Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Small Step Forward

Welcome to Nazi Socialist Muslim America! The healthcare bill passed, and while it’s not perfect, and it will still be a while before the first phase of changes takes efect, it’s obvious we’re headed towards disaster… Just listen to what will happen:

1. Children can stay on their parents insurance up to the age of twenty-six
2. People cannot be dropped because they get sick
3. Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans
4. Lower prescription rates for the elderly

Isn’t it terrible what our Nazi Muslim Socialist president is trying to do to America???

The Healthcare bill might not be perfect—it isn’t—but that doesn’t mean some good won’t come from it. And, technically, the Republicans have nothing to complain about—except maybe that women still have the right to get an abortion, despite the coverage for it being shaved down—because throughout the whole fight all they did was nay say, bitch, moan, and stir up ugly, grotesque sentiments throughout its base, not once ever providing alternatives to the Democrat’s proposals.

There were plenty of compromises made in the creation of this bill, which was to be expected, but it’s pretty interesting that the compromises were between the Democrats and Corporations, not the Democrats and the Republicans. And why, you ask? Because this way the Republicans can cling to their fringe base, which they honestly believe is indicative of the majority of Americans, which it isn’t.

While Americans who do pay attention to politics understand this, the Republicans are relying on the broader base of Americans, which do not troll the internet for information, to rely on their emotions come Election Day. That’s why the Republicans so strongly support both fearmongering and hatemongering; it’s easier to get people to vote according to what they believe then the facts of reality. The only problem is that every time a GOP representative says that the majority of Americans are against healthcare reform, he’s only pulling the wool over the eyes of a relatively tiny segment of Americans.

The Republicans have become the party of “head-in-sand perfection”, essentially announcing to America that our healthcare system is perfectly fine. While they have managed to convince a tiny portion of Americans that their lives are perfect just the way they are, the vast majority of Americans know better, and did want reform. The Republicans are clinging so strongly to their base that they are starting to believe their own lies and nonsense. While the bill isn’t perfect, it is at least improving several aspects of our broken system, and despite the foot soldiers of the Republican party that will continue to rant and rave—while their aging parents enjoy lowered prescription costs—the majority of Americans will see the benefits, and further distance themselves from the Party of Hate.

The GOP’s fringe will continue to scream of a socialist takeover of the country, and continue to pin President Obama as a Nazi Muslim Socialist, but the rest of the country who still have a functioning cerebral cortex, will see that, despite the bills shortcomings, progress was made, however small a step. And just maybe enough Americans will see that if the Republicans, who unquestionably support the Insurance Corporations, just worked with the Democrats and used their clout to get the corporations to really negotiate, then perhaps the bill would have gone further and done more. But, in the end, the Republicans put their lust for power above the needs of the people, and the failings of this bill are in direct correlation to the amount of effort the Republicans put in to working with the Democrats.

Posted by Michael Falino at March 22, 2010 6:00 PM
Comment #297704

“The first changes under the new health care law will be easy to see and not long in coming.”

That is an understatement.

“Health care stocks rally the market.”

Posted by: jlw at March 22, 2010 7:41 PM
Comment #297706

GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin recently stated, “If you take all the double counting out of the bill, which the (Congressional Budget Office) can’t do because that’s the way it’s put in front of them, this thing has a $460 billion deficit in the first 10 years, a $1.4 trillion deficit in the second 10 years.”

With accounting tricks that would make Bernie Madoff blush, revenue and savings from the feds taking over student loans is counted as medical savings. A $250 billion dollar “doctor fix” to compensate for $500 billion in Medicare cuts is not counted as an increased cost.

This legislation will cause doctors to flee in droves. The New England Journal of Medicine just released a survey shwoing that 46% of primary care physicians would consider quitting medicine under this bill. Apparently the two docs that David Remer quoted in his blog aren’t in this 46%.

The CBO expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under socialized medicine. The American people will be faced with fines, even possible imprisonment, if they don’t comply with this unique federal mandate. Now an IRS agent will come between you and your doctor.

These IRS agents will have the job of enforcing a new and unconstitutional mandate. The Constitution specifically enumerates the powers given to each branch of government and says that any power not mentioned revert to the states and to the people. Nowhere does it say the feds can compel you to buy health insurance

Mr. Falino thinks it’s just great that 26 year olds are still considered “children”. Hell…why not extent this nannyhood to 50 year olds living at home also?

Falino thinks it’s great that all the drug users, smokers, obese pig fat lovers, risky sexual behavior devotees, and all those unwilling to work will get care provided by taxpayers. I find it interesting that we have so-called “sin” taxes on unhealty behavior but the lib/dem/socialists want all those sinners and others to be exempt from the consequences of their behavior. Isn’t that interesting.

And then we have this stupid deal with Obama with his executive order banning funds be used for abortion. Anyone with just a casual reading of our constitution knows that executive order can not superscede congressional lawmaking. How silly, how transparent…how arrogant. But, that’s the lib/dem/socialist way.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 22, 2010 7:49 PM
Comment #297709

Royal Flush,

Lets put the economics of this bill in perspective. If you take the worse case scenario of Rep. Ryan and not the CBO’s, it will cost half as much as the Iraq war has already cost in the first ten years and much less over the twenty year time span. I am not advocating unbridled spending. But, if we can spend trillions on a war of choice and not half that amount on America’s health needs, we have a question of priorities.

Posted by: Rich at March 22, 2010 9:01 PM
Comment #297716

Rep Ryan is wrong. It is true that some advocates for the bill advertised that there would be both a reduction in the deficit AND an extension in the solvency of MediCare. Regrettably, that is false. The money saved by HCR can be used to reduce the deficit OR it can be used to extend the solvency of MediCare. If future Congress’ choose to reduce the deficit then the deficit reduction numbers predicted by the CBO will be fulfilled. They could also extend MediCare’s solvency, which would increase the deficit, but it is wrong to blame a future Congress’ actions on this one. After all, a future Congress could do ANYTHING with the money including fund a thousand bridges to nowhere or spend it all a new war in Iran or anything else. What matters is that if everything stays on the trajectory that they are on now, then there will be a substantial reduction in the deficit in the next decade as a result of the reform. However, I will admit that some advocates were dishonest when the said it would extend the solvency of MediCare with out prefacing that with the statement that extending MediCare’s solvency would entail increasing the deficit.

The survey you cite was not conducted by the NEJM, but rather by the Medicus Firm & it was an unscientific survey at that. The NEJM has released the following statement in regards to the survey:

Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Each issue of the newsletter features research and content produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment.

On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here.

The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.

Only people affiliated with Medicus were a part of the survey.

If you are really concerned with what physicians think, you might want to actually visit the NEJM site instead of parroting something from the right-wing media.

If you have trouble accessing some articles from the NEJM because they require a subscription, I recommend you visit the website of your local public library; often libraries subscribe to sites like NEJM and you can get access with your library card.

Also, the only “compulsion” to buy insurance will be a sin tax on those who don’t have adequate coverage, yet have a high enough income to easily support buying some; which is why the IRS people will be hired. I don’t understand all the hoopla about more IRS people, it was pretty obvious that a substantial increase in taxation authority would require more people to enforce it. The same thing has been done in Massachusetts and everything’s been working well with our program. The only problem is that it was passed with no new taxes because Mitt Romney was running for President and he wanted to be able to parrot the “no new taxes” line. This is fine, except Deval Patrick had to clean up for Romney and increase the Sales Tax himself, which is also fine by me.

Lastly, if you think a full-time student such as myself should somehow come up with the money to buy health insurance in addition to the thousands I already have to borrow to pay for tuition then you are out of your mind. If my parent’s insurance company could handle me for eighteen years they can handle me for an additional four while I am still not financially independent. I can’t believe there’s an objection to this considering we’re the cheapest cohort. Never mind the fact that I am paying for YOUR health insurance right now (you’ve said before that you receive benefits from MediCare, no?). Your comment reeks of Adultism.

PS, if I’m not a “child”, then why can’t I buy alcohol?

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 22, 2010 10:32 PM
Comment #297717

rich, Well said. When you do the comparison common sense prevails. Remove the fear and hate mongering from the equation and it all seems so easy and clear. We can subsidize unnecessary wars and the careless wealthy but God forbid we should spend a dime on our own.

Posted by: RickIL at March 22, 2010 10:40 PM
Comment #297720

Its done. Time to move on. The bluster about repeal ect. is just posturing. No way enough votes could be raised to force seniors to pay more for drugs or re-allow carriers to refuse coverage for sick children. Lets move on.

“Nowhere does it say the feds can compel you to buy health insurance”

I am with you. Another approach needs to be found. A dedicated tax with an exemption for HC coverage? Thoughts,not banter please. We have had enough of that.

Seems a bit like CA. auto insurance. To drive one MUST purchase coverage from a private carrier.The reform measures included much regulation.The regime DID work to riegn in insurance company abuses and overall helped keep prices down.

Posted by: bills at March 22, 2010 11:36 PM
Comment #297721

link text


Read that, calm down, and formulate a coherent argument why something didn’t need to be done. The bill isn’t even close to perfect, but the criticisms of the Right somehow leave out the part where this bill actually helps people, a lot of people, more people than the Republicans seem to care about.

If the Republicans hated this bill so much, and thought the Democrats couldn’t do it right, why didn’t they present a bill? Hmm? Why didn’t they ever provide any feedback or do anything to help? How come all the Republican party did for the passed year was bitch and moan that health care isn’t a right, everything’s fine, and Obama is a Nazi Muslim Socialist?

Please, Republicans, when you answer those questions then feel free to criticize this bill.

Posted by: Mike Falino at March 22, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #297722

You did know that the AMA endorsed the measure? At any rate,its a done deal.

Posted by: bills at March 22, 2010 11:53 PM
Comment #297724

Glad to see some progress towards health care availability, including the up to 26 year old component. A serious health incident for my college student child would break us. More than likely the new entitlement will not pay for itself while the idea of putting some constraint on (insurance) companies is a sensible step. Not looking for government intervention on all things economy, a free one is best. However, one wonders if there had been some limitation on home loan structure a few years ago might that have limited or even avoided the mess last year of which pain remains. Doing so is not socialist, its a form of consumer protection. Interestingly nobody in big business complained when the fed paid up almost a trillion dollars to save their (and our butts). The GOP shot themselves in the foot on that and this one (health care) appearing indecisive or confused on what defintion of government intervention is. Appealing more to the fringe, very loud ‘Beck-ish’-like tea party movement versus the more centric party members . . . we’ll see whose in office come November.

Posted by: Mulpartisan at March 23, 2010 4:37 AM
Comment #297726

You do not have to wonder if tighter regulation would have prevented the economic meltdown. It would have and did for some very prosperious years. This changed under Reagan,leading to the saving and loan debachle. Rather than learn from that the Republicans,with some Democartic collusion continued with even more deregulation with obvious negative results.Those lawmakers that cleanned up the mess after the Great Depression knew what they were doing after all.Free markets are a good idea on in theory and it is possible to strangle a market with too much regulation. However the right combination of regulations are vital to stability.
There are some areas of life where free markets do not work so well. Emergency services for example. For markets to work there must be choice. There must be negotiations and competition.With health care that is very limited. When they have your child on a gurney are you or anyone going to haggle? Shop around? Take bids? Of course not. Their immediate care is worth all the money you have or will ever have.
The very fact that upwards of 45 million Americans have very limited HC access is de facto evidence that the free market has and will always fail in the arena of health care delivery.

Posted by: bills at March 23, 2010 6:41 AM
Comment #297731


Agree that a level of common sense protections that do not disenfranchise the willing investor- risk takers from creating new opportunites do present pause from a ‘no hands on the reins of greed’. An independent consumer protection agency with a good mix of business, fed, and scholarly types would be welcome. Too heavy on one or the other has greater risk of bad outcomes. The agency adds more cost to an already sizeable bureaucracy, and that’s the price (cheaper than a trillion dollars), just like other public protections. Such an agency should warm up with fraudlent internet advertisers.

Posted by: Mulpartisan at March 23, 2010 7:11 AM
Comment #297732

It’s not law until Obama signs it.
The Senate still has to work the reconciliation fix-it patch.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 23, 2010 7:59 AM
Comment #297734

When BHO signs the House passed Senate version it will become law. The reconcilliation will also if it passes. If it does not,the Senate version remains the law of the land.The plan is for both measures to pass both houses. I hope the Reps do not put up too much of a procedual battle.There is really no point. If they do succeed with blocking the reconcilliation the senate bill is still the law . A lot of good work will be wasted and the stinky deals in the senate version will remain.

Posted by: bills at March 23, 2010 9:11 AM
Comment #297736
It will have to survive the court challenges for constitutionality.

This will be trivial because the Constitution grants Congress the ability to levy taxes & spend the monies raised to benefit the General Welfare of our country. Congress also has the ability to regulate interstate commerce and to enact any law it sees as necessary and proper to carry out its already enumerated abilities.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 23, 2010 10:22 AM
Comment #297739

Thanks to WR for the info on the New England Journal of Medicine. I am not a subscriber so I wasn’t aware of what you wrote. However, does that make the survey incorrect?

“Also, the only “compulsion” to buy insurance will be a sin tax on those who don’t have adequate coverage, yet have a high enough income to easily support buying some; which is why the IRS people will be hired.”

“PS, if I’m not a “child”, then why can’t I buy alcohol?”

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 22, 2010 10:32 PM

I believe it is legal in every state for those over the age of 21 to drink alcohol. It is really scary for me to know that some believe that government should be allowed to force any American, regardless of personal resources, to buy anything. I can not think of anything that government, at any level, forces us to buy against our will. Granted, if we want to own and drive a vehicle we must have liability insurance to protect others. The same is true with all the permits and licenses needed to practice a profession, build a home, etc. The difference with these permits, licenses, and fees is that they are to protect others. And, if we choose not to engage in that profession, own a vehicle, build a home, etc. no charges are incurred. But, how can one choose not to live? If one is alive, the HCR bill requires one to have insurance.

I understand that one could make the same point as that used with “sin taxes”. Taxes on tobacco and alcohol are supposedly used to indemnify others for potential health costs to all due to risky choices of some. The difference here though is that government taxes the product and the user is not forced to pay the tax unless they use the product. The only way to escape the insurance tax is to be dead.

It should concern everyone that not only are folks going to be required to purchase something by government edict, but they must also purchase coverage for care they can’t ever possibly receive. Can the woman unable to have children need maternity insurance? Does the person with no addictions to drugs need addiction recovery care insurance?

Once again we see government force a one-shoe-fits-all solution on every American. One could easily argue that this same mentality is one of the root causes of our failing educational system.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2010 11:16 AM
Comment #297746


I’ve been living under an individual mandate ever since Romney passed his plan in 2006, and neither I nor other Bay Staters have had much of a problem with it. However, I understand some of your concerns.

Just so you know, the individual mandate is something that’s needed if we want to prohibit things like denials for pre-existing conditions.
I agree that the mandate as currently structured isn’t perfect, but guess what? This is only the first step and we can make changes as necessary to improve this bill.

I’ve mentioned before that we lost out on a lot of good ideas when the GOP refused to support the bill. We lost the chance to implement tort reform for example. Another thing that was lost would have been letting people perhaps signing a waiver to exempt themselves from the individual mandate in exchange for surrendering the protection from denial for preexisting conditions. It would be a boon for us to still afford people the right to go at it alone, but only if they are fully aware of the consequences. It’s kind of like how we may waive our right to an attorney and represent ourselves, but the default option is to have a government supplied defense lawyer. I think a similar scheme would be ideal for this situation.

A former Bush speech writer, David Frum, has written recently in regard to the GOP’s lost opportunity in shaping the reform bill in a more appealing way. You might want to check him out at

BTW, the Medicus survey is as “correct” as the survey by Literary Digest was in 1936. Their methodologies are the same and so are their flaws.

Lastly, I’m 20 years old so I’m prohibited from consuming, transporting or purchasing alcohol. The reasoning behind this is that 20 year old Americans are considered not to have the maturity to handle alcohol responsibly, which is fine by me because I don’t drink alcohol, but if I’m considered not to have the maturity to handle alcohol, don’t expect me to have to buy my own health insurance when I’m still dependent on my parents as I work towards my bachelor’s degree.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 23, 2010 2:25 PM
Comment #297771

Royal Flush,

“The difference here though is that government taxes the product and the user is not forced to pay the tax unless they use the product. The only way to escape the insurance tax is to be dead”

Equally true is that the only way to escape using the product is to be immortal.

Posted by: Rich at March 23, 2010 6:46 PM
Comment #297774

RF, I’m sorry I labeled your earlier comment as reeking of adultism. In light of what sam has written, I have had reevaluate what I thought was possible for someone to write. For his comment takes the cake when it comes to adultism.

I started working my first job when I was 15, so I’ve been working and paying payroll taxes for five years. I’m old enough to vote & I’m old enough to be conscripted into the military; so I’d better be old enough to express my opinion. And I’ll be paying taxes for decades after both of you are dead because of your mismanagement of the budget before I was born & when I was too young to vote. I already am on the tab for bailing you out of the entitlement crisis with MediCare and Social Security, never mind all the money you’ve borrowed from China, which I am going to have to pay back. I think I am perfectly justified to have an opinion on matters that directly impact me in this way. Any sentiment that diminishes my right to have a say in our government is nothing but pure adultism. And I thought this country put an end to adultism with the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. I guess I was wrong.

What I lack in personal experience I try to make up in what I read from others. Last summer I read two of Ayn Rand’s books, and right now I’m trying to get my hands on a copy of the writings of Hamilton & the other early Federalists (I’ve already read a good deal of stuff by Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican allies).

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 23, 2010 7:00 PM
Comment #297779


Newsflash, you are an adult. Alcohol is not considered a right, as driving is not. If you sign a contract, it is enforceable.

With all due respect, Ayn Rand was a Hollywood screenwriter and fictional novelist.

I won’t bother going into the inconsistencies of her philosophy. There is plenty of nonsense surrounding her.

You seem rather well informed for someone your age. Certainly more than I was at that age. It isn’t adultism, however, to understand that wisdom isn’t something that comes instantaneously or sometimes at all.

Posted by: gergle at March 23, 2010 7:26 PM
Comment #297780

Warped…you make some very good points. And, congraulations on your great work ethic. You don’t need big government…you can take care of yourself.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2010 7:31 PM
Comment #297782

gergle, Yeah I know I’m legally an adult; that’s why I’m allowed to vote & why I will have jury duty next January.

Personally, I don’t like the current laws regarding childhood vs adulthood where 18 is such a magical number. There are plenty of 25 year olds with the maturity of 7 year old & there are plenty of precocious 17 year olds with the maturity of an adult. I think it’d be better to have a more nuanced system. Let’s call everyone 15 & under a child and everyone 25 and up an adult. Create a new legal category for adolescents aged 15-25. Grant some privileges to people when they become adolescents on their 16th birthday such as operating an automobile and grant other privileges to people when the become adults such as buying alcohol. Maybe grant adolescents the vote if they can demonstrate their seriousness by passing the US citizenship test, otherwise people will have to wait until they turn 25.

I know it’s completely off-topic, but what do people think?

You are aware most liberals work to support themselves?
Liberalism is not about Big Government, it’s about making government work & making sure that everyone has equal opportunities (not equal outcomes).

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 23, 2010 8:05 PM
Comment #297783

Sorry Warped, I don’t buy your supposition that most liberals work. Can you back that up? The lib/dem/socialists are all about big government and equal “outcomes” in my opinion and from my experience dealing with them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2010 8:17 PM
Comment #297785
I don’t buy your supposition that most liberals work. Can you back that up?

Come on. When we are not in a recession unemployment is around 5%, at least 20% of the country affirmatively identify as liberal. At most only 25% (5/20) of those who affirm they are liberal could be unemployed. I know this doesn’t account for retired folks, but I don’t think that overwhelms the fact that not every unemployed person is affirmatively liberal. Nor does it take into consideration the fact that a great deal of so-called moderates are actually closet liberals who just don’t like being identified by the term.

Also, I think all (or nearly all) of the regular liberal commentators on this site have mentioned their employment at one time or another.

My parents, my neighbors and many other people I know are both liberals & employed.

Short Anwser: I searched, but I couldn’t find any comprehensive numerical evidence either way.

The lib/dem/socialists are all about big government and equal “outcomes” in my opinion and from my experience dealing with them.
Socialists yes, liberals no. Dem represents a party, but not an ideology. Democrats used to be the more conservative party, but now they are liberal. This could very well change in the future.

Liberals, first & foremost, believe in liberty; hence the term liberal. However, most liberals believe that government can have a hand in equalizing opportunity (not outcomes). Conservative attitudes I usually come across usually posit that inequalities of opportunity are not the government’s business.

If you look at all the liberal programs that liberals have passed since our founding, nearly all of them are about equalizing opportunity. Look at government supported education, government supported libraries, government supported transportation (first through rail, later through planes & automobiles), government supported fire departments, government supported utilities, civil rights, and now government supported health insurance.
The only programs that I am aware that go against this are the welfare programs initiated by the Great Society, but those programs have been reined in since welfare reform in 1996, and there are no serious proposals to undo the 1996 reforms.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 23, 2010 10:10 PM
Comment #297791

My first work was at 8, and I worked paper routes (got my SSN at 16) and farm labor until 18. Then I joined the Marine Corps, where I stayed until I was 39. Managed a Lumber Yard for a year, and sold life insurance for another. I went to work for Wal-Mart at 41 and retired from there at 55. I worked at a convenience store for a while and sold electronics at Sears for a while. Took a job in a call center for National Car Rental, and worked a car rental desk for Budget. In all that time, from 18 to 68, I don’t think I was jobless more than 2 months. I’ve helped my wife raise our eleven children…never been on the dole…never received an unemployment check…I’m one of those damned lazy ‘liberals’, who expects the government to suckle me all my life…and damned proud of it.

Somehow conservatives have confused compassion and common sense for weakness and laziness.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2010 5:28 AM
Comment #297796

“Short Anwser: I searched, but I couldn’t find any comprehensive numerical evidence either way.”

That is probably due to the fact that this request by Royal is nonsense and most people are not McCarthied as to political preference during the hiring process yet. Perhaps we will be blacklisted the next time the repubs gain control of the Congress as they were to busy with flag amendments the last go around.
One has to ask why Royal would think that liberals don’t work in any more numbers than conservatives. Such misguided nonsense is just another example of misconceptions, half truths and outright lies used by conservatives to shift the argument away from the issue at hand.
According to many cons all of Hollywood is full of liberals and all liberals drive limo’s. Is the conservative line about college professors just bunk? Are unions not ran by and for liberals according to most conservatives? Did not affirmative action programs put many of those liberal minorities to work at the expense of more qualified whites?
So which conservative prattle is right Royal?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 24, 2010 9:41 AM
Comment #297809

Republicans don’t work, they exploit workers for a living.

Posted by: jlw at March 24, 2010 3:33 PM
Post a comment