Originally Posted by Deb C

"UnitedHealth Group has lobbied extensively on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2013. The company has spent more than $2.5 million on lobbying overall so far this year."

Key Figure at UnitedHealth Group Was Major Obama Donor

A sterling example of regulatory capture. If deregulating the insurance industry would improve their profits then you would expect them to support Libertarians or other small government types but curiously they don't. A more observant individual would investigate this unexpected behavior but I very much doubt any of the progressives or socialists will because the answer might upset their belief system.

Originally Posted by Galen

A sterling example of regulatory capture. If deregulating the insurance industry would improve their profits then you would expect them to support Libertarians or other small government types but curiously they don't. A more observant individual would investigate this unexpected behavior but I very much doubt any of the progressives or socialists will because the answer might upset their belief system.

Both major parties have been captured, and much of the reason is the success of the Reagan message. Once the GOP was truly ascendent, the Democrats felt the need to be GOP-Lite. So now we have a righteous conservative pro-business party and a more secular, less conservative (not liberal by any means) pro-business party. Capture, complete.

I don't see libertarians being of much help here. The supposed libertarian Tea Party has only made regulatory capture more efficient by removing governement from the process as much as they can, making capture unnecessary. Business is more than capable of reeking havoc without any help from the peanut gallery. There are no socialists or even strong liberals, and the few rock-ribbed conservatives want a more not less business friendly government. In short, there are no opposing forces with any leverage to exert.

The escape from this paradigm will occur when the public finally notices that they are no longer in control. For now, they still believe. When the break occurs, the result will be something none of us could have predicted in advance. Such are 4Ts.

The Democrats are now the conservative Republicans and the Republicans are the fascists. When we citizens understand this, then we can empower ourselves to change the current dysfunctional system.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The Democrats are now the conservative Republicans and the Republicans are the fascists. When we citizens understand this, then we can empower ourselves to change the current dysfunctional system.

Much easier said than done. Think about it. Rabblerousers tend to sound the clarion call, but get ignored because they are whiny ... or talk over people's heads ... or talk down to people ... or are know-it-alls. So the leading edge never raises the temperature one degree. What tends to work is the conversion of a true believer into a sceptic ... then into an active missionary. It helps if the person is typically considered "solid".

Reagan was a converted New Dealer. Find a solid conservative of equal capability who can go the other way.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The Democrats are now the conservative Republicans and the Republicans are the fascists. When we citizens understand this, then we can empower ourselves to change the current dysfunctional system.

Now Deb, don't sell the Democrats short like that; they are every bit the totalitarians that the "members of the other team" are.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

They'll never quit. They'll be pried away kicking and screaming. It will help to take away their profits first, though. Motivation to resist will be lower if the stakes are also lower.

Then shouldn't you be concerned that profits for insurers are currently hitting new records, stocks are outperforming the market, and CEOs are projecting "even greater revenues" than originally thought?

There's a huge difference between starving the beast and feeding it.

"Both parties, after all, are wedded to a private enterprise system utterly based on economic inequality at home and imperialist wars abroad. Can this be honestly doubted by liberals and progressives, even as they undoubtedly will pull the lever for Hilary Clinton and more of the same in 2016?"

U.S. Society Is in Deep Trouble


For all the enervating political tumult and shouting emanating from Washington these days, there is remarkably little to show for it except what has become virtually routine political paralysis.

None of the key differences that are fought over by the politicians seem to directly relate to these five most crucial and threatening specific issues confronting the American people:


1. The erosion of American democracy by a political system flagrantly dominated by great wealth, the big corporations, Wall Street and the major banks. One person may have one vote, but a billionaire — by virtue of funding certain candidates — has the equivalent of thousands of votes on Election Day and in the federal and state legislatures and executive offices thereafter. This more closely resembles an oligarchy (rule by a small group of powerful people and interests) than genuine democracy.

For the other four threatening issues:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/u-...-deep-trouble/

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Then shouldn't you be concerned that profits for insurers are currently hitting new records, stocks are outperforming the market, and CEOs are projecting "even greater revenues" than originally thought?

There's a huge difference between starving the beast and feeding it.

We, I should say you - I can get Medicare, have a choice between horrible and bad. I'm not a cheerleader for bad, but it seems better than horrible. If you want to get the insurance companies out, you'll need to elect a supermajority of Democrats, or find others of like mind and elect them. I'm not a Democrat, so either is better than the current arrangement. The other choice is to use the Vermont plan, and add "Public Option" to the list of choices. That can be done at the state level. Good hunting.

Originally Posted by Deb C

"Both parties, after all, are wedded to a private enterprise system utterly based on economic inequality at home and imperialist wars abroad. Can this be honestly doubted by liberals and progressives, even as they undoubtedly will pull the lever for Hilary Clinton and more of the same in 2016?"

U.S. Society Is in Deep Trouble


For all the enervating political tumult and shouting emanating from Washington these days, there is remarkably little to show for it except what has become virtually routine political paralysis.

None of the key differences that are fought over by the politicians seem to directly relate to these five most crucial and threatening specific issues confronting the American people:


1. The erosion of American democracy by a political system flagrantly dominated by great wealth, the big corporations, Wall Street and the major banks. One person may have one vote, but a billionaire — by virtue of funding certain candidates — has the equivalent of thousands of votes on Election Day and in the federal and state legislatures and executive offices thereafter. This more closely resembles an oligarchy (rule by a small group of powerful people and interests) than genuine democracy.

For the other four threatening issues:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/u-...-deep-trouble/

Sadly, I doubt the country is ready. I'm not sure what will have to occur to get it ready, but all the arguments on the table today are right of center. Until that changes, I doubt change can happen.

If through all the Strum and Drang, you're looking for a road map as to where it's all headed over the next year and the final destination, here you go, again -



How many will sign up? Who will have to change their current insurance? Who will not see any impact? Who will pay a fine? Who gets screwed (hint - see the poor in staes with Republican governors/legislations)?

It's all right there, but I realize that's hard to accept if it doesn't conveniently align with your worldview

I return you to the usual hysteria "that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain."

Strum and Drang - (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊʁm ʊnt ˈdʁaŋ], literally "Storm and Drive", "Storm and Urge", though conventionally translated as "Storm and Stress")[1] is a proto-Romantic movement in German literature and music taking place from the late 1760s to the early 1780s, in which individual subjectivity and, in particular, extremes of emotion were given free expression in reaction to the perceived constraints of rationalism imposed by the Enlightenment and associated aesthetic movements. The period is named for Friedrich Maximilian Klinger's play Sturm und Drang, which was first performed by Abel Seyler's famed theatrical company in 1777.

Who says history doesn't repeat itself--- over and over again.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If through all the Strum and Drang, you're looking for a road map as to where it's all headed over the next year and the final destination, here you go, again -


How many will sign up? Who will have to change their current insurance? Who will not see any impact? Who will pay a fine? Who gets screwed (hint - see the poor in staes with Republican governors/legislations)?

It's all right there, but I realize that's hard to accept if it doesn't conveniently align with your worldview

I return you to the usual hysteria "that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain."

Who says history doesn't repeat itself--- over and over again.

Nitpick: it's sturm und drang. Other than that, have at it.

BTW, where have you been lately?

While the Strum and Drang continues at full tilt, here's one of the scores in the real game -

# of sign ups for single payer

Obamacare - 10s of thousands for Medicaid

Deb and other whiners - zero

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...3-EFB390A9FD25

Medicaid enrollment surges ahead of ACA sign-ups

And an example of how the Far Right takes this and spins it as an ACA fiasco -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...acares-health/

Rush on Medicaid could spell trouble for ObamaCare’s health - Fox News

Of course, those Progressives that are actually interested in helping people get single payer (as opposed to just whining on Internet chat rooms) know where the real battles are being fought -

VA -

VA NOV. ELECTIONS: Cuccinelli's top target rest of race: 'Obamacare'

RICHMOND (AP) — Ken Cuccinelli last week rolled out what he believes is a game-changer in his Republican race for governor against Democrat Terry McAuliffe: the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” for Cuccinelli’s purposes.

His loathing for the Democratic-passed law is in many ways his calling card. It was the first action to put him in the national limelight and rocketed him to superhero status among the nation’s conservative tea party movement when he became the first state attorney general to sue challenging the law’s constitutionality — just one day after Obama signed it.

On Tuesday, it became a major feature of Cuccinelli’s struggling campaign.

...
McAuliffe defends his position as a pragmatic one, noting that the federal government is obligated to fully pay for the first three years of expanding Medicaid to as many as 400,000 Virginia working poor. That Cuccinelli would deny Virginia the federal money and break with Republican governors in Ohio, Arizona and Florida who have approved Medicaid expansion “shows just how far outside the mainstream Cuccinelli is,” said McAuliffe spokesman Josh Schwerin.

For Cuccinelli, however, his strategy is clear and he’s comfortable with it....

NC -

McCrory rejects call for special session to expand Medicaid

OH -

Ohio Governor Defies G.O.P. With Defense of Social Safety Net

TX -

Texas Governor's race: Wendy Davis needs to win border, expert says

...Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act also could be an issue with appeal to border voters.

Perry this year refused to expand the federal health insurance program that would have covered people making up to 138 percent of federal poverty guidelines. The federal government would have paid all of the additional cost in the first three years of the program and 90 percent each year after that.

The Texas Lyceum poll indicated that Hispanics favored expansion by only a 47 percent to 44 percent margin....

FL -

After saying no to feds on Medicaid expansion, Florida may ask for more money

There's more, lots more -

--but why should Far Lefties stoop to get their hands dirty when its so much easier and cleaner to whine on internet chat rooms?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Nitpick: it's sturm und drang. Other than that, have at it.

BTW, where have you been lately?

Best guess? Waiting for the approved bullet points to be released*.

*Standard bunk response incoming in 3.... 2.... 1....

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Nitpick: it's sturm und drang. Other than that, have at it.

BTW, where have you been lately?

In the land where they serve American (or Freedom, take your pick) pomme frits and occasionally a relatively okay Bordeaux to wash it down with. Takes away any urge to spend time on the Internet.

By the way, while I was away, did we invade Syria? Did we ramp up drone strikes? Did we re-invade Iraq? Does anyone remember the IRS or Benghazi scandals? Has there been a sighting of Glick or has Debs marked some more words for us? Death panels? Virgina going Red?

The only thing that seems to have happened while away is t-baggers getting all concern about folks not being able to sign up for Obamacare on the website. Did they suddenly grow a heart or just bigger crocodile tear ducts?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Best guess? Waiting for the approved bullet points to be released*.

*Standard bunk response incoming in 3.... 2.... 1....

I can see where facts would seem like bullets to someone like you.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Who gets screwed (hint - see the poor in staes with Republican governors/legislations)?

It's amazing that the "left" should be so proud of passing a bill that screws the poor in the poorest parts of the country. It's an amazing triumph of bipartisanship, that we could put aside our differences and plunder the working poor - together!

Please tell us more about how compassionate and caring you are, if you have time in between begging for your investment bailouts, that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7_s0TUgwzM

- some little facts that don't get reported -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...for-50-or-less

Obama Admin: Half Of Young Americans Could Buy Insurance For $50 Or Less

Nearly half of young Americans eligible to buy insurance on HealthCare.gov could pay $50 or less a month for coverage, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a report released Monday. HHS is touting the affordability of insurance on the exchanges in part because young adults are crucial to making the health care reform law's finances work.

The conclusion was based on data from the 30-plus states where insurance is being sold through HealthCare.gov, for adults ages 18 to 34, who qualify for tax credits through the law. The analysis found that 46 percent could pay $50 or less for a bronze plan (which covers 60 percent of costs), and 66 percent could pay $100 or less.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see libertarians being of much help here. The supposed libertarian Tea Party has only made regulatory capture more efficient by removing governement from the process as much as they can, making capture unnecessary. Business is more than capable of reeking havoc without any help from the peanut gallery. There are no socialists or even strong liberals, and the few rock-ribbed conservatives want a more not less business friendly government. In short, there are no opposing forces with any leverage to exert.

As usual you missed the point completely, if laissez faire was to their benefit then they would support small government types and yet they don't. The Tea Party tends to be focused on lowering taxes but do not have a consistent philosophy regarding the role of government, with the result of other than lower taxes they tend act like establishment Republicans in most other respects. There is a group of about seven representatives such as Justin Amash that call themselves the Liberty Caucus that do have such a philosophy and Boehner and company do not like them at all.

As another poster pointed out the Democrats are just as totalitarian as the Republicans so at best they can be considered different wings of the same political party.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

- a bill that screws the poor in the poorest parts of the country.

On the very remote chance that something has changed since I was away, do you care to back that up with some facts?

[cue the crickets]

Perhaps in my long absence, you forgot - I don't do magic pony land.

Originally Posted by Galen

As usual you missed the point completely, if laissez faire was to their benefit then they would support small government types and yet they don't. The Tea Party tends to be focused on lowering taxes but do not have a consistent philosophy regarding the role of government, with the result of other than lower taxes they tend act like establishment Republicans in most other respects. There is a group of about seven representatives such as Justin Amash that call themselves the Liberty Caucus that do have such a philosophy and Boehner and company do not like them at all.

As another poster pointed out the Democrats are just as totalitarian as the Republicans so at best they can be considered different wings of the same political party.

I pray every night that voters will see no difference between the baggers and establishment GOPers.

Keep on keepin on with this meme! Two thumbs up!

Originally Posted by Galen

As usual you missed the point completely, if laissez faire was to their benefit then they would support small government types and yet they don't. The Tea Party tends to be focused on lowering taxes but do not have a consistent philosophy regarding the role of government, with the result of other than lower taxes they tend act like establishment Republicans in most other respects. There is a group of about seven representatives such as Justin Amash that call themselves the Liberty Caucus that do have such a philosophy and Boehner and company do not like them at all.

As another poster pointed out the Democrats are just as totalitarian as the Republicans so at best they can be considered different wings of the same political party.

They focus on things they want, and ignore things they don't, and oppose things they find objectionable. Right now, they see no one trying to restrict them, so they don't care about that. Now taxation can always go down, so they focus there.

Remember, we had libertarian government in the 19th century. The Trusts owned just about eveyting, and set the agenda for the government as well as the populous as a whole. I don't see JP Morgan Chase finding that objectionable. Plus, their taxes would be even lower. A win for them all around. So why do they hang with the two major parties? Because being obviously greedy may waken the sleeping electorate. So they go with success they can achieve easily, and count themselves AOG. Why make waves when the gain will be so small?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It's amazing that the "left" should be so proud of passing a bill that screws the poor in the poorest parts of the country. It's an amazing triumph of bipartisanship, that we could put aside our differences and plunder the working poor - together!

Please tell us more about how compassionate and caring you are, if you have time in between begging for your investment bailouts, that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7_s0TUgwzM

No, the SCOTUS made this necessary. The law made Medicaid mandatory, remember? That the GOP uses this to beat on poor people is horrid, but how would you propose to fix it? Barring an election victory, or sudden bouts of extreme embarrassment, this stands for now.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I pray every night that voters will see no difference between the baggers and establishment GOPers.

There is a difference but it relates only to taxes which will create some interesting wrinkles in budget fights. Since the tax issue really is at the core of what they are, this is to be expected. The only way they can get any tax decreases is to decrease spending, many of them do not particularly care where they come from, which puts them at odds with establishment Republicans and the Democrats and creates the debt ceiling and shutdown fights.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Remember, we had libertarian government in the 19th century. The Trusts owned just about eveyting, and set the agenda for the government as well as the populous as a whole. I don't see JP Morgan Chase finding that objectionable. Plus, their taxes would be even lower. A win for them all around. So why do they hang with the two major parties? Because being obviously greedy may waken the sleeping electorate. So they go with success they can achieve easily, and count themselves AOG. Why make waves when the gain will be so small?

Uh yeah, Morgan & Rockefeller, like all of the other robber barons, built their empires on favorable national banking tax rates & generous federal railroad subsidies.

There's a direct line from "government corruption" to "too big to fail." They are no strangers to using public policy and regulation to shut down competition and enrich their own industries.

Originally Posted by Galen

There is a difference but it relates only to taxes which will create some interesting wrinkles in budget fights. Since the tax issue really is at the core of what they are, this is to be expected. The only way they can get any tax decreases is to decrease spending, many of them do not particularly care where they come from, which puts them at odds with establishment Republicans and the Democrats and creates the debt ceiling and shutdown fights.

I'm hoping it creates electoral unemployment, so the GOP-TP can enjoy all the benefits they've cut to the bone.