Will Obama Split the Democratic Party in Two?
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/200 ... y-v-gatto/
Will Obama Split the Democratic Party in Two? By Timothy V. Gatto
September 7, 2009
I never thought I would see the President of the United States respond to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. To tell you the truth, I had thought liberalism had already been embalmed and buried when JFK and RFK were shot. Sure the Democrats tried to ensure that liberals believed that they were still part of the Democrats agenda, but in all actuality, they haven’t been included for quite some time. The last years under Bush, it was almost impossible to find a liberal Democrat. Idiots like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Rielly and Michael Savage castigated liberals to the point where they behaved as if they belonged in the closet!
I always proclaimed myself as a liberal. Most of the people I network with are liberals. I was amazed at how some of these liberals managed to talk themselves into believing that Barack Obama was one of us. In almost every instance he has let us down. His support for the Military Commissions Act, the revised FISA Law giving immunity to the telecoms, the continuing presence in Iraq of our military and mercenary forces, the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, no indictments for torture for the Bush Administration and the continuance of Rendition flights and the use of foreign governments to extract information from “suspected” terrorists makes liberals wonder if we’ve been fooled again.
The answer is that of course we have been fooled again. The only question left is the position on healthcare that Obama touted when he was running for President. Is he about to backslide on this issue also? Is the “public option” that most liberals adamantly endorse about to be thrown by the wayside so that “free enterprise” (in other words healthcare for profit) can rape the American public with a profit margin of approximately 30% while government run healthcare runs about 4% over cost (Medicare)?
This I believe will be the pivotal point in Obama’s presidency. The truth is that you can’t please all of the people all of the time and this issue is no exception. Sometimes however, pleasing the people hasn’t been Barack Obama’s forte. The issues in the paragraph above illustrate that he really doesn’t mind ignoring his left/liberal supporters. He hasn’t balked at throwing us under the bus in almost every instance. Will this issue be the exception?
The outcome will be exactly what Obama wants it to be. If he has the wherewithal to keep pushing for a public option while he ignores those on the right that believe insurance companies profits and free enterprise are sacrosanct , huge gains will be his from the liberal wing of his party. This is the time to judge Obama’s mettle. He has a huge majority in Congress and enough clout to keep the conservative wing of the party in line. FDR didn’t pass social security without opposition, but he did it anyway and Americans are eternally grateful. Obama needs to take a good look at FDR’s stand on protecting the financial security and the well-being of the country as a whole. The truth is that this chance may never come again, especially with the monetary clout that Big Pharma and insurance companies have. The Democrats in the House and Senate should also reevaluate the public option. Backtracking on this issue could well split the party in two.
Another thing, I don’t make this stuff up.
Will Obama Split the Democratic Party in Two? By Timothy V. Gatto
September 7, 2009
I never thought I would see the President of the United States respond to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. To tell you the truth, I had thought liberalism had already been embalmed and buried when JFK and RFK were shot. Sure the Democrats tried to ensure that liberals believed that they were still part of the Democrats agenda, but in all actuality, they haven’t been included for quite some time. The last years under Bush, it was almost impossible to find a liberal Democrat. Idiots like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Rielly and Michael Savage castigated liberals to the point where they behaved as if they belonged in the closet!
I always proclaimed myself as a liberal. Most of the people I network with are liberals. I was amazed at how some of these liberals managed to talk themselves into believing that Barack Obama was one of us. In almost every instance he has let us down. His support for the Military Commissions Act, the revised FISA Law giving immunity to the telecoms, the continuing presence in Iraq of our military and mercenary forces, the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, no indictments for torture for the Bush Administration and the continuance of Rendition flights and the use of foreign governments to extract information from “suspected” terrorists makes liberals wonder if we’ve been fooled again.
The answer is that of course we have been fooled again. The only question left is the position on healthcare that Obama touted when he was running for President. Is he about to backslide on this issue also? Is the “public option” that most liberals adamantly endorse about to be thrown by the wayside so that “free enterprise” (in other words healthcare for profit) can rape the American public with a profit margin of approximately 30% while government run healthcare runs about 4% over cost (Medicare)?
This I believe will be the pivotal point in Obama’s presidency. The truth is that you can’t please all of the people all of the time and this issue is no exception. Sometimes however, pleasing the people hasn’t been Barack Obama’s forte. The issues in the paragraph above illustrate that he really doesn’t mind ignoring his left/liberal supporters. He hasn’t balked at throwing us under the bus in almost every instance. Will this issue be the exception?
The outcome will be exactly what Obama wants it to be. If he has the wherewithal to keep pushing for a public option while he ignores those on the right that believe insurance companies profits and free enterprise are sacrosanct , huge gains will be his from the liberal wing of his party. This is the time to judge Obama’s mettle. He has a huge majority in Congress and enough clout to keep the conservative wing of the party in line. FDR didn’t pass social security without opposition, but he did it anyway and Americans are eternally grateful. Obama needs to take a good look at FDR’s stand on protecting the financial security and the well-being of the country as a whole. The truth is that this chance may never come again, especially with the monetary clout that Big Pharma and insurance companies have. The Democrats in the House and Senate should also reevaluate the public option. Backtracking on this issue could well split the party in two.
Another thing, I don’t make this stuff up.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Democrats, unlike Republicans, don't follow lock step with the crowd all the time.
That's to say, i was more towards the left of center during Nixon/Ford/Carter, shifted towards the right during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton periods... more towards the middle during the second Clinton term and more left of center during the Bush fiasco. It all depends on what is being decided on in Washington and how it affects me... and my increasing experience.
The extremes are where the loonies live... it isn't called the 'Lunatic Fringe' for nothing. That's where the Conspiracy Theorists live... and it is also where the 'pundits' (i.e. Political Celebrity/Entertainers) make their money. They are characitures that paint charaitures of their opponents and people eat it up because it's entertaining.
I believe the Political parties need to do themselves a favor and cut these segments loose... the radical Liberals and the reactionary Conservatives because there are the characitures that represent the parties and keep us divided in this never-ending nightmare of Election Campaigning.
Hail, Hail!!!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The next time someone tells you how disasterous the government runs things and how terrible governemnt employees are and it is a horrible thing if they are involved with health care...
Ask them if they feel the same way about our military. They are run by the government and the troops are paid by taxpayer dollars... so, they are government employees.
...
It's kinda funny... and a kinda shitty thing to do... make them stammer around like that.
Hail, Hail!!!
I think they do a horrible job with our military. How many senseless wars? How many lives lost on both "sides"? How much money lost on black budget spending? How many veterans do not get the care they deserve when they finally return home?
They need to be reigned in big time.
I think it's pretty obvious the government does a shitty job running the military, too. I'm not just talking about how they choose to employ it, which obviously differs from administration to administration (or maybe it doesn't).
I'm talking in terms of sheer efficiency. Nobody wastes money like the U.S. military. They'll spend $200 on a hammer. It's a financial sinkhole.
for the least they could possibly do
right... :roll:
Still... just humor me...
Next time a Rush Limbaugh Town Hall screamer cries about how horrible government agencies are... ask them if the arm forces is an inept organization with horrible employees.
Just for fun.
Hail, Hail!!!
No, I definitely don't think they are any better. I'm just saying the military whose responsibility is to protect this country should be reigned in quite a bit.
What good is a "non-profit" or even socialized entity if they are all-powerful, unquestionable, and plenty of people at the top are very much profiting off of the hard work of the masses?
I agree with this...those folks profiting are private for-profit companies...they sell the $200 hammer and some military buffoon approves it...it's a sick cycle that needs stopped...
their is huge amounts of waste in the defense budget, rumsfeld even announced over the years trillions were unaccounted for an an investigation would begin immediately but then 9/11 happened and it got lost in the shuffle. besides his group, PNAC, wanted to vastly increase defense spending.
i'm sure some of this money is for black ops and things like that but then you also have no bid contracts, bonuses for those companies even after they are found to be committing fraud, not doing the work they were paid to do, feeding the troops spoiled meat and dirty water...the pentagon voted against a weapons program, forgot the name maybe defender? anyway, they voted against it saying it cost too much for what it did and other reasons....BUT the company that made it was owned by the Carlyle Group (where dubya's dad was an exec) so the administration authorizes the funding for the project....it eventually gets cancelled but not after the Carlyle Group got paid. money is just pissed away, given away and stolen
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
you can do this by executive order of the president and congress to back up a bill to lower costs in the private sector, not total health care reform. This government option is a Trojan horse!!
Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics
The government's initial step in attempting to create a government-run healthcare monopoly has been to propose a law that would eventually drive the private health insurance industry out of existence. Additional taxes and mandated costs are to be imposed on health insurance companies, while a government-run "health insurance" bureaucracy will be created, ostensibly to "compete" with the private companies. The hoped-for end result is one big government monopoly which, like all government monopolies, will operate with all the efficiency of the post office and all the charm and compassion of the IRS.
Of course, it would be difficult to compete with a rival who has all of his capital and operating costs paid out of tax dollars. Whenever government "competes" with the private sector, it makes sure that the competition is grossly unfair, piling costly regulation after regulation, and tax after tax on the private companies while exempting itself from all of them. This is why the "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were so profitable for so many years. It is also why so many abysmally performing "public" schools remain in existence for decades despite their utter failure at educating children.
America's Healthcare Future?
Some years ago, the Nobel-laureate economist Milton Friedman studied the history of healthcare supply in America. In a 1992 study published by the Hoover Institution, entitled "Input and Output in Health Care," Friedman noted that 56 percent of all hospitals in America were privately owned and for-profit in 1910. After 60 years of subsidies for government-run hospitals, the number had fallen to about 10 percent. It took decades, but by the early 1990s government had taken over almost the entire hospital industry. That small portion of the industry that remains for-profit is regulated in an extraordinarily heavy way by federal, state and local governments so that many (perhaps most) of the decisions made by hospital administrators have to do with regulatory compliance as opposed to patient/customer service in pursuit of profit. It is profit, of course, that is necessary for private-sector hospitals to have the wherewithal to pay for healthcare.
Friedman's key conclusion was that, as with all governmental bureaucratic systems, government-owned or -controlled healthcare created a situation whereby increased "inputs," such as expenditures on equipment, infrastructure, and the salaries of medical professionals, actually led to decreased "outputs" in terms of the quantity of medical care. For example, while medical expenditures rose by 224 percent from 1965–1989, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population fell by 44 percent and the number of beds occupied declined by 15 percent. Also during this time of almost complete governmental domination of the hospital industry (1944–1989), costs per patient-day rose almost 24-fold after inflation is taken into account.
The more money that has been spent on government-run healthcare, the less healthcare we have gotten. This kind of result is generally true of all government bureaucracies because of the absence of any market feedback mechanism. Since there are no profits in an accounting sense, by definition, in government, there is no mechanism for rewarding good performance and penalizing bad performance. In fact, in all government enterprises, exactly the opposite is true: bad performance (failure to achieve ostensible goals, or satisfy "customers") is typically rewarded with larger budgets. Failure to educate children leads to more money for government schools. Failure to reduce poverty leads to larger budgets for welfare state bureaucracies. This is guaranteed to happen with healthcare socialism as well.
Costs always explode whenever the government gets involved, and governments always lie about it. In 1970 the government forecast that the hospital insurance (HI) portion of Medicare would be "only" $2.9 billion annually. Since the actual expenditures were $5.3 billion, this was a 79 percent underestimate of cost. In 1980 the government forecast $5.5 billion in HI expenditures; actual expenditures were more than four times that amount — $25.6 billion. This bureaucratic cost explosion led the government to enact 23 new taxes in the first 30 years of Medicare. (See Ron Hamoway, "The Genesis and Development of Medicare," in Roger Feldman, ed., American Health Care, Independent Institute, 2000, pp. 15-86). The Obama administration's claim that a government takeover of healthcare will somehow magically reduce costs is not to be taken seriously. Government never, ever, reduces the cost of doing anything.
All government-run healthcare monopolies, whether they are in Canada, the UK, or Cuba, experience an explosion of both cost and demand — since healthcare is "free." Socialized healthcare is not really free, of course; the true cost is merely hidden, since it is paid for by taxes.
Whenever anything has a zero explicit price associated with it, consumer demand will increase substantially, and healthcare is no exception. At the same time, bureaucratic bungling will guarantee gross inefficiencies that will get worse and worse each year. As costs get out of control and begin to embarrass those who have promised all Americans a free healthcare lunch, the politicians will do what all governments do and impose price controls, probably under some euphemism such as "global budget controls."
Price controls, or laws that force prices down below market-clearing levels (where supply and demand are coordinated), artificially stimulate the amount demanded by consumers while reducing supply by making it unprofitable to supply as much as previously. The result of increased demand and reduced supply is shortages. Non-price rationing becomes necessary. This means that government bureaucrats, not individuals and their doctors, inevitably determine who will get medical treatment and who will not, what kind of medical technology will be available, how many doctors there will be, and so forth.
All countries that have adopted socialized healthcare have suffered from the disease of price-control-induced shortages. If a Canadian, for instance, suffers third-degree burns in an automobile crash and is in need of reconstructive plastic surgery, the average waiting time for treatment is more than 19 weeks, or nearly five months. The waiting time for orthopaedic surgery is also almost five months; for neurosurgery it's three full months; and it is even more than a month for heart surgery (see The Fraser Institute publication, Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada). Think about that one: if your doctor discovers that your arteries are clogged, you must wait in line for more than a month, with death by heart attack an imminent possibility. That's why so many Canadians travel to the United States for healthcare.
All the major American newspapers seem to have become nothing more than cheerleaders for the Obama administration, so it is difficult to find much in the way of current stories about the debacle of nationalized healthcare in Canada. But if one goes back a few years, the information is much more plentiful. A January 16, 2000, New York Times article entitled "Full Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South," by James Brooke, provided some good examples of how Canadian price controls have created serious shortage problems.
A 58-year-old grandmother awaited open-heart surgery in a Montreal hospital hallway with 66 other patients as electric doors opened and closed all night long, bringing in drafts from sub-zero weather. She was on a five-year waiting list for her heart surgery.
In Toronto, 23 of the city's 25 hospitals turned away ambulances in a single day because of a shortage of doctors.
In Vancouver, ambulances have been "stacked up" for hours while heart attack victims wait in them before being properly taken care of.
At least 1,000 Canadian doctors and many thousands of Canadian nurses have migrated to the United States to avoid price controls on their salaries.
Wrote Mr. Brooke, "Few Canadians would recommend their system as a model for export."
Canadian price-control-induced shortages also manifest themselves in scarce access to medical technology. Per capita, the United States has eight times more MRI machines, seven times more radiation therapy units for cancer treatment, six times more lithotripsy units, and three times more open-heart surgery units. There are more MRI scanners in Washington state, population five million, than in all of Canada, with a population of more than 30 million (See John Goodman and Gerald Musgrave, Patient Power).
In the UK as well — thanks to nationalization, price controls, and government rationing of healthcare — thousands of people die needlessly every year because of shortages of kidney dialysis machines, pediatric intensive care units, pacemakers, and even x-ray machines. This is America's future, if "ObamaCare" becomes a reality.
http://mises.org/story/3586Report
this article will be 10 years old on 1/16/10....what's next, a article about the benefits of using leeches...
I'm frightened of anyone who cannot find a more constructive manner of expressing themselves than to scream during town hall meetings.
for the least they could possibly do