The Coming of "Socialized Medicine"

Cancel7

Banned
Don't make me laugh, ok?

It doesn't matter what the majority of the people want. Corporations give the orders in this country, and our politicians say "yes sir, can I do anything else for you, sir"

So you few free market religion fools, can relax. Your masters are all our masters.

Health Sector Puts Its Money on Democrats
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — In a reversal from past election cycles, Democratic candidates for president are outpacing Republicans in donations from the health care industry, even as the leading Democrats in the field offer proposals that have caused deep anxiety in some of its sectors.

Hospitals, drug makers, doctors and insurers gave candidates in both parties more than $11 million in the first nine months of this year, according to an analysis of campaign finance records done for The New York Times by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks campaign finance.

In all, the Democratic presidential candidates have raised about $6.5 million from the industry, compared with nearly $4.8 million for the Republican candidates. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has amassed the most of any candidate, even as she calls for changes to the health care system that could pose serious financial challenges to private insurers, drug companies and other sectors.

Mrs. Clinton received $2.7 million through the end of September, far more than Mitt Romney, the Republican who raised the most from the health care industry, with $1.6 million. The industry’s shift in contributions toward Democratic candidates mirrors wider trends among donors, but the donations from this sector are particularly notable because of the party’s focus on overhauling the health care system.

People in the health care industry say the giving reflects a growing sense that the Democrats are in a strong position to win the White House next year. It also underscores the industry’s frantic effort to influence the candidates, as Democrats push their proposals to address what many polls show is a top concern among voters.

“Everybody in the industry knows that health care reform is on its way, and you have only two decisions: sit on the sidelines or get on the field,” said Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association.

But the donations are exposing the candidates, particularly Mrs. Clinton, to accusations of being captive to special interests, a charge that one of Mrs. Clinton’s rivals, John Edwards, has leveled against her on the campaign trail, telling her during one debate that she would “negotiate and compromise your way to universal health care” with the insurance and drug industries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/us/politics/29health.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
 
You've got to be shitting me right?

We've been pointing out for months that the Dems have been receiving healthcare industry dollars and stand to benefit massively from most Democratic candidates' proposals.

It's the Democratic candidates themselves who are desperately trying to distance themselves from their corporate sponsors. Hillary: "I won't be the health insurance industry's woman of the year" bullshit.

A free market means just that: a free market. The government buying insurance from a single private firm does not a free market make. Nor does the government buying insurance from a variety of private companies make a free market. Even if the government REQUIRES that you purchase insurance yourself from a private company, a free market is not in effect.

Democratic presidential candidates' healthcare plans seem to range from Stalinistic nationalization of the entire industry, to a fascist form of NAZI corporatism involving private corporations working unaccountably hand in hand with legislators in ramming insurance down your throat.
 
You've got to be shitting me right?

We've been pointing out for months that the Dems have been receiving healthcare industry dollars and stand to benefit massively from most Democratic candidates' proposals.

It's the Democratic candidates themselves who are desperately trying to distance themselves from their corporate sponsors. Hillary: "I won't be the health insurance industry's woman of the year" bullshit.

A free market means just that: a free market. The government buying insurance from a single private firm does not a free market make. Nor does the government buying insurance from a variety of private companies make a free market. Even if the government REQUIRES that you purchase insurance yourself from a private company, a free market is not in effect.

Democratic presidential candidates' healthcare plans seem to range from Stalinistic nationalization of the entire industry, to a fascist form of NAZI corporatism involving private corporations working unaccountably hand in hand with legislators in ramming insurance down your throat.


Warren? I don't give a shit about a free market. Did you forget that?

If you ever feel like reading a really different book, try picking up Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". I would be interested in hearing what you think. Even if it was a year from now.
 
Warren? I don't give a shit about a free market. Did you forget that?

If you ever feel like reading a really different book, try picking up Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". I would be interested in hearing what you think. Even if it was a year from now.

Nice job not addressing any of my points.

I'll get to your book eventually and let you know what I think.

In the meantime if you ever decide to post a comprehensive response to my post I would like that, and maybe not feel so much like I just wasted 5 minutes typing a reasoned argument which you dismissed with a "ZOMFGOPJEDFPOIJSF I DONT CARE AOBUT FREE MARKETS I NEVER TOOK ECONOMICS!"

Jesus. Might as well be talking to topspin.
 
Nice job not addressing any of my points.

I'll get to your book eventually and let you know what I think.

In the meantime if you ever decide to post a comprehensive response to my post I would like that, and maybe not feel so much like I just wasted 5 minutes typing a reasoned argument which you dismissed with a "ZOMFGOPJEDFPOIJSF I DONT CARE AOBUT FREE MARKETS I NEVER TOOK ECONOMICS!"

Jesus. Might as well be talking to topspin.

What points did you want me to address Warren? "A free market means just that, a free market"?

The freer the market, the more economically disenfranchised and oppressed the people. I understand that the free market is your religion; it is not mine.

I don't care about your free markets. Corporate freedom is not economic freedom, and economic freedom is not political freedom.

As for the consensous dem plan...it is going to set up a system wherein the private sector will be competing with the government. If the private sector cannot compete, then we could see it morph into a single-payer system.

Are you afraid of the outcome of this competition?
 
I should specify - what the dems claim their plan is going to be.

With all this insurance lobby money flowing into their coffers, I expect it will be the same as it ever was.

In which case, 18,000 Americans will continue to die every single year, for the "free market". And they should be buried in Arlington, as heros.

For they give their lives for their corporatist country, and we should honor their sacrifices. The tree of corporate america must be fertilized from day to day, with the blood of the unimportant american.
 
Time for a revoloution of some type.

the more things "change" , the more they stay the same.
I t is all just smoke and mirrors. I figure the dems will follow Bush's pill bill example.
 
Warren you wish you were equipt to talk economics on par with me son.
Darla, you'll just take the lifestyle benefits of a free markent and rail against it like a good limosine liberal does.
 
Warren you wish you were equipt to talk economics on par with me son.
Darla, you'll just take the lifestyle benefits of a free markent and rail against it like a good limosine liberal does.

Top for the last time, I am not a "limosine" liberal...nor even, a limousine liberal.

I'm practically po white trash, though my daddy didn't raise me that way.
 
I have plenty clue, you are very much the intellectual Duhla.
And your discourse is most certainly that of a LL.

USC is working on 1,000 non substantial post in a row. Way to go
 
WARREN: You've got to be shitting me right?

snip

A free market means just that: a free market. The government buying insurance from a single private firm does not a free market make. Nor does the government buying insurance from a variety of private companies make a free market. Even if the government REQUIRES that you purchase insurance yourself from a private company, a free market is not in effect.

Nobody outside of anachro-capitalist circles knows what you're talking about when you somberly proclaim that "a free market is a free market". The free market, as anacro-capitalists imagine, has never existed in the history of the modern nation-state. The stability and profitability of private enterprise has always been founded on a functioning public commons: a justice system, public roads and infrastruture, publically funded core scientific research, public education, a military protecting economic interests, and a government and diplomatic core that promotes national economic interest on a global scale.

I'm in favor of what works. Ascribing a diety status to the "free market" or to "socialism" is mental masturbation. The capitalist system is generally efficient in many areas of production, maketing, and distribution of consumer products" Refrigerators, to cell phones, to petro chemicals. Healthcare in a fundamental human need and right, is a modern society, unlike refrigerators. Many examples of fully adequate and functioning public healthcare systems around the world have been presented to you. I challenge you to find one single developed country on the planet that relies simply on "health savings accounts" to adequatly deal with national healthcare. By virutally every heatlhcare metric, the United States ranks near the bottom of industrialized countries. Which is not to say we have bad doctors, hospitals, and technology. We have among the best. We just don't have adequante, or universal access to it for all our citizens. In fact, guess what? The one area the U.S. excels in is the health of our seniors. For the demographic that actually reaches the age of 65, the health metrics for that demographic are at or near the top in the world. And suprise- that particular american demographic has universal healthcare. Imagine that.

Democratic presidential candidates' healthcare plans seem to range from Stalinistic nationalization of the entire industry,

Gravely proclaiming the threat of Stalistic systems is meaningless rhetoric. I serioulsy doubt that nations from Sweden to Australia, to Germany consider their universal healthcare systems, to be an expression of Stalinsim.

to a fascist form of NAZI corporatism involving private corporations working unaccountably hand in hand with legislators in ramming insurance down your throat.

So, you set up a no-win, catch-22 conundrum. Either we have singel-payer publically-funded healthcare and become Stalinists, or we have universal healthcare by subsidizing people to buy private insurance, and thus become Fascists. This is just silly rhetoric, and you know it warren. Unless you're prepared to call every developed nation on the earth, besides the United States, a Stalinist regime, then you know this is a silly assertion.

Have a good day. ;)
 
Last edited:
I have plenty clue, you are very much the intellectual Duhla.
And your discourse is most certainly that of a LL.

USC is working on 1,000 non substantial post in a row. Way to go

"you are very much the intellectual, duhla"

LOL

Only top could write this sentence
 
Back
Top