Ted Rall for January 10, 2010

Appears either way they are only interested in getting $10,000 a year from every citizen.

America - try to understand it. Personally, I don’t do crazy very well.

As a self-described “socialist libertarian” I am troubled by the mandate to buy insurance from a for-profit private company. I would much prefer to pay a new tax for a single-payer, government-run national health care system. Since I’ve already been paying a Medicare tax for years, I don’t see why I can’t just have Medicare itself at any age.

That’s just it, create a whole new, complicated system when something that can be tweaked is already in place. Aren’t our reps in Washington fun?

sirrom – I agree. If, when the Medicare system had been set up, they had decided to move the age of eligibility down a year ever year, or even a year every other year, everyone would be covered by now.

(I call my self a socialist anarchist pacifist, however, not a socialist libertarian. We can split hairs another time. The narcissism of small differences.)

Yes, let big Government handle everything, like they do the American retirement program (Social Security). Our grand children’s children can pay for our health care too. They will all have those nice minimum wage jobs earning a staggering $8.25 a hour. Remember “The road to (you know where) is paved with good intentions. Competition is the one thing in a free society that makes the economy work. One payer is no competition. Sorry..

lonecat, Could you explain what you mean by socialist anarchist? I understand the pacisfist part: It means if I don’t agree with you I can just pummel you into submission.(joke….joke!)

There is nothing so permanent as a ‘temporary’ tax.

The mandate without an affordable public option is straight up extortion.

Private schools still operate with competition from public schools. I wonder why insurance execs are not willing to see a public option?

Is it possible they are not as clever at making money as a principal at a Montessori school?

bleeep straight, Ted. I guess they think we’re too dumb to do the math.

Do we really want the IRS involved in the healthcare debate, since they will be issuing a punitive tax (user fee, as Barney Frank recently called it) should one fail to keep an insurance plan? It has yet to pass, but I’m already pining for the old days of high premiums through Cobra, oddly enough.

Yeah, with Mark Patterson formerly of Goldman-Sachs, as a lobbyist, as Geithner’s Chief of Staff, the banking boys are in good hands with Obama & Co. The same can be said of the private insurance industry with the current healthcare plan: what cost controls???

http://industry.bnet.com/financial-services/10005838/goldman-sachs-is-latest-bank-to-threaten-london/

BoxCar66: I started getting my Social Security benefits a few months ago. Having been laid off from a Fortune 500 company, I’m really glad it’s there for me. I’ve been paying into it for years, and now it pays my rent. At my age job prospects are nonexistent, and being forced to retire early is somewhat more tolerable this way.

lonecat: What I mean by “socialist libertarian” is that I want the government to take care of me, but not tell me what to do. Just like a teenager’s attitude toward his parents, I guess. Realistic? Obviously not. But why can’t I dream?

Gladius – My definitions are probably idiosyncratic, but here’s how I figure it.

I’m a socialist because I believe that social problems require social solutions. (Of course that principle only starts the conversation about what counts as a social problem.)

But I’m an anarchist because I dissent from the centralizing impulse in the main stream of socialist thought, especially including Marxism. I am generally suspicious of all kinds of centralization, not just from the government, but also the churches, for example. I want a system that will allow and encourage individual choice and responsibility.To the greatest extent possible I think no one should be ruled by others.

I’m a pacifist because killing is clearly a violation of a respect for individuals. Like many pacifists, I recognize the need for self defense in extreme situations, but always with the minimum force necessary. (So don’t try to pummel me into submission.) I don’t claim to have solved the problem of what a nation or state should do when it has been attacked, but in general I think states use national self defense as an excuse, so I am very wary of the use of national military force in any circumstances.

I should also add that I’m a Fabian, rather than a revolutionary, because I think the history of revolutions has been questionable. Of course they happen, and when they happen I suppose you go with the flow, but I would never work for a revolution. So that makes me a Fabian socialist anarchist pacifist. Sometimes I also say that I’m an asymptotic (rather than utopian) Fabian socialist anarchist pacifist, because I believe that we will never actually reach our goals.

Thanks, The anarchist/socialist bit had me puzzled. I try not to knock peoples’ self definitions, especially if they’ve put as much thought into it as you have.

I”m a Canadian under the single payer health care system with lots of user experience. You Americans should be going for a similar model - covers all citizens, cheaper, more efficient, and comparable quality. Don’t believe the conservative talk-radio and other conservative crap.

Basically Reagan in black face.

And about as much substance.

lonecat, definition of “Fabian”?

fennec, definition of “rawlsian liberal?”

fennec, There are a number of us here that do not pigeon hole well. It’s one of the reasons I get tired of the liberals/conservatives are evil routine.

You sure can’t pigeonhole Ted. He’s equal opportunity.

‘cjr53 said, about 23 hours ago That’s just it, create a whole new, complicated system when something that can be tweaked is already in place. ’

The system in place sucks. It’s inefficient, and it’s aim are not to make people healthy via medical care. Taking the burden of health coverage off of business would make USA business more competative worldwide.

Govt administration is less then 10 cents on the dollar for medical insurance. Private administration is nearly 50 cents on the dollar. The math is plain.

Forcing us to buy private insurance is stupid. Fining us if we don’t buy it is stupid. Taxing people who have insurance is stupid. Kil this bill and start over.

I mostly agree about the deficiencies of the current bill, but I don’t think a better one is politically feasible at present. I mean, this one barely went as far as it has.

I think it’s somewhat better than the current situation, from what I can tell. It can and should be improved,but I don’t think it is realistic to have it redone from scratch at the moment. As much as I think it’s a good idea (if implemented right), I don’t think a public option could pass now.

BCS – Good to “see” you. The Fabians were (and are) British socialists who believe in gradual change rather than revolution. The group was founded in the 1880s, and it still exists. The most famous early members were Beatrice and Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw. They took their name from the Roman genera lQuintus Fabius Maximus (Cunctator), who defeated Hannibal through gradual attrition of Hannibal’s army rather than an engagement of the two armies in full battle. I call myself a Fabian anarchist because I also believe in gradual change rather than revolution.

Dear 4uk4atas (can I call you 4 for short?) – I agree wholeheartedly. Pass this bill, then make it better. If the bill is defeated, reform of the system is dead for a generation.

Absolutely, pass it. Anything that upsets Republicans so much can’t be all bad.

Not much choice but to pass the current imperfect health care bill. A half a loaf is better than no loaf. Then improve it so it serves the American public rather than the insurance companies. I’ve read that insurance companies add about 30% to health care costs, and they add nothing to medical care. Unfortunately it will take decades to arrive at what is now obvious - that a public option or single payer plan is the way to go.

I doubt we will ever have a situation again for the next 100 years where Democrats control all three branches of the government. If we don’t push the public option through now, we will never see it again.

I’m amazed at how much damage the Republicans caused to this country when they were in control, but now that the Democrats are in charge they’re too paralyzed to make needed changes.

“Politicians who think that working people have it too good — too much health care, too much Social Security and Medicare, too much power on the job — are inviting a repeat of 1994.” –Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President …and I hope he’s right.

The filibuster is blatantly unconstitutional and has got to go. Whatever party is in control should be able to pass its legislation. The VP is there to break any ties, and a later Congress can change anything it wants. That would be actual democracy; the tyranny of the minority is something far different.

sirrom, It is written in the Constitution that the Senate has the right to make up its own rules of order. It is not unconstitutional. The filibuster has been changed in the past. The cloture rule was added. The Deomcrats do have the option of attempting to change the filibuster rule. The Republicans threatened this back when they had control of the chamber. It wound up being called the ‘Nuclear Option” in the media. They didn’t do it. I don’t expect the Democrats to change it either since they know that they’ll probably want it when they, in turn, lose control of the Senate.

An op-ed in the NY Times Monday detailed why (in the author’s opinion) the filibuster is unconstitutional:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11geoghegan.html

The Senate can set up any procedural rules it wants, but it can’t overturn the basic tenets of the Constitution without being subject to judicial review as established in Marbury v. Madison. The Vice President, I believe, could bring suit in federal court, and the Supreme Court could decide whether the Senate rules violate the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

The Constitution is vastly overrated. It is a profoundly undemocratic document. If not for the Bill Of Rights it wouldn’t be worth a cup of warm spit. You don’t believe me? Try reading it.

Many of the original states wouldn’t ratify it without the Bill of Rights being added. It’s just a framework, not a philosophical statement. That’s why the Supreme Court also uses the Declaration of Independence as a basis for delineating core principles.

sirrom, The matter of the intent of the “Founding Fathers” has been the subject of great debate. They were not unified. The Constitution was a compromise. The author of the Times article extensively cites the Federalist Papers yet these documents were written to argue a particular view of the Constitution that was not accepted by everyone. The smaller colonies were concerned with the tyranny of the majority from the very beginning. Eventually, the nullification arguments could be considered the pinnacle of opposition thought. As a result, I tend to be wary of interpreting the “spirit” of the Constitution. I tend more towards a strict constructionist viewpoint but I admit I can be swayed from time to time. If the Senate doesn’t like it they can get rid of it. It is an equal opportunity barrier to both sides of the aisle depending on who has control. The part of the argument with which I srongly agree is to vote out your representitives who support it. (If you don’t like it)

[…waving hand in air over head…]

I know that one! The Constitution was tossed together after the Articles of Confederation was shown to have failed to create a cohesive enough Federal Government to deal with Shays’ Rebellion. It was kind of an out-of-breath stab at defining a central government that it least could be said to exist. Washington had to be dragged out of retirement kicking and screaming to focus the whole convention and Adams had done a 180 after getting what HE wanted and was yelling for hanging those darned Rebels from the nearest tree. Things turned out OK for Shays - he finally got a military pension payment the year before he died… but all we got was a lousy Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a basic re-statement of the Magna Carta, and “peers” are people who have deserved Knighthood. Of course, the whole thing was only for those who owned (tenanted) land anyway.

The Congress doesn’t represent the People… it represents the Corporations - the Corporations who’s taxes pay for the Government. Personal Income Taxes go to the “U S Treasury” (which is not a part of the Federal Government, by the way) and go to cover the interest on the national debt only. Wilson gave away everything that Stonewall Jackson had won back. How many presidents have met an ill fate after attempting to regain control of the US money? (Greenbacks? Red-Seal Dollars? hint,,, hint…)

In 1951 the Supreme Court ruled that “it is not outside of due order for the Federal Government to regulate that which it subsidizes”. But that doesn’t really matter ‘cause we are now the North American Union which is why Bush said that the Constitution is just a piece of paper. If there seems to be a disconnect between the actions of the Government and the interests of the People it is because there is. Let’s just say it this way: they didn’t really think it necessary or advisable to inform you. You probably would of thought that you deserved or had a right to participate in the decision making, and that would have just been a hassle seeing as this whole thing has been worked out for a while now. If you think of this as a really, really bad thing then watch the movie “Hero” (with Jet Li) or re-watch “Network”… what? you think you have a better plan for planetary management? I’ll bet you haven’t even given the whole issue a thought. You all do know what “fly-over country” means, right? Do your part and go buy some duct tape and sheet plastic.

Oh, no… I assure you that I’m not a cynic. I’m just waiting to see how this all shakes out when the Kali Yuga finally gets over. The Taoist Masters generally advise against attention to politics anyway. I’m beginning to see their point. Geezo.

I can see ahab’s comment in a famous John Lennon song…

Imagine the government working toward a unified goal to help the citizens and no religions too.

Something like that. LOL.