be screwed over."

It killed the only real aspects that might have been a "foundation" to build a better system -- or at least a parallel alternative system in the form of single payer, or Medicare expansion or a "public option."

It avoided any real regulations, instead relying on "competition" and the unregulated free market to keep prices in line and provide reasonable coverage. Ha. That's worked really well so far.

Ronald Reagan is smiling down on the New Democrat Party which has suppressed and marginalized Democratic liberalism yet again.

[tridim]

1. Are you implying that supporters think Reaganism is right?

:eyes:

Psst, all the Republicans (who consider Reagan a god) voted no.

Do you think Reagan would approve of the Sanders' ammendments?

[Armstead]

5. Pssst......Republicans are playing politics

No, supporters are allowing party politics to overshadow any real analysis of the basic thrust of this bill.

If you believe it is good to pass a bill that further expands the wealth and hiold of private insurance, without regulations or any public-based alternatives....Well, consciously or unconsciously that is supporting the basis of conservatism.

[tridim]

13. I believe you're ignoring the good aspects of the bill.

On purpose.

[Armstead]

16. No I acknowledge some good aspects

But weighed against the bad aspects they are bandaids on a major wound.

[tridim]

22. Well, that's the same answer the Republicans give when asked the same question.

Not saying you're a Republican, because I know you're not. I simply don't understand why you ignore the obvious good points in the bill while screaming your worst-case-scenario outcomes before the bill has even passed.

[Armstead]

25. I believe the bad aspects will outweigh the good ones

If this were simply a mild form of reform that provided relief for the immediate needs and set the foundation for a future better system, I would not be so against this.

But in its basic design and approach and philosophy, I honestly believe that over time it will further entrench the power of unaccountable insurance monopolies and it will undermine the ability to set up public alternatives.

[tridim]

28. So, kill it all (and punish people who need it) because of your opinion?

That's pretty freaking selfish.

[Armstead]

36. It is not Either/Or

And your "selfish" line shows how unthinking you are about this.

[jaxx]

2. Jeez another comparison.

More living in the past, instead of looking at the future. Reagan is dead, most of the Reagan democrats are on medicare and this makes no sense whatsoever. If the bill was so damned conservative it would have never happened.

[Armstead]

9. Reagan's philosophy is alive and well and this bill advances it

That is not living in the past.

If yioy want to "look to the future" then look t9o the future. We should not be further entrenching the very approaches that created the problem.

[jaxx]

12. I disagree.

You can make anything look like you want it to, and some want this bill to look bad.

[Armstead]

17. No, "some" preferred a better bill

[jaxx]

37. Billy clubs for congress?

That's the only way you'd get a different bill out of that senate.

[Armstead]

40. I won't go there except to say that the majority supported better reform

We got stuck with a bad bill because of a rotten process.

But that doesn't negate the fact that it is a bad bill.

[shadesofgray]

3. K&R

[niceypoo]

4. Privatization of healthcare and the institutionalization of private insurance

The word is, 'neoliberalism.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism">"Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer part of the control of the economy from public to the private sector, under the belief that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic indicators of the nation"

[sandnsea]

7. 10,000 new community health centers?

Is privatizing health care???

[Armstead]

11. Increasing charity rether than actually making coverage more available and affordable

Community health Clinics are great.

But they are a band aid compared to the damage that allowing the cost of insurance to continue to rise will cause.

[tridim]

15. So just pretend it doesn't exist. Check.

Durrrrr...

[derby378]

19. When the greed of the giver mortars every stone with guilt...

...and guilt's the coldest charity of all.

[Armstead]

21. No, the same resoueces could have been used to make real coverage more available and affordable

Rather than enable the reason that so many people need free clinics, why not set up a system that will expand true coverage to more people.

[sandnsea]

32. Medicaid to 133% of poverty, subsidies to 400%

IS expanding affordability and availability, likely to 97% of the country. The clinics are Bernie Sanders idea, to expand health care to even more people to make sure we don't have any gaps.

[Armstead]

34. Bernie was trying to get the best he could from a bill he believes is basically bad

Subsidies are basically a funnell from taxpayers into tghe coffers of private insurance companies.

Medicaid is a symptom -- The more it is needed, the worse the system is.

A much more efficient and effective approach would be to use those resources to create a system in which real coverage is available to all.

[sandnsea]

44. Medicaid is a bad system?? Okay, I gotta here this one n/t

[Armstead]

49. Medicaid is necessarty but it is not ab substitute for a better system

Medicaid is a bandaid to deal with all of the people who have been shut out of the system.

It is a necvessary and worthwhile "safety net." But it is no substitute for actually creating a better and more equitable overall system of public coverage that is more inclusive and benefits people of all income levels.

The more you need charity or "safety net" entitlements, the more it means the system is truly failing to address the core problems.

Conservatives don't like government programs. But they are big believers in charity as a way to partially offset the damage that their beliefs do to people.

[sandnsea]

56. Medicaid is the best single payer we could hope for

You oppose absolutely everything and end up making no sense at all.

[Armstead]

63. Haha -- Ask most governors that

For one thing, it is a major burden on state budgets.

What do you think helped get Ben Nelson to support this bill? He got his state exempted from having to pay their share of the cost of Medicaid.

And Medicaid is NOT single payer insurance. It is a "safety net" for people who can't afford any healthcare otherwise. It is the medical equivalent of food stamps -- necessary but no substitute for a system that doesn't shut out people in the first place.

Plus it puts people on the financial margins -- like the working poor -- in the position of having to bankrupt themselves gto be eligible. Like families that have to wipe out their assets so their elderly patents can qualify for Medicaid in their last years.

Yeah great fucking replacement for a real single payer system that would enable people of all income levels to afford real coverage.

Talk about not making sense.....

PS -- I and others have written plenty about what we believe could be done, and on a "realistic" level. If you bothered to read in the spirit of actually having an exchange of views, insult of just looking for an opening for insults, you might realize that.

[sandnsea]

79. A major burden on state budgets, uh, yeah

And just what the hell do you think single payer will be??

[Armstead]

91. If done correctly, not as much of one

[niceypoo]

42. Good luck dislodging private insurance once it is institutionalized

[sandnsea]

30. So $60 monthly coverage isn't affordable? n/t

[niceypoo]

48. Most people dont qualify for heath centers

People with existing insurance are getting gouged.

We pay 1200$ a month for a watered down HMO that was once upon a time actual insurance. This coming April, we will have to pay 40% more if we want to keep the existing level of coverage. Otherwise we have to switch to a, 'health savings plan,' that isnt insurance at all. It pays nothing until we have paid a yearly $5000 deductible. If I break my arm, I will be flying to Costa Rica to have it set for 150$, otherwise it costs me $5000. For this I am paying $1200 a month? That is what corporate insurance does for America. I do not qualify for health centers. I dont qualify for $60 coverage. I dont qualify for the exchange. The bill does nothing to help me, Im screwed come April. I am one of a majority of middle class Americans who will continue to get screwed by corporate health insurers under this bill.

[FrenchieCat]

53. That's incorrect. The Health Community Centers funded by the tune of

10 to 14 Billion will have to accept all comers. The fees will be based on income.

As for what you pay......go to my link (in my sig) and verify that what you are saying is so.

My husband and I are self employed, and like you, because of our two college age children, we pay around $1,200 per month for HMO coverage that still leaves us with $75.00 co pays. When I went to calculate what we would pay, based on our income and age, we save $6,560 under the Senate Bill, a little less under the house bill. These two bills do help many middle Americans.

You have most likely described your situation accurately up to the point of what this bill will do for you. I believe that unless your family is making over 88,000 per year, this bill helps you. If you earn over $88,000, than yes, this bill doesn't help you, because it was set up for the lesser of thee.

[JoeyT]

77. I love that people keep throwing that cacluator around.

Good thing Kaiser Permanente saw fit to create it.
If we can't trust an HMO to tell us the truth about health care, who can we trust?

[ima_sinnic]

96. yes, they "have faith" that the HMO's calculator is accurate and "real"

they also never complain about paying 33% more to fund KP's CEOs' multimillion-dollar bonuses, or about the unknown and unregulated amounts in addition to the price of a "policy" they'll have to pay. Insurance companies are never greedy and unethical, uh huh.

Also notice how frikkin complicated the "formulas" are. I predict that we the consumers will be presented with "choices" so complicated they will make Medicare Part D look like a song and dance--we'll be so confused (as planned), we'll go on pure "bottom line" alone--which will look good on paper, but won't be worth shit. To "fill in the gaps" in our "economy plans," we'll have to buy all kinds of "supplementary insurance."

[sandnsea]

57. I pay $60 a month with my subsidy

I don't go to the health clinic in Eugene. I get my care through my local medical clinic that charges my horrible subsidized insurance.

[eridani]

75. What makes you think that states with better deals than the crap on offer nationally

--will be able to keep them?

[sandnsea]

78. The national plan is about the same

Except it expands Medicaid to people making minimum wage and just above. I don't know why everybody assumes these will all be horrible plans. They won't, and if they are, we have a lot more power to change them with a mandate than without.

[eridani]

80. The national plan totally sucks for me and many others 50-64

Don't be surprised to find you have to pay more in order to pay for Medicaid for Ben Nelson's constituents.

[sandnsea]

83. Medicaid is free

Medicare has been calculated to cost approximately $600 per person, which is very similar to private premiums. I think any plan implemented is going to cost more than expected, even single payer. Health care is expensive and there's no way to get around it.

Why isn't anybody screaming about medical equipment costs and medical equipment sales reps? There is a ton of profit, up and down the line, in health care. Not just insurance.

This will work adequately for most people, and if/when it becomes too expensive, people will be so used to having health coverage that it'll be easy to switch over to single payer.

[eridani]

84. To people it's free. Not to STATES.

Ben Nelson got funding for his state. Where will various blue states come up with such funding under severe budgetary stress/

[sandnsea]

85. States get money from people

Those people either have to pay state taxes for their share of Medicaid, or federal taxes for single payer. Either way, it's going to cost.

[niceypoo]

39. 12% of every dollar goes for corporate profits/CEO salaries

That is 12% less healthcare. Institutionalization of the status quo. What a deal.

Im curious what percentage of every dollar goes for health centers.

[Armstead]

10. I know -- ut i avoid that word personally because it is subject to misinterpretation

[glitch]

26. bingo, with deep regret. nt

[sandnsea]

6. So when Howard Dean proposed subsidized insurance

in 2004... why no outrage?

:shrug:

[Armstead]

18. Because it was a different time and different situation

[sandnsea]

27. No. It's because it was Howard Dean n/t

[Armstead]

35. yeah,yeah...Dean the Messiah...We're all brainwashed worshippers

[tridim]

45. What is this "we" shit?

I don't agree with you at all, but I love Howard Dean. I bet he has 99% (non-messiah) support on DU.

You don't own him or his ideas.

[Armstead]

50. I was referring to the implication of the person who posted that

Would it have helped if I had included the "sarcasm" icon?

[sandnsea]

58. He proposed subsidized insurance in 2004

I can't figure out why he's forgotten that, and why so many of his supporters have forgotten when they said his health care plan was the greatest thing since the snuggie. Any ideas?

[Armstead]

73. For what it's worth...

I had mixed feelings about deans 2004 health plan because I believe we have to move in the direction of a government run alternative to private insurance -- either on a universal basis or (being pragmatic) as an additional choice to guarantee everyone who chooses it access to affordable basic insurance.

So I thought Deans bill was okay, but I was not enthusiastic about it. But I supported Dean enthusiastically as the best choice and the most likely to begin nudginbg the demlocratic Party in a better direction.

I also agree with Dean now -- he believes that some form of single-payer and/or VERY Tighly Regulated private insurance is better than this bill.

[BeFree]

8. Yeah

Obamaco ran as a socialistic company and now they turned all capitalistic on us.
________________
Thing is there is a LOT of gray area in the new bill, but some here try to make it like it's black and white. Like it's Reaganism and there's no way out, and we are doomed. And that, frankly, is bullshit.

[Armstead]

14. I wish it were bullshit

Yes there are grey areas and good things in it. But it is basically structured on a very conservative premise, and will continue to lock in healthcare into the model of unregulated free market conservationism.

[BeFree]

24. Heh

Like Obama said: Any changes to such a large percentage of the economy has to not be too radical. Read: fairly conservative.

I'm all for a French style HC system, but what we have can't just be thrown out and a new wheel put in place not matter how much some of us want. It just ain't gonna happen. It is a one spoke at a time replacement process.

[Armstead]

31. Yes but, If you are going to put in spokes..they ought to be good ones

My problem with this bills is NOT that it doesn't go far enough. I could live with a few good spokes if they were the right ones,

My problem is that it is a step in the wrong direction. Or to use the bike analogy, it is putting a bad hub on the wheeel.

[BeFree]

38. well

There are about 10 good progressive senators and probably 50 good house members who would tell you: bullshit.

So......

[Armstead]

46. Sepersate their political face from theifr real one and they'd tell you different

After being beaten and broken, they've decided to go along. But make nio mistake they do not like this bill.

Why the hell do you think Tom Harkin has just filed a bill to change the process. It's not coincidental.

And Bernie and others have made it clear that they do not supopoort this bill with any real enthusiasm.

[glitch]

43. It is one step further along a radically conservative path, not a change from it.

It is a damn shame our offense was actually playing their* defense. They could have actually helped ALL the people who needed it AND the economy itself, had reform genuinely been attempted.

*corporate masters

[Armstead]

98. It actually IS also a radical step when you consider mandates

[glitch]

100. Very much so.

I wasn't being facetious, for a change. ;)

[treestar]

20. Reagan would have hated this and veto'ed it

:wtf:

[Armstead]

23. Like I said in the OP -- Not even Republicans would have supported...

a form of such blatant Corporate Authoritarianism that requires people to become customers of private corporations.

[treestar]

29. Republicans would be totally against that

For that very reason. You should not have to buy insurance and insurance companies should not have to sell it to you. The free market will take care of it. The invisible hand will make everything as good as it can be. That is Republicanism. Reagan would have condescendingly said that we needed to work harder to earn money to buy insurance. If we just did that, we could buy it. That's "freedom" to a Republican.

[Armstead]

33. Frankly it would depend on the Republican

There are actual Republicans and conservatives -- more like libertarians -- who are consistent in their belief that there should a maximum of personal freedomn and minimum of government.

But there are also Corporate Authoritarian CONservatives who believe that the purpose of government is to advance the interests of wealth and powerful individuals and institutions.

This bill fits neatly into the latter category.

[Zynx]

41. So, we've out right-winged the Republicans?

*chortle*

This is just getting silly now.

[Armstead]

47. We have -- Laugh if you want but just wait until....

five or ten years from now and someone actually tries to do something to disengage the chokehold of the much-more-powerful insurance industry.

It's like the fact that even after the rampant abuses of the big banks, there is no stomach to do anything to reverse the effects of financial deregulation because the banks have become "too big to fail."

You are going to see KLESS reform not more inb the future because of this bill.

"We can't do that. It's just become too embedded, and we'd do more damage if we try to change anything now."

[Vidar]

51. K&R.

[mzmolly]

52. Partly true, but Reagan would not have subsidies to help people buy insurance. ;)

The new plan helps people purchase insurance, much like food stamps help people buy groceries.

[Armstead]

64. How about making the groceries affordable for more people?

(I'm just using your analogy, I realize that groceries are subject to different economic factors. But you get my drift.)

:)

[mzmolly]

76. Absolutely

agree that we need to work on controlling cost as well A. :hi:

[gulliver]

54. The smart money says this is an incrementalist win.

The sound of our left fringe freaking out is music to my ears. They weren't going to be happy anyway. Their complaining helps calm the fears of the majority in the middle that this HCR is a socialist monstrosity. Then we come back next year and start to add things.

Pigs go hungry.

[Armstead]

65. Music to your ears huh? You proved my point.

Yep anything those damn liberaaaals want is bad. If them damn hippies are fer it then I'm agin' it.

[ima_sinnic]

97. nice the way we were so precious to them when it was time to vote

who's going to vote for them next time?

[TheKentuckian]

55. There is no competion either. Most folks just have to take whatever work dishes out

It essentially relies on the corporations to be good stewards to keep prices in line in the short term and over the longer term the max tax will errode benefits and shift enough costs to reduce the costs of premiums.

It probably isn't worth discussing this, any mention of concerns or even blatantly obvious problems are just leftbagging now. You take what is on the table or you're a heartless Rebublican that wants 31 million to die quickly. If the whole thing collapses into nothing but a mandate to buy a piece of paper that can't be used then at least we helped a few people for a few years and that was our best shot. Too bad if faith in government is so erroded that no real effort can ever again be mounted.

[ProSense]

59. Only in the land of make believe would anyone try to equate this with Reagan

Ronald Reagan: “(I)f you don’t (stop Medicare) and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

[TheKentuckian]

60. You're right. What it is is what one might imagine a Republican would do IF

they actually believed in doing anything to promote the common good or in government.

The thing is that of course Republicans would never actually do anything but if they did then this is how you'd project they'd handle things.

I see a false argument on both sides. The critics pretend Republicans would lift a finger to solve any problems and the supporters pretend doing anything is progressive.

[ProSense]

61. Oh brother.

That's plain silly.

[TheKentuckian]

62. Why? Correct rather than dismiss.

What kind of bill would you envision a conservative doing IF (BIG IF) they were inclined to work on behalf of the people within the rough context of their market as god belief system?

Or do you also think that Republicans in some misguided way want to help people and believe that government can be a positive force?

[ProSense]

66. "What kind of bill would you envision a conservative doing IF (BIG IF) "

Conservatives would not fund community health centers

They would ban abortion funding all together

Kill Medicare

Cut Medicaid

Continue the practice of dropping people based on pre-existing conditions

Require people to prove citizenship to get health care

Never consider a public option or the OPM plan.

There would be no exchanges or cost controls.

Subsidies would not be included.

Decrease, not increase the MLR





Should I go on?

[Armstead]

69. Reopublicans would also include some of the "concessions" so they don't look like monsters

And they would be politically smart enough not to force people to buy a product by law.

Otherwise, they'd end up with something that conceptually swas pretty close to this bill, which was basically determined by ConservaDems and insurance company tools like Baucus and nelson.

[ProSense]

Republicans don't care about looking like monsters. n/t

[Armstead]

71. Yeah right. They are desperate not to look like monsters.

They want to make their monsterous ideology seem acceptable. They are not politically stupid.

[ProSense]

72. Republicans voted en masse against this bill: they don't care about looking like monsters.

"They are not politically stupid."


I beg to differ: only fools could get the country to a point of promising a permanent Republican majority, lose it in less than three years, and then continue to do everything to damage their brand even further.

[Armstead]

74. Bush is stupid -- the GOP is not (politically stupid that is -- their ideology is dumb)

As for their present opposition -- They are building a message. They would be doing the same no matter what the Democrats came up with, just because the Democrats came up with it.

[TheKentuckian]

89. I still think you merely throw out what THESE Republicans would do

if someone put a gun to their head and said "DO HEALTHCARE REFORM OR DIE", rather than how a genuinely interested and generally people serving (within the context of conservative philosophy) conservative party would construct a bill of this kind.

Surely, you won't bother arguing this as a Social Democratic, New Deal style Democratic bill, a modern main street Democratic bill, or even a moderate bill which probably would still have a public option and certainly strong market based reforms and regulations.
You might argue that this is a conservative Democratic bill but I'd have to remind you that conservative Democrats are just Republicans with (D) by their names and therefore what we arrived at was exactly a conservative creation. Conservatives that actually give two shits enough to bother to attempt to govern in some capacity, granted a wholly hypothetical exercise nowadays, but conservative nonetheless.

[Armstead]

67. This is the opposite of Medicare

If this were setting up a public insurance plan and eroding the power and wealth of insurabnce companies, you might have a point.

But the philosophy driving this bill -- with peeps like Ben Nelson, Baucus and Liebwerman at the wheel -- is the exact opposite of Medicare, which is a collective public insurance progranm runb by the government. It refutes the idea that the government should have an active role in providing coverage.

The "concessions" of subsidies are a fig leaf.

In other words, Ronnie would disapprove of mandates -- but he'd love that emphasis on giving private insurance companies a more central role in healthcare, and eliminating any form of public social insurance or expansion of Medicare.

[ProSense]

68. The notion that Reagan would be associated with this bill is beyond ludicrous. n/t

[Armstead]

70. You are correct. he would oppose mandates.

But he'd be pretty happy that things like a public option or expansion of medicare were taken off the table -- now and for the future.

Face it. This is based on the principles of increasing the domonance of market-based health-coverage with very limited government control.

This is the bill that DINOs like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson wanted. It is not what liberal or moderate (actually moderate) Democrats wanted at all.

[Lorien]

81. Will you ever put down those pompoms for just a few minutes

and try to think about an issue OBJECTIVELY? There is nothing LIKE an expansion of Medicare in the current HCR bill. If there were, more of us would be supporting it. Reagan supported the idea of fleecing the American people through private "insurance" companies-and that's exactly what's happening.

[FrenchieCat]

82. you know, she may have her pompom, which is not a crime, last I checked

of supporting a Democratic President at Democratic Underground.

Better to have Pom-poms than
a mini teacup with a pic of Obama as a witchdoctor on it.

[HughMoran]

86. The Reagan Healthcare Reform was ...

hey, neither Reagan or any Republican ever passed healthcare reform. Let's not assume what Reagone would have done had he even attempted such reform - it's just not helpful. Heck, many here aren't old enough to have voted for Reagan.

[burning rain]

87. The current version of health care reform is more like George W. Bush's crony capitalism.

Ideologically pretty comparable to Bush's Medicare Part D, if more fiscally reponsible. Reagan, by contrast, was more laissez faire and sink-or-swim--both for individuals and business interests. Stuff like the Chrysler bailout and trade protections for Harley's big bikes were concessions to help make inroads with white working class voters, not reflective of the basic governing philosophy--Reagan was a small and weak government guy, whereas GWB was in fact a "big government conservative" and a "compassionate conservative": a bit more compassionate toward individuals, a whole lot more toward business interests. Both catered incessantly to business, but Reagan basically aimed to cut their taxes and let them do whatever the hell they please, and wanted them to sink or swim. Bush's innovation in the GOP was to put private concerns on massive government subsidies while continuing to let them do what the hell they please. You do as you please but don't have to sink or swim--we guarantee to keep you afloat.

What we're getting at present is a somewhat more liberal version of George W. Bush's crony capitalism.

[Armstead]

92. Bingo -- That is more accurate....And much worse

[johnaries]

88. Actually, Reagan would have HATED this bill. It has many regulations

on Health Insurance companies in it. Reagan didn't believe in regulation.

[burning rain]

90. Very true. Both Reagan & George W. Bush would've hated the regulations.

Reagan would also have scrupled against the subsidies to private insurance, while George W. Bush would have embraced them.

[jenmito]

93. The "New Democrat Party"? n/t

[Armstead]

94. That is what the New Democrats call themselves, really

Any unintended irony in the phrase is theirs, not mine


from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

In the politics of the United States, the New Democrats are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with more center-right social/cultural positions and neoliberal fiscal values.<1><2> They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.

[jenmito]

95. Thanks for the info.

And it's sad that we HAVE those Dems. in our congress, but we DO, which is why the bill that'll probably make it to Obama's desk will be the best it CAN be at this point.

[boppers]

99. Arguing against more charity? Medicare IS more charity.

For that matter, same issue with a cost-controlling public option... it bypasses the raw market because people have needs that aren't adequately met by the markets.

Or are you pro-charity, but hate the word, or what?

[Armstead]

101. I think you choose not to try to comprehend my posts

Single payer or social insurance is not charity. It is collective responsibility for providing a basic essential service, and shared benefits.

Like Social Security it ought tio be based on income. For those whose income is too low to afford it, those who are more prosperous carry their share of the load. Maybe that is a form of charity, but I am not opposed to helping those who need help. Quite the opposite.

What I AM against is allowing a system that increases the NEED for charity by making insurance more financially inaaccessible to more people, while the rich basically get off scott free.

[boppers]

103. You seem to have a problem with the word.

Single payer is charity.

Social insurance is charity.

The rich pay for it, in Cadillac plan taxes, and in $350K+ income taxes.

If your think giving, or receiving, charity is in any way bad, maybe...

...you have some "de-Reagan" to do yourself.

[andym]

102. It's not Reaganism: it goes against the principles of modern conservatism

Reagan conservatives believe:

1) no corporate regulations
2) no taxes (no govt mandates of any kind are acceptable)
3) free market is all, no need for govt, except military
4) Trickle down economics: let the big corporations run free, and some $$$ will even pass down to the common man

The way Reagan and his friends help corporations are to strengthen pro-corporate laws, weaken anti-corporate regulations, and let the free market rule.

The "invisible hand" will magically make everyone who deserves to be happy, happy. As someone said upthread, Reagan would say that if you can't afford insurance it's your problem. End of story.
That's why they would be happy to dismantle the social safety net. Reagan especially.
---------------------------------------
They don't want government's help to feed the corporations. They want to let the corporations run free and let them do what they will.

---------------------------------------
What about GW Bush and Cheney's Blackwater no-bid contracts, etc? That's reminiscent of the old fashioned class elitism that permeated both parties in the early to mid 20th century. Big favors for corporate friends etc. That's a kind of corruption of conservatism (but is OK in a Laissez Faire world, since anything goes). Republicans do like to reward their friends. But it is anathema for a conservative to promote government-centered anything.
---------------------------------------

Ironically, this bill (HCR) is more reminiscent of FDR and his National Recovery Admnistration (NRA)-- in which corporations "voluntarily" got together with the government to set up rules setting higher prices and various anticompetitive rules ("reduce destructive competition") to help boost the economy (guaranteed profits). Note that at the same time the NRA established prohibitions of child labor, work hour limitations and increased the power of unions to help workers, in order to help individuals as well. The NRA was declared unconstitutional in 1935 I think. Huey Long, the populist on FDR's left ironically considered the NRA a step toward fascism. Notice that the idea of the NRA is that industry gets something and the worker gets something and that was supposed to help the country. Also, the govt had more control in the NRA, than it does in HCR. One important difference is that HCR is supposed to foster competition among insurers, not prevent competition. If this is the case, it is fairly important to strip the insurers of their anti-trust protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration

---------------------------------------
The big problem with HCR is that besides not being as simple, efficient or ultimately as inexpensive as single-payer, is that it abandoned the idea (from Hacker's original conception) of a large public competitor that was supposed to compete to help force the insurers to be more efficient and not conspire with each other to find ways to subvert the bill.

[Hippo_Tron]

104. Yep and we still live in the age of Reagan

And we will continue to live in that age until working class people stop voting Republican. Obama only won 52% of the vote which means that most of the other people (the non-rich) still don't have a clue.