View Full Version : drinking the socialist "kool-aid"
just to get this out for whatever feedback or disagreement anyone wants to offer. i wrote this as a rough draft for some underground online mag i sometimes blog for. just my own narcissistic contribution to the cyberspace.
For months now, I have been hearing and reading tirade after tirade and rant after rant about the great socialist charge that President Obama has been leading against the American people. The only thing louder than the din of all the crazed lackeys making such claims is that of resounding laughter, not from the amused, but rather from Corporate America, who has to be resonating such jolly that the American public has been foolish enough to buy this nonsense.
Conservatives have been trumpeting the charge that Obama is really the incarnation of Robert Owen. Really? A president who, once put into office, proceeded to put hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars into a failing Wall Street and cut a deal with pharmaceutical lobbyists is a student of Marx?
Some conservatives will actually have you believe that it is the pharmaceutical industry that is being duped by Obama when they agreed to cut the price of medicine by eighty billion dollars over the next ten years. Rush Limbaugh even stated that Obama is essentially extorting the drug companies with this deal by getting them to concede the 80 billion dollars in savings in exchange for the government no longer insisting that it regulate the cost of medicine (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908120039).
What Limbaugh does not go on to point out is that 80 billion dollars is only 2% of the drug companies' projected ten year earnings of roughly 2.8 trillion dollars (http://www.imshealth.com/imshealth/05_01_08MM&MPharmaTopDiana.pdf ).
The price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a net increase of over 50 percent which is over four times the rate of general inflation. So while other countries successfully regulate the cost of medicine (prices are 35 to 55 % lower in these nations http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/14/1375 , Obama has just decided against the U.S. joining that list of more cost efficient nations. The VA manages to keep the cost of drugs down by bargaining and medicare once did as well until the Bush administration put a stop to that. Obama has essentially perpetuated the fiscal irresponsibility of Bush in this regard. Yet, conservatives such as Limbaugh will somehow sell us the socialist spin on this arrangement.
This, on top of the financial sector bailout, illustrates the theme of the Obama administration: slightly alter the same species of capitalism we have had over the last thirty years to a slightly more regulated, benevolent breed without significantly altering the fundamental traits.
The fomer chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Simon Johnson, wrote an article, published in The Atlantic, about Obama's pandering to Wall Street titled "the quiet coup". Johnson argues that:
"Big banks...have only gained political strength since the crisis began... With the financial system so fragile, the damage that a major bank failure could cause...is much greater than it would be during ordinary times. The banks have been exploiting this fear as they wring favorable deals out of Washington. Bank of America obtained its second bailout package (in January) after warning the government that it might not be able to go through with the acquisition of Merrill Lynch, a prospect that Treasury did not want to consider." (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice/4 ).
Someone should telll Limbaugh this is the real face of extortion and then proceed to notify all of those denizens buying into the 'socialist cries' that socialist governments do not negotiate bailouts with banks. In fact, had Obama been more legitimately "progressive" he would have nationalized the bank industry. As Johnson pointed out: "Nationalization would not imply permanent state ownership. The IMF’s advice would be, essentially: scale up the standard Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation process. An FDIC "intervention" is basically a government-managed bankruptcy procedure for banks. It would allow the government to wipe out bank shareholders, replace failed management, clean up the balance sheets, and then sell the banks back to the private sector." When Obama added so many members of the financial sector to his administration I first became concerned at that point because of their backgrounds. It turns out that they have gone on to protect the industry at the expense of true reform.
So while Obama has warned Wall Street CEO's that it his administration which stands between the banks and the angry mobs with the pitchforks he has essentially nursed the banks instead. While he has suggested the government should regulate medicine , he has made compromises with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and now stands on the brink of eliminating the single payer option. Has President Obama metamorphasized while in office ? Not so much, it seems. Apparently, while initiating his projected run for office he voted in favor of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a bill that was essentially tort reform aimed at limiting the scope and power of the class action law suit against corporations. Was Obama tipping his hat to potential campaign contibutors? Was this his wink and a nod to corporate sponsors?
Conservative opponents still insist on labeling Obama as a socialist and while on the surface such a position appears blatantly ridiculous, once rethought, it appears to be ingenious (even if inadvertently so). Why? Because it gets people to assume that an obvious capitalist who operated his campaign under the auspices of "change" is affecting the American economy, not because of running the same neoliberal polices that have churned through the White House over the last three decades, but due to his socialist tendencies. That is, get the masses to think that what is already capitalism is socialism and you get capitalism to shift even further to the right (through elections).
The right is not afraid of the left that exists on Capitol Hill. The right fears the shift of the American public to the left on certain issues. Health care would be the perfect example on this and thus, we see the dramatic effort being made by the right against health care reform. It is not the proposed health care legislation of Obama that the right is in opposition to. It is the health care reform desired by the people that is of concern.
"A Sept. 2-5, 2004, survey by the Civil Society Institute, a Newton Centre (Mass.) nonprofit group, found 67% of Americans think it's a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27% dissenting. Support for a government-directed universal insurance system is strong, despite GOP warnings about socialized medicine." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_20/b3933001_mz001.htm
Reflecting a shift in thinking over the past five years among U.S. physicians, a new study shows a solid majority of doctors — 59 percent — now supports national health insurance. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/most_doctors_support.php
Business Week's poll and article was essentially indicating that people and voters looking for safety nets are not so much aligned to policies by ideology as they are by pragmatics. To combat the resonance of urgency, charlatan opponents of changes that would diminish profits for the elite, rush in with their tactics of chaos. The strategy ? Confuse the electorate with misinformation. Tell them that health care reform is about death squads and socialism.
HR676, or the single-payer health insurance plan, would cut administrative costs that account for one-third of every health care dollar spent. $300 billion in annual savings would serve to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance.The president's plan leaves the health insurance corporation's administrative costs in place. This was pointed out in the Michael Moore film "Sicko" (a film that was vehemently attacked by the right and the insurance industry), when he stated that "obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place."
Despite this, conservatives are hoping that people will be gullable enough to believe the notion that Obama has appointed his czar, Ezekiel Emmanuel, to serve as the government's appointed Dr. Death. Sarah Palin even noted on her Facebook page (one has to wonder what Thomas Jefferson could have done with a Facebook page) that "the America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel'… Such a system is downright evil.". The right is somehow trying to distort a ten page section of the legislation that deals with "advanced care planning" consultations.
During an interview on the Fred Thompson show, former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsey McCaughey stated " "this is a vicious assault on elderly people, all to do what's in society's best interest, or your family's best, and cut your life short" but the intent of the measure is not for doctors to tell patients what to do, but rather to give doctors more incentives to talk to patients about all of their options.
The problem that does exist, however, goes back to the health insurance companies and some of the issues regarding medicare advantage. Insurers are in the practice of lemon dropping patients by creating beauracratic snags for patients who are then forced to drop their insurer in favor of medicare. For the insurance industry, reform means expanding their business paradigm to include more individuals in their plans while shifting the higher costs to the government (taxpayers). Basically, they want high-risk people in a separate program to be funded by the government. I am not sure how Sarah Palin would defend this model of health insurance coverage.
So as health care reform issues, auto industry and financial sector bailouts continue to demand the attention of the American public we will continue to see the right press on with the insane charges that somehow we have inherited a president who has gone Fidel Castro on us, all the while snickering over the fact that there are people out there actually drinking the kool-aid.
hope4dopes
08-31-2009, 04:34 PM
just to get this out for whatever feedback or disagreement anyone wants to offer. i wrote this as a rough draft for some underground online mag i sometimes blog for. just my own narcissistic contribution to the cyberspace.
drinking the socialist kool-aid
for months now, i have been hearing and reading tirade after tirade and rant after rant about the great socialist charge that president obama has been leading against the american people. the only thing louder than the din of all the crazed lackeys making such claims is that of resounding laughter, not from the amused, but rather from corporate america, who has to be resonating such jolly that the american public has been foolish enough to buy this nonsense.
conservatives have been trumpeting the charge that obama is really the incarnation of robert owen. really? a president who, once put into office, proceeded to put hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars into a failing wall street and cut a deal with pharmaceutical lobbyists is a student of marx?
some conservatives will actually have you believe that it is the pharmaceutical industry that is being duped by obama when they agreed to cut the price of medicine by eighty billion dollars over the next ten years. rush limbaugh even stated that obama is essentially extorting the drug companies by this deal by getting them to concede the 80 billion dollars in savings in exchange for the government no longer insisting that it regulate the cost of medicine (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908120039 (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908120039)).
what limbaugh does not go on to point out is that 80 billion dollars is only 2% of the drug companies' projected ten year earnings of roughly 2.8 trillion dollars (http://www.imshealth.com/imshealth/05_01_08MM&MPharmaTopDiana.pdf (http://www.imshealth.com/imshealth/05_01_08MM&MPharmaTopDiana.pdf) ). the price of schering-plough's top-selling allergy pill, claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a net increase of over 50 percent which is over four times the rate of general inflation. so while other countries successfully regulate the cost of medicine (prices are 35 to 55 % lower in these nations http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/14/1375 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/14/1375) , obama has just decided against the U.S. joining that list of more cost efficient nations. the VA manages to keep the cost of drugs down by bargaining and medicare once did as well until the Bush administration put a stop to that. obama has essentially perpetuated the fiscal irresponsibility of bush in this regard. yet, conservatives such as limbaugh will somehow sell us the socialist spin on this arrangement.
this, on top of the financial sector bailout, illustrates the theme of the obama administration: slightly alter the same species of capitalism we have had over the last thirty years to a slightly more regulated, benevolent breed without significantly altering the fundamentals traits.
the fomer chief economist of the international monetary fund (IMF), simon johnson, wrote an article, published in the atlantic, about obama's pandering to wall street titled "the quiet coup". johnson argues that:
"Big banks...have only gained political strength since the crisis began... With the financial system so fragile, the damage that a major bank failure could cause...is much greater than it would be during ordinary times. The banks have been exploiting this fear as they wring favorable deals out of Washington. Bank of America obtained its second bailout package (in January) after warning the government that it might not be able to go through with the acquisition of Merrill Lynch, a prospect that Treasury did not want to consider." (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice/4 (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice/4) ).
someone should telll limbaugh this is the real face of extortion and then proceed to notify all of those denizens buying into the 'socialist cries' that socialist governments do not negotiate bailouts with banks. in fact, had obama been more legitimately "progressive" he would have nationalized the bank industry. as johnson pointed out: "Nationalization would not imply permanent state ownership. The IMF’s advice would be, essentially: scale up the standard Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation process. An FDIC “intervention” is basically a government-managed bankruptcy procedure for banks. It would allow the government to wipe out bank shareholders, replace failed management, clean up the balance sheets, and then sell the banks back to the private sector." when obama added so many members of the financial sector to his administration i first became concerned at that point because of their backgrounds. it turns out that they have gone on to protect the industry at the expense of true reform.
and so while obama has warned wall street CEO's that his administration stands before the banks and the angry mobs with the pitchforks he has essentially nursed them. while he has suggested the government should regulate medicine , he has made compromises with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and now stands on the brink of eliminating the single payer option. but has president obama metamorphasized while in office. not so much it seems. apparently, while initiating his projected run for office he voted in favor of the class action fairness act (CAFA), a bill that was essentially tort reform aimed at limiting the scope and power of the class action law suit against corporations. was obama tipping his hat to potential campaign contibutors? was this his wink and a nod to corporate sponsors?
yet conservative opponents argue that obama is a socialist and while on the surface such a position appears so ludicrous, once rethought, it appears to be ingenious (even if inadvertently so). why? because it gets people to assume that an obvious capitalist who operated his campaign under the auspices of "change" is affecting the american economy, not because of running the same neoliberal polices that have churned through the white house over the last three decades, but due to his socialist tendencies. that is, get the masses to think that what is already capitalism is socialism and you get capitalism to shift even further to the right (through elections).
the right is not afraid of the left that exists on capitol hill. the right fears the shift of the american public to the left on certain issues. health care would be the perfect example on this and thus, we see the dramatic effort being made by the right againgt health care reform. it is not the proposed health care legislation of obama that the right is in opposition to. it is the health care reform desired by the people that is of concern.
"A Sept. 2-5, 2004, survey by the Civil Society Institute, a Newton Centre (Mass.) nonprofit group, found 67% of Americans think it's a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27% dissenting. Support for a government-directed universal insurance system is strong, despite GOP warnings about socialized medicine." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_20/b3933001_mz001.htm (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_20/b3933001_mz001.htm)
Reflecting a shift in thinking over the past five years among U.S. physicians, a new study shows a solid majority of doctors — 59 percent — now supports national health insurance. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/most_doctors_support.php
business week's poll and article was essentially indicating that people and voters looking for safety nets are not so much aligned to policies by ideology as they are by pragmatics. to combat the resonance of urgency, charlatan opponents of changes that would diminish profits for the elite, rush in with their tactics of chaos. the strategy ? confuse the electorate with misinformation. tell them that health care reform is about death squads and socialism. HR676, or the single-payer health insurance plan, would cut administrative costs that account for one-third of every health care dollar spent. $300 billion in annual savings would serve to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance. the president's plan leaves the health insurance corporation's administrative costs in place - this was pointed out in the michael moore film "sicko" (a film that was vehemently attacked by the right and the insurance industry), when he stated that "obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place."
despite this, conservatives are hoping that people will be gullable enough to believe the notion that obama has appointed his czar, ezekiel emmanuel, to serve as the government's appointed dr. death. sarah palin even noted on her facebook page (one has to wonder what thomas jefferson could have done with a facebook page) that "the America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel'… Such a system is downright evil.". the right is somehow trying to distort a ten page section of the legislation that deals with "advanced care planning" consultations.
during an interview on the fred thompson show, former new york lieutenant governor betsey mccaughey stated " "this is a vicious assault on elderly people, all to do what's in society's best interest, or your family's best, and cut your life short" but the intent of the measure is not for doctors to tell patients what to do, but rather to give doctors more incentives to talk to patients about all of their options. the problem that does exist, however, really goes back to the health insurance companies because of the issues regarding medicare advantage. insurers are in the practice of lemon dropping patients by creating beaureaucratic snags for patients who are then forced to drop their insurer in favor of medicare. for the insurance industry, reform means expanding their business paradigm to include more individuals in their plans while shifting the higher costs to the government (taxpayers). basically, they want high-risk people in a separate program to be funded by the government. i am not sure how sarah palin would defend this model of health insurance coverage.
so as health care reform issues, auto industry and financial sector bailouts
continue to demand the attention of the american public we will continue to see the right press on with the insane charges that somehow we have inherited a president who has gone fidel castro on us, all the while snickering over the fact that there are people out there actually drinking the kool-aid.
Don't give up your day job.
clambake
08-31-2009, 04:42 PM
easy micca. this wasn't written for people like you.
johnsmith
08-31-2009, 04:47 PM
First thing I'd do if I was the OP is go and buy a keyboard with a 'shift' key. Just seems to make sense to me.
First thing I'd do if I was the OP is go and buy a keyboard with a 'shift' key. Just seems to make sense to me.
i never use the shift key on forums but obviously changed the content on the actual site it posts at.
hasn't anyone ever heard of archy and mehitabel ?
but to make it more user friendly, i have submitted and posted the upper case version of it.
DarrinS
08-31-2009, 05:15 PM
q2jijuj1ysw
DarrinS
08-31-2009, 05:16 PM
Or, if you don't have 20 minutes.
SPq6_7AFsp4
clambake
08-31-2009, 05:44 PM
wow, 29 minutes of youtube.
is this a new record.....mr. birther?
DarrinS
08-31-2009, 05:58 PM
wow, 29 minutes of youtube.
is this a new record.....mr. birther?
good one
hope4dopes
08-31-2009, 06:34 PM
easy micca. this wasn't written for people like you. Who is catro !
hope4dopes
08-31-2009, 06:35 PM
easy micca. this wasn't written for people like you.
Damn skippy
clambake
08-31-2009, 06:43 PM
Who is catro !
you wrote it. thats why i asked.
mookie2001
08-31-2009, 06:57 PM
can someone please post some youtubes for me to watch instead of reading
hope4dopes
08-31-2009, 07:34 PM
you wrote it. thats why i asked.
Good catch, my bad
Stringer_Bell
08-31-2009, 10:55 PM
Socialist "kool-aid?" That's inherently racist, I don't even know that I can bother reading the book you posted after seeing that.
DarrinS
09-01-2009, 07:53 AM
Socialist "kool-aid?" That's inherently racist, I don't even know that I can bother reading the book you posted after seeing that.
"Drinking the kool-aid" is a reference to the blind followers of Jim Jones at Jonestown.
Are you saying it's racist because black people like kool-aid? I don't get it.
That's kinda like the man who thought the term "black hole" was racist.
From the article:
The price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a net increase of over 50 percent which is over four times the rate of general inflation.
Google "Schering-Plough Lobbyist Senator" - and JUST LOOK at all the names that turn up. Sons, brothers, wives, in-laws of some VERY recognizable names. Extended the patent, extended the patent, etc...etc....etc.... didn't allow generics to be made NOR did wasi it allowed to go over the counter (Which ultimately cut its price by 95% when it happened). BTW, many, if not MOST of the names you'll find ARE NOT Republicans.
No, they are not "Socialist" in the traditional, REAL sense of the word; polticians are power hungry; the more the govt. DOES, the more they have to sell; the more jobs there are for their friends and associates; more, more, more. All of you Lackeys supporting them? Easily as stupid and as duped as any "dittohead" out there. And, frankly, you are a hell of a lot more dangerous; because you are the ones giving the GOVERNMENT the rope to hang us with, while you run around being afraid of evil corporations....ahhhhhhh. Beware Govt. Inc.
Also, Obama getting an $8B concession from Pharama over the next 10 years.
$8 B off of what exactly?
Sounds eerily similar to his "Jobs Saved" rhetoric. Sounds good; idiot lefties pee themselves; means nothing.
Obama SOLD OUT to Pharma; deal with it.
LnGrrrR
09-01-2009, 09:03 AM
"Drinking the kool-aid" is a reference to the blind followers of Jim Jones at Jonestown.
Are you saying it's racist because black people like kool-aid? I don't get it.
That's kinda like the man who thought the term "black hole" was racist.
LOL at StringerBell not knowing the origin of the term "drinking the kool-aid"...
From the article:
Google "Schering-Plough Lobbyist Senator" - and JUST LOOK at all the names that turn up. Sons, brothers, wives, in-laws of some VERY recognizable names. Extended the patent, extended the patent, etc...etc....etc.... didn't allow generics to be made NOR did wasi it allowed to go over the counter (Which ultimately cut its price by 95% when it happened). BTW, many, if not MOST of the names you'll find ARE NOT Republicans.
No, they are not "Socialist" in the traditional, REAL sense of the word; polticians are power hungry; the more the govt. DOES, the more they have to sell; the more jobs there are for their friends and associates; more, more, more. All of you Lackeys supporting them? Easily as stupid and as duped as any "dittohead" out there. And, frankly, you are a hell of a lot more dangerous; because you are the ones giving the GOVERNMENT the rope to hang us with, while you run around being afraid of evil corporations....ahhhhhhh. Beware Govt. Inc.
at what point in the blog do i specifically state that only republicans are benefitting from pharmaceutical sales? in fact, i called out obama for himself catering to the big $ of the drug industry. the whole point is that for anyone who thinks for a second that we have entered some socialist tenure in history has a limited understanding of socialism as well as neoliberalism. barrack obama has far, far more in common with ronald reagan than he ever did with hugo chavez. if anyone really thinks it is the government running the show and not vice versa, then they are being duped indeed. the two entities are engaged in a fruitful symbiotic relationship.
TeyshaBlue
09-01-2009, 09:54 AM
LOL at StringerBell not knowing the origin of the term "drinking the kool-aid"...
No shit. I hope he wasn't serious.:lol:lol
at what point in the blog do i specifically state that only republicans are benefitting from pharmaceutical sales? in fact, i called out obama for himself catering to the big $ of the drug industry. the whole point is that for anyone who thinks for a second that we have entered some socialist tenure in history has a limited understanding of socialism as well as neoliberalism. barrack obama has far, far more in common with ronald reagan than he ever did with hugo chavez. if anyone really thinks it is the government running the show and not vice versa, then they are being duped indeed. the two entities are engaged in a fruitful symbiotic relationship.
OF COURSE the government is "running the show" - they have the power; now if the people in positions of prominence in govt. choose to USE that power to help private individuals and corporations who do favors for them; that's there choice. (and EVERY govt. does this; "socialist", "fascist"; you name it - the govt. having POWER is the problem, no matter what you call it) Doesn't change the fact that the legal authority to do what they do derives from the govt! Don't give them the power in the first place, and it can't be used for those evil corporations, can it?
I could give a shit about the Semantics of the name for what Obama is doing, or trying to do; he IS trying to transfer more control and influence to Washington; and I oppose THAT , no matter what you call it.
OF COURSE the government is "running the show" - they have the power; now if the people in positions of prominence in govt. choose to USE that power to help private individuals and corporations who do favors for them; that's there choice. (and EVERY govt. does this; "socialist", "fascist"; you name it - the govt. having POWER is the problem, no matter what you call it) Doesn't change the fact that the legal authority to do what they do derives from the govt! Don't give them the power in the first place, and it can't be used for those evil corporations, can it?
I could give a shit about the Semantics of the name for what Obama is doing, or trying to do; he IS trying to transfer more control and influence to Washington; and I oppose THAT , no matter what you call it.
i never called it anything. the point was that it is not socialism. it is neoliberalism and it the same economic policy that we have been operating under since the end of carter's presidency. every president since then has carried on with the same agenda.
am i correct in assuming that you prefer power in the states?
RandomGuy
09-01-2009, 11:55 AM
Every Democratic president sind 1900 has been decried as a raving socialist.
Nothing new.
The data that I have seen on the economic performance of the country after each president's first term puts no significant difference between the two parties.
i never called it anything. the point was that it is not socialism. it is neoliberalism and it the same economic policy that we have been operating under since the end of carter's presidency. every president since then has carried on with the same agenda.
am i correct in assuming that you prefer power in the states?
All government corrupt/corruptible. The bigger the entity to bigger the corruption and stakes. I want the power of individual rights to be sacrosanct - and the most cherished, championed and fiercely protected by our government; the "general welfare" ought to be given the same amount of significance it was given textually in the constitution.
To a degree, I absolutely agree with the part I bolded; the difference being simply degrees of govt. out-of-control, and the priorities forwarded.
The data that I have seen on the economic performance of the country after each president's first term puts no significant difference between the two parties.
What about 2nd?
Seriously; not presupposing anything - I just want to know. Probably not much, either.
How about legislative control?
After all, it is not the President that is supposed to control the purse strings.
All government corrupt/corruptible. The bigger the entity to bigger the corruption and stakes. I want the power of individual rights to be sacrosanct - and the most cherished, championed and fiercely protected by our government; the "general welfare" ought to be given the same amount of significance it was given textually in the constitution.
To a degree, I absolutely agree with the part I bolded; the difference being simply degrees of govt. out-of-control, and the priorities forwarded.
the government is far from benign – that’s true. on the other hand, it’s at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.
what’s not benign (what’s extremely harmful, in fact) is business power, which is highly concentrated and largely transnational. business power is very far from benign and it’s completely unaccountable. it’s a totalitarian system that has an enormous effect on our lives. it’s also the main reason why the government isn’t benign.
the government is far from benign – that’s true. on the other hand, it’s at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.
what’s not benign (what’s extremely harmful, in fact) is business power, which is highly concentrated and largely transnational. business power is very far from benign and it’s completely unaccountable. it’s a totalitarian system that has an enormous effect on our lives. it’s also the main reason why the government isn’t benign.
You mistake "Government Power" with individuals in the government and THEIR power RIGHT NOW. Individuals are accountable. "The Government" is not; nor does the Government have a history of giving back power once it has been usurped. The biggest corp in the World, at least twice, has been busted up by the Government.
If not for its control of government officials, an international corps designs, or anything else would be a (largely) moot or irrelevant point.
the government is far from benign – that’s true. on the other hand, it’s at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.
what’s not benign (what’s extremely harmful, in fact) is business power, which is highly concentrated and largely transnational. business power is very far from benign and it’s completely unaccountable. it’s a totalitarian system that has an enormous effect on our lives. it’s also the main reason why the government isn’t benign.
In fact, I compete with some of the biggest "International Business Interests" in the world on a daily basis; and I make a good living doing that. Only now, when the government is going to get involved, is my company's existence at REAL risk (legislated out of existence). POOOOOOOF.
In fact, I compete with some of the biggest "International Business Interests" in the world on a daily basis; and I make a good living doing that. Only now, when the government is going to get involved, is my company's existence at REAL risk (legislated out of existence). POOOOOOOF.
is this supposed to serve as one singular premise or am i to infer from this broad statement that the implied conclusion is: government hinders as opposed to abets corporate growth?
If not for its control of government officials, an international corps designs, or anything else would be a (largely) moot or irrelevant point.
are you saying that it is necessary for corporate lobbyists to infiltrate washington so as to keep the government accountable ?
is this supposed to serve as one singular premise or am i to infer from this broad statement that the implied conclusion is: government hinders as opposed to abets corporate growth?
No.
Government is (much) more powerful than any Corporation.
are you saying that it is necessary for corporate lobbyists to infiltrate washington so as to keep the government accountable ?
No.
I would like for Govt. power to be so limited that there is no point in sending lobbyists to Washington; there is little to gain.
No.
Government is (much) more powerful than any Corporation.
is the current government acting in such a manner that corporate america is being hindered? if so, give some specific examples of legislation that has handicapped corporate america extensively. and reason away that which has benefitted corporate america. can you quantitatively demonstrate that the regulation of corporations has created less freedom for corporations versus the deregulation of corporate restrictions such as glass-steagall having created more corporate autonomy?
and do not get me wrong. as i stated, i am not a fan of big government at all and i think we are on the same side of the fence on that point. but, where we disagree is on the point that our current government is not corporate friendly.
No.
I would like for Govt. power to be so limited that there is no point in sending lobbyists to Washington; there is little to gain.
so why is that corporations find it so worthwhile to spend so much capital and time investing in not just current politicians but also potential candidates?
so why is that corporations find it so worthwhile to spend so much capital and time investing in not just current politicians but also potential candidates?
Because they want to control/influence/manipulate/buy/bribe/gain access to/cajole/coerce those who have the reigns of waht is more and more limitless power.
Nbadan
09-01-2009, 06:35 PM
...not too bad, neoliberals have been calling out Obama on his ' business interests' longer than any Limpbaugh cry of socialism came of his Oxycontin-stained lips , Of course, no wing-nut radio blowhard would dare trail down this road....
.I'd like to see you spend the time you obviously spent to write this article, to reseach
health care systems in other countries....
Nbadan
09-01-2009, 08:14 PM
More food for the fodder..
Health Insurance Company Abuses..
The 41 page report documents thousands of cases of obscene abuse by health insurance companies. They regularly cheat people out of coverage to which they are contractually entitled because they often get away with it and at worst pay an inconsequential fine. Individuals are losing their lives and being forced into bankruptcy because of the corrupt behavior of these companies. We as taxpayers foot the bill for the governmental agencies and courts trying to keep these crooks honest.
Just a few excerpts from the report by Health Care for America Now (HCAN):
• It would be hard for PacifiCare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group Inc., to argue that 133,000 mishandled claims were just a mistake. For the violations, California regulators hit the company with a record $3.5 million fine – a penalty that may ultimately reach $1.3 billion when an investigation is completed. The laundry list of alleged health insurance misdeeds: wrongfully denying covered claims, failing to properly manage provider networks, making incorrect payments, making multiple requests for previously provided documentation, and so on. Here’s some of the damage, courtesy of the Sacramento Bee: A surgeon was blocked from scheduling surgeries for six months; more than 200 patients of a pediatrician were told he wasn’t in the insurer’s network anymore; a father fought for 11 months to get claims paid for his autistic child while his wife put off heart-stress tests.
o "PacifiCare fined record $3.5 million," by Gilbert Chan, Sacramento Bee, January 30, 2008 (www.sacbee.com/103/story/672192.html )
• An Oregon woman who complained to the state after PacifiCare Life Assurance Company, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group Inc., denied six of her seven medical claims, helped launch a state investigation that overturned nearly 5,000 other claim denials. Regulators fined PacifiCare $46,000 for failing to conduct reasonable investigations before denying claims, making policyholders with pre-existing conditions wait more than six months for coverage of those conditions, and for failing to act promptly on a claim. As a result of the investigation, PacifiCare reviewed more than 10,000 denied claims and determined it should have paid 4,928 of them. It also discovered that it erred in denying some claims involving pre-existing conditions.
o “Insurer fined for improperly denying health claims,” Press Release, Insurance Division, Department of Consumer & Business Services of Oregon, December 30, 2008 (www.oregon.gov/DCBS/docs/news_releases/2008/nr_ins_12_3... )
• According to the Los Angeles Times, California’s Health Net Inc. “avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006.” This secret came out when a hairdresser fought back after Health Net dropped her during her chemotherapy. Now, California is investigating the state’s top health plans – and finding that Health Net wasn’t the only one ripping up people’s policies.
o “Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders," Los Angeles Times, Lisa Girion, November 9, 2007 (www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure9nov09,0,4409342.s... mostviewed-storylevel)
• On March 25, 2009 a class action lawsuit was filed in the federal court in California alleging that WellPoint Inc., owner of Blue Cross Blue Shield franchises in 14 states, engaged in a conspiracy with other health insurers to underpay physicians for out-of-network services, with financial consequences to both physicians and their patients. Similar lawsuits were filed against Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corp. in February 2009. The three lawsuits allege a conspiracy with Ingenix, a division of UnitedHealth Group Inc., to fix prices and set artificially low prices to be paid to non-participating physicians. The lawsuits followed an investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo demonstrating intentional rigging of the Ingenix database to shortchange reimbursements. The American Medical Association, California Medical Association, Connecticut State Medical Society and Medical Association of Georgia have joined the WellPoint actions.
• Anthem Blue Cross, California’s largest for-profit health insurer, agreed to pay a $1-million fine and offer new coverage—no questions asked—to 2,330 people it dropped after they submitted bills for expensive medical care. As part of a deal that the California Department of Insurance, Anthem also offered to reimburse those people for medical expenses that they paid out of pocket after they were dropped. The company, a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., estimated that those reimbursements could reach $14 million.
o “Anthem Blue Cross agrees to take back clients, pay $1-million fine,” Lisa Girion, Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2009 (www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-bluecross11-2009feb11,... )
• California insurance regulators reached an agreement with insurer Blue Shield to provide new health coverage to 678 consumers whose policies were improperly canceled. The settlement resolved a 2007 lawsuit filed by the state insurance commissioner after Blue Shield rescinded policies over a five-year period that ended in May 2008. The deal requires Blue Shield to reimburse the consumers for medical expenses incurred because of the cancellations. The insurer also was required to change its underwriting and claims practices and set up a third-party review process to rule on future policy rescissions.
o “Calif. reaches settlement with Blue Shield,” Samantha Young, The Associated Press State & Local Wire, January 7, 2009 (http://cbs5.com/business/blue.shield.settlement.2.90168... )
• One of California’s largest health insurers reached a $25 million agreement with regulators in an effort to right the wrong of canceling coverage for nearly 1,000 policyholders when they tried to make use of their policies. Health Net Inc. agreed to offer new coverage to 926 customers who were illegally dropped from individual or family policies since 2004.
o “Health Net, state reach $25M settlement,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, September 13, 2008 (&s_trackval=GooglePM" target="_blank">http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=... )
Link (http://hcfan.3cdn.net/48b73f19dac6bc9fa7_vzm6iijoh.pdf)
is the current government acting in such a manner that corporate america is being hindered? if so, give some specific examples of legislation that has handicapped corporate america extensively. and reason away that which has benefitted corporate america. can you quantitatively demonstrate that the regulation of corporations has created less freedom for corporations versus the deregulation of corporate restrictions such as glass-steagall having created more corporate autonomy?
and do not get me wrong. as i stated, i am not a fan of big government at all and i think we are on the same side of the fence on that point. but, where we disagree is on the point that our current government is not corporate friendly.
Oh crap.
Please link where I said our govt. was not "Corporate Friendly". It certainly IS BIG Corporate friendly - at least those corps who have played the game most effectively; right now Pharma especially, and to a certain extent insurance carriers have a hand in WRITING what is coming out of congress - what I am arguing is simply that the govt. has TOO much power; that Corporations are uniquely situated with friends in govt. and PLENTY of capital to influence and control the massive power of the Govt. It is the INDIVIDUAL who is getting hosed; Me, you, the rest of America.
Do you think big insurance is pissed that EVERY American is going to be mandated to buy coverage, and that those that can't afford it are going to be given money from the Fed to PAY for it? Or, if they play their cards (congressmen) right, they can probably even figure out a way to have a "public option", that really only exists to catch those people that big insurance would rather NOT insure in the first place. I mean, hell, in the bill, (I've mentioned this before), company's like mine (we administer self-funded health plans) get wiped out of existence. Individually none of us really hit bit insurance's radar, but collectively (there are hundreds of TPA's like mine nationwide) we control 20% of the market. Add up the uninsured, plus THOSE employees, and you've got a NICE chunk of premium to be gobbled up by company's who, you know, have got some bad mortgage assetts on the books right about now.
Libs are getting played; they make the boogeyman out to be "insurance" and "Pharma" - then YOUR team buys them off, calls them a few names, and you fall for it hook, line and sinker! Wake up.
Oh crap.
Please link where I said our govt. was not "Corporate Friendly". It certainly IS BIG Corporate friendly - at least those corps who have played the game most effectively; right now Pharma especially, and to a certain extent insurance carriers have a hand in WRITING what is coming out of congress - what I am arguing is simply that the govt. has TOO much power; that Corporations are uniquely situated with friends in govt. and PLENTY of capital to influence and control the massive power of the Govt. It is the INDIVIDUAL who is getting hosed; Me, you, the rest of America.
Do you think big insurance is pissed that EVERY American is going to be mandated to buy coverage, and that those that can't afford it are going to be given money from the Fed to PAY for it? Or, if they play their cards (congressmen) right, they can probably even figure out a way to have a "public option", that really only exists to catch those people that big insurance would rather NOT insure in the first place. I mean, hell, in the bill, (I've mentioned this before), company's like mine (we administer self-funded health plans) get wiped out of existence. Individually none of us really hit bit insurance's radar, but collectively (there are hundreds of TPA's like mine nationwide) we control 20% of the market. Add up the uninsured, plus THOSE employees, and you've got a NICE chunk of premium to be gobbled up by company's who, you know, have got some bad mortgage assetts on the books right about now.
Libs are getting played; they make the boogeyman out to be "insurance" and "Pharma" - then YOUR team buys them off, calls them a few names, and you fall for it hook, line and sinker! Wake up.
thanks for rehashing everything i have already been saying.
thanks for rehashing everything i have already been saying.
I'm slow; be patient with me.
Nbadan
09-02-2009, 09:49 PM
don't know if you've been following the Rich story...
Frank Rich, Barack Obama, and the Corporatist "Punking" of America
Let history record that on August 9, 2009 Sunday New York Times columnist Frank Rich toyed with acknowledging the manipulative, fake-progressive nature of Barack Obama and the broader corporate-managed "democracy" Obama epitomizes.
In an opinion-editorial bearing the provocative title "Is Obama Punking Us?" Rich notes the absurdity of Republican efforts to frighten the electorate by claiming that Obama is a socialist. "They have it backward," Frank observes (without bothering to explain what would be wrong with having a socialist president). "The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy."
Consistent with "the larger fear," Frank observes that Obama put together an economic team headed "Robert Rubin proteges and Goldman-Citi alumni" who have fueled public cynicism by handing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street parasites and perpetrators. The president has cut a price deal with the same drug company lobbyists Obama mocked as examples of "what's wrong with Washington" during the 2008 campaign. "Now," Rich wrote, "we know why the president has ducked his campaign pledge to broadcast negotiations on C-Span."
It isn't just about Obama. Rich also notes the broader "bipartisan nature" of the "beast" "maze of powerful moneyed interests" that has made "change we can believe in" a bad joke in the nation's capital.
ZMAG (http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22319)
There's some juicy stuff going on there...
don't know if you've been following the Rich story...
Frank Rich, Barack Obama, and the Corporatist "Punking" of America
ZMAG (http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22319)
There's some juicy stuff going on there...
the rich, street, johnson and mccarthur articles all spell out the reality of obama's economic policies very nicely. also, chomsky has been on obama since before the elections calling him out for the neoliberal he really is and he has been proven to be correct in that assertion.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.