Originally Posted by annla899

I will not, as James' sig line (which I love) says, be motivated by fear. It is a mind-killer.

Cool.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Cool.

James50

Hmm.... Didn't someone just recently post a link to the Litany?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Hmm.... Didn't someone just recently post a link to the Litany?

Yea - but somehow that post didn't leave me with the warm fuzzies like Annla899's.

James50

Originally Posted by wtrg8

So you do you agree, both the Democrat and GOP parties are owned by the Corporatists?

Yes or No

Mostly yes, but at least there is still a semblance of non-bought politics among Dems in local elections.

Originally Posted by James50

Disappointingly I would have to say yes.

I have been thinking about Deb C's posts. I don't see the conspiracies she does or agree with much of her postings. But one thing I think I do agree with her on is the need to change the culture first. Politics is the tail, culture is the dog.

James50

I agree with this. The BS happens because people are apathetic, and indeed, are ENCOURAGED to be apathetic by those in power so much that it is an Xer stereotype. But Civic generations don't do apathy, if the establishment gets in the way we just collectively shove it out of the way, like when the GIs did the (illegal) Sit-Down Strikes in the 30s.

Oh, and I, too, like your sig, it reminds me of some Buddhist stuff I;ve read.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

So you do you agree, both the Democrat and GOP parties are owned by the Corporatists?

Yes or No

Yes, sadly, I think so, too.

Originally Posted by James50

Disappointingly I would have to say yes.

I have been thinking about Deb C's posts. I don't see the conspiracies she does or agree with much of her postings. But one thing I think I do agree with her on is the need to change the culture first. Politics is the tail, culture is the dog.

James50

It appears that shining a bright light on much of the corruption has not made me a very popular person. But that's ok because my intentions for my life is to be as true as possible to what I value as humanly possible. I am always encouraged by brave activists like MLK Jr., Ghandi and others who were not afraid to say that the real power is with the people.

I merely have been trying to expose the roots of an imperial society that organizes for money making. I work and will continue to work for a society that organizes for living. It appears that attempting to hold the spot light on the very institutions that are dismantling the institutions of family, community and democracy, makes one a target for criticism.

Since around 1983 nearly all gains from economic growth has gone to the very richest in this country, as unions have had a decline in membership. The real wages of working people have fallen. We have had a roll backs of social welfare programs, except for the corporation, invention of NAFTA, that has been proven to be destructive. We have and endless war that sucks money from the common good and politicians who are up to their behinds in corporate influence. We are going downhill quickly and it concerns me deeply that so many are still in denial that Obama is in the trap of the corporate state. And he is making some not so good decisons because of that situation.

I think in his heart he would like to end the war and actually stimulate the economy for jobs. But his surrounding himself with corporate and militaristic wolves has only added to his abandoning his real values. It's up to us to hold him accountable to his values. Imperial hedgemony does not bring peace or prosperity to the common person.

My point is, how do we correct what we deny? And it appears that denial is rampant among some of us. For me, a sign of a mature citizen is to address all the dimensions of one's government, both positive and negative. A critical examination is the responsibility of a democratic citizenship. And like I have said before, Obama is a good man, but he is in a broken system that traps even the best presidents. But making excuses for many of his corporate and militaristic decisions will not give him the support he needs to make the right moves.

As David Korten writes in his book, The Great Turning, "The time of reckoning with the consequences of Empire's excess is no longer a future event. It is now upon us. It is a time of unraveling. It is a time to change course from an Empire to an Earth community.

And that is, as awkward as it may seem, what I am attempting to do by sharing the rotten root of our American empire. I need no ones admiration or approval to speak the truth as I see it.

Originally Posted by annla899

Again, COS, I second this. I am tired of being yelled at by the impatient left and bullied by the right. I consider myself a liberal, but in this 4T I'm starting to feel like a centrist. I'd prefer single payer health care. I'd prefer more equitable distribution of wealth and to have a government that tries to make that happen. I'd like to see real jobs return to the US, where we actually make things. Yet, I know we must be careful of the planet and its resources and these are difficult problems that take long-term solutions in a democracy.

There is very little in this country that has happened quickly. Reading about the Civil War 4T has been enlightening. Lincoln was excoriated on many sides. He did disappointing things: suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, allowing slavery in Union slave states. McClellan? Great organizer, terrible general in war. Incrementalism. Many of those on the left seem to have rewritten history to believe that FDR solved all problems immediately and that if we do everything that FDR did it will all be solved NOW. My feeling is that this 4T is more like the Civil War 4T than the Great Depression 4T.

Many of the angry left quote this from FDR:



This was a campaign speech in 1936, four years into his presidency. The Social Security Act passed in 1935--three years into FDR's presidency. Most women and minorities were excluded. Incrementalism. Flawed. Not fair. A start.

FDR does not have a great record on race relations. He was, IMO, a great president, and also a person of his time, as was Lincoln who I rank as the greatest US president. I have a soft spot for Lincoln. It's a bias. Mea culpa.

I agree that the push for equity, decency, and curbing the excesses of the 3T are absolutely necessary. But if I never hear the term "hold his feet to the fire" again, it will be too soon. Find another dang expression. How about "pressure" or "advocate for"? Must we roast body parts?

As a US citizen, the condoning and support of torture by President Bush was the most politically shameful experience of my adult lifetime. I'm not naive. I know the US has tortured, committed genocide, slavery--done some awful things. etc. But to have a 21st century president say that torture is justified, when we lived through the 20th century horror--to live through that--is very painful. It made me ashamed. I had not before been ashamed of my country. Of course I've known we'd done stupid things, ignorant, wrong-headed, but I always believed we had a basic, fundamental decency, even if we were dumb often. For a president to say that torture is one of the things we stand for was nearly unbearable. And I don't care how scary the bad guys were. There are things you don't do because it harms your soul to do it. Torture is one of those things. As far as I'm concerned, George Bush's support of torture harmed the American soul. Like slavery, like the genocide of American Indians, that stuff goes deep.

When Bush became president in 2000 I said to my despairing liberal friends that maybe he wouldn't be so bad. I wanted to give him a chance. I was wrong. He was worse than I imagined.

I am a 1957 Boomer. I came of age in the 70s with Watergate, Viet Nam, My Lai, etc. But unlike Xers, I had an early childhood in the High. To me, this country is the great experiment. There is enormous beauty as well as great failure in what we've done. We struggle all the time. We have, more than many nations I've studied, attempted to right our wrongs. We fail a lot we struggle and backtrack. It's a long road. The vast majority of us are immigrants who have managed to cobble together this nation. The ideals of our government have much to offer history and the future world. In my amateur study of history it seems that more often than not our faces turns toward the better--the right. In the long run of human history, what the US constitution is and what we have done for good and the lessons behind what we haven't done can benefit the future

In the long run, I think the whole idea of nation-states is absurd. But this is what we live in now and will live in long after I'm gone.

This, right now,is another time of struggle and contention.

But if the angry left keeps trying to motivate me through anger and negativity and a constant harping about what a failure Obama is and what is always wrong wrong wrong, then I'm going to ignore them. There are legitimate complaints about some of Obama's policies. But if, as COS said, I'm constantly insulted by the fact that I have some patience and some sense of history, then you are going to turn me off.

And to the extreme right: frankly, you're living in a 3T that's over. Done. Toast. Get over it. I will not, as James' sig line (which I love) says, be motivated by fear. It is a mind-killer.

For the thoughtful conservatives and liberals who are not interested in invective and condemnation and snark: I want to listen.

I appreciate the perspective of this board even if I don't always agree with everyone. Your knowledge and thoughtfulness is invaluable.

What you said. Every word. Thanks.

Originally Posted by annla899

In the long run, I think the whole idea of nation-states is absurd. But this is what we live in now and will live in long after I'm gone.

This, right now,is another time of struggle and contention.

Not if we believe Spengler and Tonybee who (in my interpretation of where we are) would argue we are heading towards a "time of troubles" in the next saeculum which will firmly discredit the nation state model followed by a universal state covering much of the west. In this saeculum I think we see a peaceful resolution which doesn't heal the divide between the red-state nationalists and the blue-state globalists but allows us for a time to peacefully coexist. (Similar to the Glorious Revolution allowing for growth of both the northern and southern colonies), the resolution of the next saeculum formalizes this coexistence in the form of a new framework probably on a global scale (ie an international constitution). In the saeculum after that the globalists triumph and the universal state emerges (an international war of unification, ie civil war on a global scale or perhaps something less destructive). It is refined and perfected in the saeculum after that (ie a global "New Deal") and it is attacked by various movements in the saeculum after that which again splits us this time into into supporters of the universal state and those who wish to move in a new direction (which I think is distinct from the second religiousness which should be growing in intensity throughout as the short term movement would be more about tearing down the universal state rather than what an ideal civilization should be).

In other words, I think those who are worried about a loss of a feeling of American Exceptionalism are correct in their feelings of where things are ultimately heading, but wrong in their belief of where Obama is attempting to take us in the short term and are thus screaming loudly at the wrong person. They aren't going to win but they won't loose for quite some time either. Further, I think this concept will be the key dividing feature between the 2 parties going forward and will define how the various demographic groups align themselves as the realignment continues to ratchet back and forth and solidify.

This places a firm dividing line between left and right wing libertarians. Further as the right wing libertarians and many tea-party conservatives have made clear how they feel about compromising with their fellow nationalistic neoconservatives this should place them firmly outside the range of opinions that are taken seriously in resolving this crisis. Obama's willingness to compromise is not a deficiency, rather it is why he and not the conservative/libertarian tea party members are able to pull together a coalition to move us through the crisis.

Originally Posted by scotths

Not if we believe Spengler and Tonybee who (in my interpretation of where we are) would argue we are heading towards a "time of troubles" in the next saeculum which will firmly discredit the nation state model followed by a universal state covering much of the west. In this saeculum I think we see a peaceful resolution which doesn't heal the divide between the red-state nationalists and the blue-state globalists but allows us for a time to peacefully coexist. (Similar to the Glorious Revolution allowing for growth of both the northern and southern colonies), the resolution of the next saeculum formalizes this coexistence in the form of a new framework probably on a global scale (ie an international constitution). In the saeculum after that the globalists triumph and the universal state emerges (an international war of unification, ie civil war on a global scale or perhaps something less destructive). It is refined and perfected in the saeculum after that (ie a global "New Deal") and it is attacked by various movements in the saeculum after that which again splits us this time into into supporters of the universal state and those who wish to move in a new direction (which I think is distinct from the second religiousness which should be growing in intensity throughout as the short term movement would be more about tearing down the universal state rather than what an ideal civilization should be).

In other words, I think those who are worried about a loss of a feeling of American Exceptionalism are correct in their feelings of where things are ultimately heading, but wrong in their belief of where Obama is attempting to take us in the short term and are thus screaming loudly at the wrong person. They aren't going to win but they won't loose for quite some time either. Further, I think this concept will be the key dividing feature between the 2 parties going forward and will define how the various demographic groups align themselves as the realignment continues to ratchet back and forth and solidify.

This places a firm dividing line between left and right wing libertarians. Further as the right wing libertarians and many tea-party conservatives have made clear how they feel about compromising with their fellow nationalistic neoconservatives this should place them firmly outside the range of opinions that are taken seriously in resolving this crisis. Obama's willingness to compromise is not a deficiency, rather it is why he and not the conservative/libertarian tea party members are able to pull together a coalition to move us through the crisis.

Interesting post, thanks!

I'm also of the opinion that the Universal State will be the result of the Crisis following this one.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It appears that shining a bright light on much of the corruption has not made me a very popular person. But that's ok because my intentions for my life is to be as true as possible to what I value as humanly possible. I am always encouraged by brave activists like MLK Jr., Ghandi and others who were not afraid to say that the real power is with the people.

I merely have been trying to expose the roots of an imperial society that organizes for money making. I work and will continue to work for a society that organizes for living. It appears that attempting to hold the spot light on the very institutions that are dismantling the institutions of family, community and democracy, makes one a target for criticism.

Since around 1983 nearly all gains from economic growth has gone to the very richest in this country, as unions have had a decline in membership. The real wages of working people have fallen. We have had a roll backs of social welfare programs, except for the corporation, invention of NAFTA, that has been proven to be destructive. We have and endless war that sucks money from the common good and politicians who are up to their behinds in corporate influence. We are going downhill quickly and it concerns me deeply that so many are still in denial that Obama is in the trap of the corporate state. And he is making some not so good decisons because of that situation.

I think in his heart he would like to end the war and actually stimulate the economy for jobs. But his surrounding himself with corporate and militaristic wolves has only added to his abandoning his real values. It's up to us to hold him accountable to his values. Imperial hedgemony does not bring peace or prosperity to the common person.

My point is, how do we correct what we deny? And it appears that denial is rampant among some of us. For me, a sign of a mature citizen is to address all the dimensions of one's government, both positive and negative. A critical examination is the responsibility of a democratic citizenship. And like I have said before, Obama is a good man, but he is in a broken system that traps even the best presidents. But making excuses for many of his corporate and militaristic decisions will not give him the support he needs to make the right moves.

As David Korten writes in his book, The Great Turning, "The time of reckoning with the consequences of Empire's excess is no longer a future event. It is now upon us. It is a time of unraveling. It is a time to change course from an Empire to an Earth community.

And that is, as awkward as it may seem, what I am attempting to do by sharing the rotten root of our American empire. I need no ones admiration or approval to speak the truth as I see it.

Deb, you are 110% correct and you're not the one throwing around the insults here. When it comes to denial, there is no shortage, and the easiest way to bury it deeper relies on a whole lot of linguistic twists.

I am not surprised that a lot of boomers hear what you're saying and only respond with predictable name-calling while projecting that as if you were the one doing it: "impatient," "unrealistic," "conspiracies," "radical," "cynical," "spoiled crybabies." Did you use these words? No, you bluntly describe the political situation and the origination of legislation. The people who don't want to hear it take popular refuge as centrists in a broken & rotten system, and they defend themselves from the outsiders as a tribe.

Anyway, thank you. It is a tough & thankless task, but it is important to show how the new center has become nothing but a slightly watered-down version of Bush & Rove's neo-conservatism.

Only in a "post 9-11" world could Democrats submit a once-Republican healthcare bill with an insurance VP's edits - and call it a working-class victory with a straight face on. I don't know how to describe some of the other "progress" like authorizing extra-judicial murder of U.S. citizens. I'd hate to insult the easily offended ones who can brush these kinds of things off as some necessary or acceptable cost.

Originally Posted by independent

Deb, you are 110% correct and you're not the one throwing around the insults here. When it comes to denial, there is no shortage, and the easiest way to bury it deeper relies on a whole lot of linguistic twists.

I am not surprised that a lot of boomers hear what you're saying and only respond with predictable name-calling while projecting that as if you were the one doing it: "impatient," "unrealistic," "conspiracies," "radical," "cynical," "spoiled crybabies." Did you use these words? No, you bluntly describe the political situation and the origination of legislation. The people who don't want to hear it take popular refuge as centrists in a broken & rotten system, and they defend themselves from the outsiders as a tribe.

Anyway, thank you. It is a tough & thankless task, but it is important to show how the new center has become nothing but a slightly watered-down version of Bush & Rove's neo-conservatism.

Only in a "post 9-11" world could Democrats submit a once-Republican healthcare bill with an insurance VP's edits - and call it a working-class victory with a straight face on. I don't know how to describe some of the other "progress" like authorizing extra-judicial murder of U.S. citizens. I'd hate to insult the easily offended ones who can brush these kinds of things off as some necessary or acceptable cost.

Your words were a balm for the activists soul. Thank you!!!

Indy, Deb & Odin:

I think we all pretty much want the same things. We all recognize that the system needs change and that we're nowhere near finished fighting for what we believe is right.

But we need to bring the sizable center along with us (or at least a good percentage of them), or we're not going to succeed in the long run.

I don't really see anyone trying to bring the center over to the "whining, crybaby left." I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Democratic party has been denouncing or outright attacking the left since for the last 20 years I've been watching politics. They buried Dean, they blamed Nader for Bush, they worshipped Clinton because he could be "tough on crime" and simultaneously "easy on the banks."

This adventure in financial & insurance "reform" isn't exactly putting an end to that trend, either. It is strengthening the neo-con middle that is increasingly likely to emerge as a 1T consensus.

Originally Posted by independent

I don't really see anyone trying to bring the center over to the "whining, crybaby left." I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Democratic party has been denouncing or outright attacking the left since for the last 20 years I've been watching politics. They buried Dean, they blamed Nader for Bush, they worshipped Clinton because he could be "tough on crime" and simultaneously "easy on the banks."

This adventure in financial & insurance "reform" isn't exactly putting an end to that trend, either. It is strengthening the neo-con middle that is increasingly likely to emerge as a 1T consensus.

I think you are my new hero!!!

Originally Posted by independent

I don't really see anyone trying to bring the center over to the "whining, crybaby left."

Well, I think Obama is trying to bring the center over to the left. It's just not as quick or as far as some want.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Democratic party has been denouncing or outright attacking the left since for the last 20 years I've been watching politics. They buried Dean, they blamed Nader for Bush, they worshipped Clinton because he could be "tough on crime" and simultaneously "easy on the banks."

Well, if Nader doesn't run in 2000, Gore probably wins Florida, and things would have been different. Perhaps not all to the left's satisfaction, but most likely better than what we ended up with.

This adventure in financial & insurance "reform" isn't exactly putting an end to that trend, either. It is strengthening the neo-con middle that is increasingly likely to emerge as a 1T consensus.

I disagree with your characterization of the center as "neo-con." I think the center is turning against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is questioning interventionism in general.

We have to start somewhere, Indy. We're not done yet. We have to reverse more than thirty years of policies.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Well, I think Obama is trying to bring the center over to the left. It's just not as quick or as far as some want.



Well, if Nader doesn't run in 2000, Gore probably wins Florida, and things would have been different. Perhaps not all to the left's satisfaction, but most likely better than what we ended up with.



I disagree with your characterization of the center as "neo-con." I think the center is turning against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is questioning interventionism in general.

We have to start somewhere, Indy. We're not done yet. We have to reverse more than thirty years of policies.

It appears that the narrow lines between conservatives and liberals have blurred the vision.

Excerpt:
"The bottom line is that, no matter what the reason, Obama seems to be in some important ways significantly to the right of Reagan on the political spectrum. If Reagan ordered the execution of US citizens abroad, he might have been impeached. If Obama tried to give undocumented immigrants blanket amnesty the way Reagan did, he might be impeached."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-u..._b_638947.html


Don't blame Ralph

As far as Nader is concerned, he was a scapegoat for the failure of the Democrats. I mean, look at Gore's running mate, Joe Lieberman. You can't get much more conservative than that.

Nader stood up for human rights and refused to be bought by the powers that be. He was a true consumer advocate. Do you like clean air, air bags, and the Freedom of Information Act? Then credit Nader.


Article written in November 2000: If Gore fails, that failure will belong to him and the Democrats -- not to Nader or his supporters.
By Bruce Shapiro How has Al Gore managed to blow all the advantages of incumbency, prosperity and the Joe Lieberman bounce? How has a sure winner ended up in every national poll trailing a man once universally mocked as an incompetent loser? A daily chorus of Gore surrogates, pundits and editorialists is already chanting the answer: BLAME IT ON RALPH, BLAME IT ON RALPH.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/f...ore/index.html

Scapegoats and stealthy conservative policies can render the citizens blind to reality.

Nader made a fine consumer advocate. But he wasn't presidential material.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Nader made a fine consumer advocate. But he wasn't presidential material.

Sure would liked to have seen him have the opportunity. I seriously doubt with his reputation as an advocate for the common person, that he would have caved to the pressures of Wall Street or surrounded himself with their cronies.

But then, in reality, no person who seriously opposes the American empire would even have a snowballs chance, in you know where, to be president of this country. As a growing number of us are realizing, to be president today, you first have to have the corporate seal of approval.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Indy, Deb & Odin:

I think we all pretty much want the same things. We all recognize that the system needs change and that we're nowhere near finished fighting for what we believe is right.

But we need to bring the sizable center along with us (or at least a good percentage of them), or we're not going to succeed in the long run.

Forget policy positions for a second and just think strategy and tactics. Why has the Right been successful in galvanizing their position? What attracts people who should, by all rights, oppose them to the death? I think a great deal of it is their style: no equivocation, no pandering, no backing down.

It took over 30 years for the right to get as far as they have, and they are quite likely past their peak. They won the argument by not accepting the counterargument as valid. That's what the left did in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s, and they achieved similar results.

If you wish to bring hoi polloi along, I seriously doubt that reason will carry the day. People follow those they sense are leaders. They are also rather non-discriminant, so even the venal and outright horrid can succeed. Look at Hitler, Stalin and <insert the arch-villain of choice>.

But they won't follow someone they find to be weak or obtuse. Obama is inspirational, but aloof. Aloof won't work.

Excerpts from NYT:

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/bu...oice.html?_r=2

Originally Posted by Deb C

Excerpts from NYT:

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/bu...oice.html?_r=2

Since finding out my new COBRA Health insurance would cost me close to $500.00, I ditched it and got insurance through Assurant at $170.00. I believe its similar in built per the above article.

'We can keep our Health Insurance and premiums will not go up', but hey we all got it now, just some of us will have to starve to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Excerpts from NYT:

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

[ .... ]

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/bu...oice.html?_r=2

What does this have to do with Obama's healthcare plan? The article states that plans with small networks existed in the past but were eliminated due to popular demand. Perhaps that will happen again this time, perhaps not. What I don't see is how the healthcare plan created or led to the creation of these plans. Rates were increasing prior to passage of the bill and quality of plans has been declining as a result of a desire not to pay the increasing costs.

On a positive note, those who purchase plans created on the healthcare exchange will likely be able to chose on an individual level if they want a plan of this nature or are willing to pay somewhat more for a plan with a broader selection of Drs. This will offer a set of options to many who previously had no options or were limited to 1 possible plan.

Originally Posted by scotths

What does this have to do with Obama's healthcare plan? The article states that plans with small networks existed in the past but were eliminated due to popular demand. Perhaps that will happen again this time, perhaps not. What I don't see is how the healthcare plan created or led to the creation of these plans. Rates were increasing prior to passage of the bill and quality of plans has been declining as a result of a desire not to pay the increasing costs.

On a positive note, those who purchase plans created on the healthcare exchange will likely be able to chose on an individual level if they want a plan of this nature or are willing to pay somewhat more for a plan with a broader selection of Drs. This will offer a set of options to many who previously had no options or were limited to 1 possible plan.

Who has four years to wait for this Health Care Exchange system to be up and running?

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Who has four years to wait for this Health Care Exchange system to be up and running?

I'd agree it would be better if it were sooner. Some will be able to join temporary plans in the new subsidized high risk pools others will be able to stay with an existing plan in the meantime.

But, that isn't really the question... The article above implies that a decreasing availability of Drs. in some peoples plans as companies switch to lower cost plans is a result of the Obama healthcare plan (Starting the article "As the Obama administration being to enact...") without drawing the connection.