You ‘solve’ the problem of the uninsured by passing a law forcing them to buy health insurance which, by definition, most a) cannot afford

I asked people over and over during the campaign, how that made any sense, and no one ever seemed to have an answer for me other than, “Oh don’t worry, that’s not really what they’re doing.” And now it seems that that’s exactly what they’re doing. I’m still baffled, only now with an extra layer of profound disappointment and disgust.

Ugh.  This whole flipping debacle has my stomach in knots.

I want to feel really hopeful about Obama’s speech Wednesday night.

But I don’t.  I hope he proves me wrong.

The problem is that the Democrats seem to have swallowed that line. Apparently Republicans have some sort of close proximity cloaking device that ensures only people outside of Washington can see that they don’t give a shit about compromise.

I’m not sure if it is courage, or if it is competence. If the Congresspersons writing these bills were to decide to follow every progressive suggestion that has been made, I believe the end result still wouldn’t work. It is as if the person drawing the plans for the architect can’t use a straight edge or a curve!
Between vision and implementation is a vast apparatus of wonks and lawyers that just doesn’t make the parts fit.

Or is it a matter of the fact that there’s only 59 Democratic Senators

I feel fairly confident that by the end of the month, there will be 60 Democratic Senators again.  I know the MA special election isn’t until January, but both Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts as well as the MA state legislature appears committed to passing a law which will allow Patrick to make a temporary appointment while they await the special election.  And I see little downside to it in a state as solidly blue as MA, even though Republicans will bitch and moan incessantly over it.

The sad thing is, the bills coming out of the House (especially Henry Waxman’s committee) are pretty good bills.  It’s the Senate bills that are full of fail.  That, frankly, is why you never hear about the House bills—you can’t scare the crap out of people with them.

In fact, passing a good bill is so incredibly sensible that I’m increasingly sure that the Democrats will never be able to work up the courage to do it.

It’s not the courage to go against the Republicans.  It’s the courage to go against the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, both of whom have been funding many of the “spontaneous” demonstrations this summer.  Does anyone really doubt that Limbaugh and Beck have been getting huge amounts of money from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies?

You’d think that after Obama was elected primarily with small donations that Democrats would realize that they don’t have to kiss big business’ ass just to run a campaign, but for some of them, it’s always 1984.

I think if we can get something passed with subsidies for families including some (as with S-CHIP) whose income is above the median, we’ll be in much less-rotten shape for the future, because at that point cutting the subsidies would mean increasing the bills for people who vote in large numbers. The trick is to make this like medicare, not medicaid.

I’m more worried about a future republican administration cutting back regulation of insurance companies so that the coverage doesn’t actually do anything, and that’s something that pretty much only a public option or a fine-funded regulatory agency can deal with.

Does anyone really doubt that Limbaugh and Beck have been getting huge amounts of money from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies?

I do.  That would be a terrible investment on their part: they’d be paying Beck and Limbaugh to do what they were already going to do anyway and have been doing already their entire careers.  B&L;already erupt with faux-righteous anger whenever Obama or the congressional Democrats do anything at all, why would they need an extra incentive for this?

I’m strating to believe the Democrats really don’t want to keep power, b/c they all serve teh same corporate masters.  If the Dems are in power, theyr base is going to expect results.  so they need to fuck up so the Republicans can openly give the country to the corporations.

I really think that, short of Obama hitting a Public Option or Bust speech out of the park on Wednesday, we need to be looking for new progressive representatives to take out the Blue Dogs and to run against Obama in either a Dem primary or as a third party.

There is no difference.  Gitmo’s still here.  We’re still in Iraq.  Transparency has been tossed aside as inconvenient, as has investigating prior abuses of power.

this is not acceptable.  I’m not rooting for my home team.  I want results.

While half a loaf is better than none, half a bridge is not any better than no bridge at all.

Sorry.  Toddler took keys off of laptop and typing is shitty and typo filled.  Backspace button is GONE, as is ctr and . is loose.

Republicans are just so nice and reasonable at those DC parties, it’s really hard to imagine them stomping on kittens with jackboots while wearing SS uniforms… even after the photographic evidence shows up…

Mmemosyne:It’s also the courage to go to all those middle class voters and tell them to fuck you and that they can flip burgers and be Wal-Mart greeters until they die like the lower class, via bringing “investment” markets back in line.

The slavishness to Wall Street isn’t just about the monied interests.

You’d think that after Obama was elected primarily with small donations that Democrats would realize that they don’t have to kiss big business’ ass just to run a campaign, but for some of them, it’s always 1984.

Well, Obama himself is one of “them”. At least since he started listening to Rahm.

> Obama was elected primarily with small donations
hahahaha look at you

Oh, Rahm will do anything to fuck over liberals, including a bad bill that gets Democrats un-elected.

Look at all the Dem Senators who were perfectly happy to be in the minority and vote on any inanity Republicans thought up, with the excuse, “Well, it was going to pass anyway!”

Those Dems are happiest with Republican cover, where they can rake up the corporate money, pay them off with votes on bad bills, and occasionally talk as though they’ve got their voters’ back.

Dianne Feinstein, I’m talking about you. Which is why whenever I’m on the fool’s errand to call her office, I preface whatever I’m supporting, by saying “I’m one of senator Feinstein’s Democratic constituents, so I know she doesn’t give a crap about me, but…”

Well it could be worse, they could be taxing all employer provided benefits (the Ezra Klein plan for sure Democratic losses!) and so forcing everyone into the individual market in due course.

It’s easier for us, because we don’t know guys like Grassley as people. We only know them through their votes, so it’s easy for us to see them for what they are.

Bingo. It’s easier for someone who interacts with someone like Grassley personally to think, “yeah, he might say crazy stuff to the media at his townhalls and vote like a right wing asshole, but deep down he’s a good, reasonable guy.” The thing is that there is no such thing as “deep down.” He is defined by his votes and his actions in driving the national dialog. And that pretty much indicates he’s a destructive right wing asshole.

Oh, Rahm will do anything to fuck over liberals, including a bad bill that gets Democrats un-elected.

The funny thing for Rahm is that this will get the moderate-to-conservative Dems in marginal district un-elected, but the liberal Dems will remain. But Rahm will be able to declare a “moral victory,” I guess.

Obama’s main focus seems to be making an effort to get Republicans to like him. Bully for him. He can do that on his own.

@ Caren on Comment 11:
I totally agree. We need a new true progressive party that will actually create real change instead of just talk about it. But how do we get them elected without hurting the Dem vote and accidentally electing Republicans? It just seems so impossible. Our democracy is broken.

It’s the right thing to do and it offers Democrats self-protection, because a good program would be popular with the public, and they’d want Democrats in office to protect it.

The problem isn’t coming up with and passing a good program; even the congressional Republicans could come up with a good program if they were prompted with cattle prods. NIXON came up with a workable universal coverage program. The problem is that we don’t know how to pay for it. Rather, we do know how to pay for it - lots of different ways - but none of them are politically palatable. The administration hoped to finesse this point by finding free money, but the free money just isn’t there in the quantities they needed to obscure the funding question. Dems are really really afraid to come out and say “and we’re going to have to jack up taxes by fifteen percent to pay for it all.”

I find it interesting how the concerns Alkaloid disingenously brings up never seem to matter when we’re destroying the lives of Brown people and stealing their oil. Apparently, killing people for capitalism is a goddamned American right, and we can even slash taxes while we’re doing it. But providing a universal health care system, sadly we Just Can’t Afford it.

Fancy that.

Also, note that we could easily pay for it by making the wealthy pay their goddamned fair share for a change. We could also pay for it the way we pay for wars - By authorizing the goddamned funding and just having at it.

That would be a terrible investment on their part: they’d be paying Beck and Limbaugh to do what they were already going to do anyway and have been doing already their entire careers.

See, you’re making the foolish assumption that Limbaugh and Beck (and Coulter, Malkin and Goldberg) are true believers and not people who made a calculating decision that conservative politics would make them a shitload of money.  You really think that if somehow a true Stalin-like dictator came into power that those four wouldn’t start talking about the joys of collectivism and how everything is the fault of the kulaks?  They’d turn on a dime if it meant they could keep their power and money.

You ‘solve’ the problem of the uninsured by passing a law forcing them to buy health insurance which, by definition, most a) cannot afford or b) are gambling they won’t need because they’re young and healthy. Either you end up with low subsidies which still leave it onerous to buy, thus creating a lot of disgruntled people, or you get generous subsidies, which cost a lot of money.

And either approach has the desired effect: the transfer of wealth from taxpayer to insurance companies .

hahahaha look at you

You may need to improve your reading comprehension past the first grade.

“Also, note that we could easily pay for it by making the wealthy pay their goddamned fair share for a change.”

How dare you suggest that the people who’ve benefited most — from exploiting their workers through stagnating wages since Nixon was in office, while simultaneously receiving unprecedented tax cuts, especially in the last 8-12 years — must pay more for the privilege of continuing to use and abuse the society we all create and maintain for their own benefit!  That’s outrageous!...

Sorry, Mike, you’re right. That was very intemperate of me. I promise to write fan letter to Broder, and another to Joe Klein, in order to do pennance.

It’s the courage to go against the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, both of whom have been funding many of the “spontaneous” demonstrations this summer.

As Josh Marshall noted, back when most civilised countries introduced their healthcare systems, Big Pharma and Big Insurance weren’t that big. Now they have power. The only way to challenge that power is by fucking over their profits. So: a mandate without a public option demands a mass non-payment campaign. No extortion. If that fucks over the Dems in 2010, it’s on their own heads.

In so many ways, this has revealed that the US is ungovernable if you want to challenge the monster of corporate profit. Basic civic institutions—bought-off small-state Senators, well-funded mass media scare campaigns—work against popular policies.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-11-24-obamadonors_N.htm

my main problems are capitalization and punctuation actually

“And the failure of these reforms just go to show how socialism fails, and that’s why we need to encourage more private enterprise in health care. GO USA!!” - Every Republican and wingnut, around 2010.

Comment #7: Mnemosyne  on  09/07  at  02:11 PM
You’d think that after Obama was elected primarily with small donations that Democrats would realize that they don’t have to kiss big business’ ass just to run a campaign, but for some of them, it’s always 1984.

(Emphasis added.)

There is a misunderstanding here. Democrats do not perform the political equivalent of back-alley blowjobs at every opportunity for corporations because they have to. Democrats perform the political equivalent of back-alley blowjobs at every opportunity for corporations because they want to. They’re not prostitutes. They’re sluts.

Democrats actively oppose anything that will perturb their relationship with corporations. They like what they are. The media’s love of corrpution, filth, murder, and banal evil and hatred of the poor isn’t political cover, or political propoganda: it is proud crowing. They like what they are.

Consider: Obama’s small-donation strategy was actively attacked by Democrats before he tried it. Democrats actually spurned funding sources because they didn’t care for the populist strings attached.

They aren’t killing single payer because it won’t pass.

They aren’t creating the largest tax hike in U.S. history and leveling it exclusively on the poor because they must.

They are doing these things because they want to.

Look at the unemployment, the crumbling infrastructure, the murdered innocents overseas: this is the America the Democratic leadership wanted, and this is the America you voted for if you voted for them.

Does anyone really doubt that Limbaugh and Beck have been getting huge amounts of money from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies?

Aren’t pharmaceutical companies getting huge amounts of money from Limbaugh and Beck?  Or do they just get the strong stuff for free by now?

You’d think that after Obama was elected primarily with small donations that Democrats would realize that they don’t have to kiss big business’ ass just to run a campaign, but for some of them, it’s always 1984.

The irksome Democrats—Baucus, Nelson, the other Nelson, the Arkansas twosome, etc.—run as brakes against Democratic excess.  Although I’ve seen the same proof of the money trail you have, I still think it’s more the case that they figure the way to get (re)elected is to position themselves against the free-spending ways of the rest of their party.  So their reflexes are to kick down anything that smacks of “welfare.”  That’s why so much of the Obama sales pitch has been to emphasize choice and affordability _rather than_ expanding access, to make it clear that it’s not a free lunch, because free lunches for some reason annoy people, _even those who could eat the fuckin’ lunch for fuckin’ free_.  Man, that spiteful attitude is so frustrating…

my main problems are capitalization and punctuation actually

Nope—reading comprehension.  From the story you linked to:

The small-donor percentage is lower than figures previously reported in news stories because the institute’s analysis accounted for people who gave several small donations over the course of the election that added up to a larger sum, Malbin said. (emphasis mine)

You may also want to check out the CFI’s final paper, which shows that the majority of Obama’s donations (53 percent) were from people who donated under $1,000 aggregated over the entire campaign.  The majority of both Bush’s 2004 and McCain’s 2008 donations were from people who donated $1,000 or more (60 percent and 59 percent, respectively).

Shall I go on?

That’s why so much of the Obama sales pitch has been to emphasize choice and affordability _rather than_ expanding access, to make it clear that it’s not a free lunch, because free lunches for some reason annoy people, _even those who could eat the fuckin’ lunch for fuckin’ free_.

Free lunches only irritate people when it’s poor people getting them.  They’ll defend the rich’s right to a free lunch to the death, even when that rich person’s free lunch is coming out of their pocket.

It’s a really bizarre phenomenon.

Free lunches only irritate people when it’s poor people getting them.  They’ll defend the rich’s right to a free lunch to the death, even when that rich person’s free lunch is coming out of their pocket.

It’s a really bizarre phenomenon. </i>

I think it’s because rich people are seen as worthy and deserving, whereas poor people are lazy, shiftless, and need to suffer in order to earn their keep.

Oh, yeah, the deserving/undeserving divide is the whole shebang.  But it’s even crazier that actual poor people can be whipped up into being more upset by the thought of _other poor people_ getting help than they are happy at the thought of _themselves_ getting help.  I mean, that’s just sad.  Pure self-interest is comprehensible, even if it isn’t laudable.  “I support policies that benefit me; screw you.”  Dickish, but logical.  But self-spite?  “I don’t support policies that benefit you and me; screw you, and screw me”?  What is that?

The spite is instinctual, a perversion of a natural primate trait, Flip. Humans resent receiving lesser rewards than their peers. You can actually observe this behavior in chimps: give Chimp A a bit of celery (a drab reward) for doing a task, give Chimp B a grape (an excellent reward) for doing the same task, and eventually Chimp A will refuse the task and the reward.

The trick is, some poor people don’t really think of rich people as people. They are a bit like forces of nature, alien beings who live in a world poor people cannot affect. Resenting the rich, in this mindset, would be as senseless as resenting the weather. I read an article by a Kerry volunteer during the 2004 election who claimed that some people literally couldn’t comprehend Kerry stopping the Iraq war. They didn’t believe he wouldn’t do it, they simply didn’t think he could. The war was, like the weather—and Kerry himself—a creature of nature. The rich aren’t really “people” in this regard.

Alternatively, some poor people simply internalize the aristocratic concepts that have befouled civilization since the dawn of time: rich people are better because they’re rich, and they’re rich because they’re better. That means the same rules that apply to you and I don’t apply to them. The net result is the same: rich people are forces of nature.

Oh, and some poor people are complete fucking assholes who hate other people and disguise that hatred with rightwing ideology, so when they say they hate welfare they’re really saying they hate YOU, and this is the most politically acceptable way for them to express it.

You ‘solve’ the problem of the uninsured by passing a law forcing them to buy health insurance which, by definition, most a) cannot afford or b) are gambling they won’t need because they’re young and healthy. Either you end up with low subsidies which still leave it onerous to buy, thus creating a lot of disgruntled people, or you get generous subsidies, which cost a lot of money.
It’s sort of like reform with all the cool political downsides but none of the reform.

I was terribly disappointed when Obama caved on mandates after he got elected.  Like I’ve said here before, mandates are to (many) Democrats what tort reform is to Republicans.  Thanks to Hillary and “experts” like Paul Krugman back in the primaries, supporters of mandates developed the fervent belief that forcing a few million healthy young adults onto the insurance rolls was the single most important aspect of health care reform, despite the most generous estimates putting the uninsured at adding 8% to the average premium.  It got to the point where the argument had little to do with the facts and everything to do with the demographics of Clinton supporters (older and more likely to be insured ) and Obama supporters (more likely to be young and uninsured).  It became necessary for proponents of mandates to “welfare queen” the uninsured.  Thus, I started hearing more and more how young uninsured people spend all their money on bling and going out drinking and could really afford to get insurance if they wanted.  This flies in the face of my own research and observation but I’m still arguing with fellow progressives on places like Democratic Underground, who still support mandates even when it’s looking like the public option they promised would be part of the package won’t be there.  No matter how much the out of pocket costs are, no matter how much it costs the taxpayers to subsidize the private health insurance leeches, no matter how little the mandatory insurance covers, they want the mandates.  It’s that important to stick it to those selfish deadbeat uninsured scofflaws.

You may also want to check out the CFI’s final paper, which shows that the majority of Obama’s donations (53 percent) were from people who donated under $1,000 aggregated over the entire campaign.  The majority of both Bush’s 2004 and McCain’s 2008 donations were from people who donated $1,000 or more (60 percent and 59 percent, respectively).
Shall I go on?

I’m sure the breakdown of how individual contributions aggregated will reveal that more of those of us who did contribute more than $1000 to Obama (I am one of them) did in several installments.  I am not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I gave $50 or $100 on a regular basis.  When Sarah Palin stepped on the scene I stepped up my giving.  Every spare dime I had went to make sure that the crazy caribou fundie lady didn’t get near the White House.  I was shocked at the end of the campaign to realize I’d given nearly $1500.  I’d do it again.

@ AdamN #22:

The answer is, we don’t. The formation of a successful left-wing political party in the United States will hurt the Democrats, and allow Republicans to be elected, for an extended period while the new party gains strength. There is no way to improve our situation without risk.

In my opinion, efforts to form an effective left-wing third party in this country will fail unless they are preceded by a Constitutional convention which gives us a parliamentary system and proportional representation and bans private political donations. Barring this unlikely turn of events, progressives will have to work with the Democrats. 

Interestingly, working to move the Democratic party leftward carries the same risks as the formation of a new party. Primary challenges to, and the refusal to vote for, conservative Dems also means hurting the Dems and allowing Republicans to be elected in the short term.

The formation of a successful left-wing political party in the United States will hurt the Democrats, and allow Republicans to be elected, for an extended period while the new party gains strength.

Um, why is that again? It’s possible to be aligned to two parties in some Democratic primaries, and it’s possible to defeat both a Republican and Democratic candidate from a third party. Further, a skilled political operative would attempt to convert members of the Democratic establishment (at least on a local, not federal level) to their side. When Lieberman ran against Lamont, the Repugs betrayed their own candidate to back the “independent” Lieberman.

Ross, it’s obvious that we can pay for it; we tax people to do that. As I said.

The problem we have right now is not that we don’t have a good plan. The problem is that the allegedly liberal people in Congress aren’t willing to man up and say “here’s our good plan, it will cost X billion dollars, here’s the taxes we’ll raise to cover it”.

So fuck you, but from a place of love, brother.

In my opinion, efforts to form an effective left-wing third party in this country will fail unless they are preceded by a Constitutional convention which gives us a parliamentary system and proportional representation and bans private political donations. Barring this unlikely turn of events, progressives will have to work with the Democrats.

Which will never, ever happen.  I do think campaign finance is still a huge mess, and the system needs a radical overhaul, but if you try to make an outright ban on all private political donations, it wouldn’t be two weeks before that got contested before the Supreme Court and immediately be deemed unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, probably getting a 9-0 ruling from the current Court (yes, even including Stevens and Ginsburg).  There is no way to see that as anything but unconstitutional under our current Constitution.

Now granted, you are talking about having a Constitutional Convention, which I assume would mean that we effectively nullify the current Constitution and all of its amendments and start from scratch, so who knows… but then we would truly be a brand new country in year one.

And the likelihood of anything like that happening in any of our lifetimes… slim to none.  And no, I’m not one who believes in the invincibility of America or the idea that this nation will exist in perpetuity, but I’m also not a big “end times” person either.  This nation is broken and cannot keep going like this forever… but it can still go on for a long time this way.

This isn’t the worst spot we have ever been in… I would argue that America was closer to death in the 1810s, the 1860s, and the 1930s then it is today, and we survived all of those periods.  That said, those are the only other times in our history that I can think of that were worse than today, and we cannot go on forever as we have, or eventually we’ll find ourselves in equally dire circumstances.

There is, of course, a breaking point.  But we haven’t reached it yet, and we’re still quite aways from being there.  Hell, we survived the Bush/Cheney presidency, didn’t we?

The spite is instinctual, a perversion of a natural primate trait, Flip. Humans resent receiving lesser rewards than their peers. You can actually observe this behavior in chimps: give Chimp A a bit of celery (a drab reward) for doing a task, give Chimp B a grape (an excellent reward) for doing the same task, and eventually Chimp A will refuse the task and the reward.

OK, but the way I see it, with a well-designed reformed health care system, all us chimps all get grapes.  But this weird variety of human chimp, Homo conservatus, would still be mad about that:  not greater and lesser rewards, the exact same reward. 

But even “reward” is a strange frame for the discussion.  I mean, it’s not like going to the doctor is ever going to be a treat.  You’re still sick, or afraid you’re sick, or planning ahead against the next time you’ll be sick.  It’s an unpleasant experience.  What a weird thing to begrudge other people—and what a weird thing to begrudge yourself, as uninsured teabagger types seem to be doing.

But even “reward” is a strange frame for the discussion.  I mean, it’s not like going to the doctor is ever going to be a treat.  You’re still sick, or afraid you’re sick, or planning ahead against the next time you’ll be sick.  It’s an unpleasant experience.  What a weird thing to begrudge other people—and what a weird thing to begrudge yourself, as uninsured teabagger types seem to be doing.

They can be living in a box under a bridge.  But as long as the niggers, spics, and fags are living in smaller boxes and under a shittier bridge, all is well with your typical teabagger.

Primary challenges to righty Dems don’t have to come packaged with refusal to vote for the winners.

the most generous estimates putting the uninsured at adding 8% to the average premium.

That’s the cost now.  If insurance companies are forced to cover anyone who needs insurance, no matter what preexisting conditions they have, you can be sure the cost to the rest of us will increase.  Without mandates, people will wait until they get sick and only then will buy insurance.

But this weird variety of human chimp, Homo conservatus, would still be mad about that:  not greater and lesser rewards, the exact same reward.

and

They can be living in a box under a bridge.  But as long as the niggers, spics, and fags are living in smaller boxes and under a shittier bridge, all is well with your typical teabagger.

For the millionth time, fundies demonstrate that the reason they read the bible so much is to make sure they get everything as exactly wrong as possible vis-a-vis Christian teachings.

1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5So they went.

  “He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7” ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
    “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Of course, they’ll argue that verse 15 is operative in their lives - “don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?” which is basically admitting that the last thing they want to do is emulate (a la verse 1) the longed-for kingdom of heaven.

I was shocked at the end of the campaign to realize I’d given nearly $1500.  I’d do it again.

Wouldn’t you be better off giving your money to a vertebrate?

Also, many people cannot do math or understand statistics.  I once told my husband that the reason so many people voted for Republicans was because they imagine that they are themselves rich even though they are not.  He didn’t believe me until the day he saw a poll in which 19% of responders said that they were in the top 1% for income and 20% more said they thought they would be in the top 1% one day.  (late 1990’s). 

I think it is easier to see that you aren’t rich when you live in a place like New York City.  If you live in a very nice house in the better area of a small town, then you feel like you are at the top of the heap.  If you live in New York City you walk past homes worth many many millions of dollars and you see stores where a pair of jeans costs $600.00.  I think a lot of people have no idea just how much money it takes to be wealthy.  Many people identify with the rich and enjoy the fantasy that one day they might live like that too.  And they subscibe to the Republican credo: “I’ve got mine F everyone else!”

They can be living in a box under a bridge.  But as long as the niggers, spics, and fags are living in smaller boxes and under a shittier bridge, all is well with your typical teabagger.
Comment #48: DonnaDiva  on  09/08  at  12:47 AM

DonnaDiva FTW.

He didn’t believe me until the day he saw a poll in which 19% of responders said that they were in the top 1% for income and 20% more said they thought they would be in the top 1% one day.  (late 1990’s).

Being poor is an evil thing in our culture, underdog stories notwithstanding. People aren’t saying they’re going to be rich merely because being rich is good; they’re basicallying admitting that being poor is bad.

Obviously, this is blasphemous vis-a-vis the Christian narative. Our cultures love of wealth makes Christ a liar—or vice-versa. The only people Jesus does physical violence to in the scriptures are the moneychangers.

But when faced with cognitive dissonance, people do what they always do: double down. They contradict themselves twice as hard.

And, by the way, to those who say that raising up a third party would be devastatingly difficult: keep in mind that the English and most of Europe pulled it off—and England did due to economic hardship. Despite the hate and intolerance that riddles the rightwing, some will jump ship from the Republican party. More importantly, all those voters disillusioned about the system can be drawn to the polls. That threat is why the parties work so very hard to keep the voting population small.

The moral of the vineyard parable is:

Wait until the last moment to straighten up and fly right, for the reward is the same.

I know that’s not really the moral

It seems to me that it would be easier to take over the existing Democratic Party than try to build a 3rd party from scratch.

That’s the cost now.  If insurance companies are forced to cover anyone who needs insurance, no matter what preexisting conditions they have, you can be sure the cost to the rest of us will increase.  Without mandates, people will wait until they get sick and only then will buy insurance.

Sigh.  This comment reflects exactly what I’m talking about with regard to the “welfare queen” meme about the uninsured.  There is no mandate now, and most people have insurance.  Most people who don’t have it - even the young, healthy ones - want it and would get it if they could afford the premiums and the coverage was decent.  The problem with private health insurance is not that people aren’t being forced to buy it.  It’s that it’s expensive and it sucks. 

Furthermore, with mandates you can’t be sure that premium prices WON’T increase.  I can tell you right now that they sure as shit won’t decrease.  Why would they?  Insurance companies figure whoever has insurance now will continue to pay whatever it is they are paying.  They’ll have millions of new customers and continue to jack up the rates.  And they’ll justify it by claiming they have to cover all those preexisting conditions.

To expand upon what I just posted WRT to the young, healthy, and uninsured.  While people under 30 are more likely to be uninsured, about 70% of them actually have insurance, according to Census estimates.  Most of them get it through work (with some still on their parents policies if they’re in college or in the military).  So with no one forcing young adults to get insurance, most of them still have it.  And the reason they have it, for the ones who get it through work, is that it’s affordable (employer picking up part of the tab) and usually the coverage is good.  If it were really true that we have to force people to get insurance otherwise they will wait until they are sick, then why aren’t the majority of young adults with coverage through work eschewing it, since they could pocket their portion of the premium?  In all my years working I’ve seen many young people opt out of 401k or stock participation, but never saw one give up the health insurance.

And I’m guessing that many under-30 folks do what the spouse does:  buy what amounts to catastrophic insurance just in case, and then never get to see a doctor for minor ailments or preventative medicine, because those types of visits are unaffordable and yet not expensive enough for the insurance to kick in.  I fail to see how any sort of health insurance mandate will make it more likely that we can afford to have Mr. A. get prescription allergy medication, or more importantly so we can afford to get those moles checked out.

Does any other country in the world have the level of cognitive dissonance that on the whole Americans display?

Karinna, that is Max Baucus’s plan in a nutshell:  Force people to buy expensive insurance they can’t afford to use.  It’s a giant giveaway to corporations.

With friends like this….

I fail to see how any sort of health insurance mandate will make it more likely that we can afford to have Mr. A. get prescription allergy medication, or more importantly so we can afford to get those moles checked out.

Exactly.  As DonnaDiva has noted, there is a belief that the uninsured have the money for premiums just laying about and are simply opting to use that money for something frivolous.  The problem is that “affordable” doesn’t just mean being able to scrape together enough money for premiums.  Especially, if paying for a premium leaves you living paycheck to paycheck with absolutely nothing left over for any discretionary spending.

And by discretionary spending I mean stuff like…emergency car repairs, or worse yet, emergency dental work, or paying for an actual doctor’s visit and prescription medicine.

People don’t make the decision to go without insurance lightly.  But at the same time, not everyone can “afford” to chuck their last $200 at an insurance company.  And this includes some people with chronic conditions like asthma.  Lets say, after paying all other expenses, you have $200 left.  But your asthma medications cost at $100 a month and you need to see your doctor at least once a year.  Paying $200 a month for a premium will literally leave you without the means of affording your medication and doctor visits.  Plus, unless the plan is through an employer, all $200 will buy is junk insurance.  Especially if you have a pre-existing condition.

So far, despite all the bleating about the plight of the uninsured, I really don’t see anything, in any of the plans, including the better plans from the House, which really address the issue of making health insurance more affordable for the uninsured.  There are good provisions which may (if they aren’t toothless) help those already insured.  But the “problem” of the uninsured (which include me), is supposed to be magically addressed by forcing us to buy into a system we already can’t afford.

The mandates are nothing more than reverse Robin Hood, taking from the middle-class and giving to the rich insurance CEOs.

DonnaDiva & adobedragon:

I know.  Which is why I’m alternately furious and despairing over the “debate” on health care.  We need—well, we all pretty much know what we need, and why it is we’re not going to get it.  It’s maddening, and I don’t really see a way to divert things away from the inevitable insurance company bonanza.  Life in the corportatocracy, I guess.