• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Even the socialists hate Obamacare

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Socialist Party Candidate Alexander Calls Obamacare Another Corporate Giveaway
by Billy Wharton
Friday Jun 29th, 2012 10:10 AM

Obama’s policy was based on the original sin of allowing the pharmaceutical companies off the hook. He then followed this up by pledging public funds to subsidize junk healthcare plans, coercing Americans into purchasing these plans and silencing the voices of single-payer healthcare advocates. Obamacare is not healthcare reform; it is just another corporate giveaway by the Obama administration.​
Socialist Party USA Presidential Candidate Stewart Alexander condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the provisions of the President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Calling it a “corporate restructuring of the healthcare system in America,” Alexander pointed to the many inequities that are built into to the new system. He highlighted the need for a fully socialized healthcare system that guarantees access to high quality healthcare as a human right.

“The private health insurance companies always had two ideas in mind when it came to healthcare reform – either to avoid all reforms or stick the American people with a bad reform,” Alexander stated, “Today, the Supreme Court upheld the bad healthcare reform that will insure the profits of private healthcare companies at the expense of American’s access to healthcare.”

“Obama’s policy was based on the original sin of allowing the pharmaceutical companies off the hook. He then followed this up by pledging public funds to subsidize junk healthcare plans, coercing Americans into purchasing these plans and silencing the voices of single-payer healthcare advocates. This is no reform; it is just another corporate giveaway by the Obama administration.”

Alexander pointed to the fact that an estimated 26 million people will remain outside the healthcare system and that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act still leaves millions of Americans vulnerable to bankruptcy because of medical bills.

Alexander and his running mate Alex Mendoza advocate for a single-payer healthcare system that will abolish the private health insurance companies. They see this measure as an important first step in the direction of a fully socialized healthcare system. The pair will challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care on the campaign trail, including the Swing States of Ohio, Colorado, Louisiana, New Jersey and Florida.

The Socialist Party USA is America’s voice for democratic socialism. The SP-USA supports the creation of a radical democracy where regular people have a direct voice on issues related to public budgets, how their work sites operate and in their community. We believe that things like housing, healthcare, a clean environment and a good job are human rights and should be guaranteed.


For more information, visit the 2012 campaign website: Stewart Alexander for President/Alex Mendoza for Vice President 2012:http://stewartalexanderforpresident2012.org/

http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/#!/2012/06/socialist-party-candidate-calls.html

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/29/18716571.php

who'd a thunk it?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Your not trying to advocate a single payer system are you?

What is all the "letting pharmaceuticals of the hook"?
 

deprave

New Member
"another corporate giveaway by the Obama administration."

I have to agree with that. I am not someone who is strongly opposed to "Obama Care" because I do think that it addresses some issues although not enough and at too great of a cost. I would disagree with the "mandate" also but I have to say it really doesn't fix anything at all, the major flaws are in the system itself although I would say we are probably better off with this fascist system then the old fascist system even if its only slightly.

My main concerns are this.

1) Health insurance is not healthcare. This is the core really, this is sort of a corporate guise to sell us on this. The primary issues with healthcare are not addressed, instead this focuses on insurance as if adjusting insurance is the solution, its simply not for many reasons. The only issues addressed are insurance issues and they are simply just a few of many minor consequences(pre-existing conditions, young adult coverage(which btw isn't even fully addressed), etc..) as a result of the core issues (Medical equipment costs, patents, monopolies, ER wait times, Bureaucracy, technology, frivolous law suits, etc..)

2) Even for the fact that there is allegedly "no consequence" for not paying your penalty which kind of makes it a moot point especially for those willing to cheat the system thus punishing those who are obedient little serfs this is more money that we are billed for making it effectively one of the largest tax increases on the American people in many years. You all know how I feel about taxes, they are pure theft.

3)I don't like the way it was handled with all the backroom deals (I.E Corn Husker Kick Back)..Why do we have to pay for this crap and who knows what else?


My overall point is that, I am pro healthcare and healthcare for every human being just like any rational individual, however I am not pro-big pharama and this is exactly why a socialist would oppose "Obama Care"...Not only that its why any rational individual should recognize it as this "Just another corporate give-away" when one looks at the true problems facing healthcare, the associated costs, and envisions the solutions which are really needed. I would have to say the socialist parties proposal here is much better than Obama's but it still won't solve the problems we have.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Children's hospital in Detroit is sending kids with cancer across the river to Canada for a drug we are not allowed to give here. The FDA will not approve a medication that is not from an American company.

Canada is apparently 3rd world and we can't trust their drugs (that are cheaper and proven to work) so we have to buy drugs from an American company that were made in Malaysia.

Yeah this bill was about lowering costs for us.....
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
1) Health insurance is not healthcare. This is the core really, this is sort of a corporate guise to sell us on this. The primary issues with healthcare are not addressed, instead this focuses on insurance as if adjusting insurance is the solution, its simply not for many reasons. The only issues addressed are insurance issues and they are simply just a few of many minor consequences(pre-existing conditions, young adult coverage(which btw isn't even fully addressed), etc..) as a result of the core issues (Medical equipment costs, patents, monopolies, ER wait times, Bureaucracy, technology, frivolous law suits, etc..)
Exactly! This does NOTHING to improve healthcare or make it affordable. It does lay the ground work for the federal blob to eventually take over the whole enchilada. Not to worry, though, they may have won this battle but I think they just lost the white house and some seats in congress.
I think it's hilarious that everybody was so quick to say that it was NOT a tax... but it really is. Another broken promise. Biggest tax increase in history and for the US, that's saying something.
 

beenthere

New Member
Anyone who thinks this bill was to help Americans to access healthcare is a fool.
This whole ACA was about growing government, nothing more, nothing less.
 

nontheist

Well-Known Member
Anyone who thinks this bill was to help Americans to access healthcare is a fool.
This whole ACA was about growing government, nothing more, nothing less.
Whats not to like? We have finally bridged the much needed gap to let the private sector IE: insurance companies control federal tax. WIN!!!!! /sarcasm
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Question ( Puppets no need to answer ) If AHC is not the answer, but one is most certainly needed. How do we fix our healthcare system?
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Question ( Puppets no need to answer ) If AHC is not the answer, but one is most certainly needed. How do we fix our healthcare system?
Deregulation and encouraging competition. Allow insurance coverage across state lines. Offer affordable, catastrophic care for those of us who don't live to be sick. Start weaning people off of Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Take it back to the system it once was, where people would pay for healthcare, out of pocket. If they couldn't afford that, there were church and private charities that were much more efficient than Uncle Sam at looking after the indigent. Insurance was for catastrophic care. In case you had an accident or came down with a debilitating disease.
Healthcare decisions should be between the patient and the caregiver, not the patient, caregiver and the insurance company/government. The more local the control is, the better. The government that governs least, governs best.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Deregulation and encouraging competition. Allow insurance coverage across state lines. Offer affordable, catastrophic care for those of us who don't live to be sick. Start weaning people off of Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Take it back to the system it once was, where people would pay for healthcare, out of pocket. If they couldn't afford that, there were church and private charities that were much more efficient than Uncle Sam at looking after the indigent. Insurance was for catastrophic care. In case you had an accident or came down with a debilitating disease.
Healthcare decisions should be between the patient and the caregiver, not the patient, caregiver and the insurance company/government. The more local the control is, the better. The government that governs least, governs best.
Thank you for answering , but I do disagree. I would hate to see a system for the health and welfare of people to depend of churches and private charities. Why we as a nation , which is thought to be one of the greatest, can't give her people healthcare. How can you look out for the welfare of your people without looking out for their health. JMHO
 

deprave

New Member
Thank you for answering , but I do disagree. I would hate to see a system for the health and welfare of people to depend of churches and private charities. Why we as a nation , which is thought to be one of the greatest, can't give her people healthcare. How can you look out for the welfare of your people without looking out for their health. JMHO
?
I really don't see how that is what he is recommending or how you get to that conclusion...As I wrote in my post above expanding on it a little: Medical equipment costs(regulations and contracts), patents(drug companies), monopolies(pfizer big pharma influence and control), ER wait times, Bureaucracy(increases ER wait times due to unavailable beds), technology(Medical system largely still on paper), frivolous law suits(Doctor patient relation is tarnished), Mental Health etc..)

Those are just some of the problems we face, none of them have to do with insurance coverage, insurance coverage is fine, people are not turned down for treatment, I would however agree that "Obama Care" did in fact address some insurance coverage issues...but at a great cost...and additionally these are only small problems as a consequence of the above issues.....how about please just read my post above.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Deregulation and encouraging competition. Allow insurance coverage across state lines. Offer affordable, catastrophic care for those of us who don't live to be sick. Start weaning people off of Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Take it back to the system it once was, where people would pay for healthcare, out of pocket. If they couldn't afford that, there were church and private charities that were much more efficient than Uncle Sam at looking after the indigent. Insurance was for catastrophic care. In case you had an accident or came down with a debilitating disease.Healthcare decisions should be between the patient and the caregiver, not the patient, caregiver and the insurance company/government. The more local the control is, the better. The government that governs least, governs best.
ah the give the docter a chicken approach im sorry but thats not reform thats an unrealistic fantasy
 

nontheist

Well-Known Member
ah the give the docter a chicken approach im sorry but thats not reform thats an unrealistic fantasy
About unrealistic as Obama care, now the liberal are finished their feather strut its starting to sink in that this this is one of the worst fucking ways to deal with healthcare anyway you look at it.

Doesn't Europe have enough problems, why are you trolling American policies?
 

deprave

New Member
About unrealistic as Obama care, now the liberal are finished their feather strut its starting to sink in that this this is one of the worst fucking ways to deal with healthcare anyway you look at it.

Doesn't Europe have enough problems, why are you trolling American policies?
common, I think your being over dramatic, its only slightly more fascist. I guees that might make it the worse thou....
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
About unrealistic as Obama care, now the liberal are finished their feather strut its starting to sink in that this this is one of the worst fucking ways to deal with healthcare anyway you look at it.Doesn't Europe have enough problems, why are you trolling American policies?
single payer system is what you need i wont deny thatnext you'l be telling me if it wasn't for you guys we'd be speaking german
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Thank you for answering , but I do disagree. I would hate to see a system for the health and welfare of people to depend of churches and private charities. Why we as a nation , which is thought to be one of the greatest, can't give her people healthcare. How can you look out for the welfare of your people without looking out for their health. JMHO
You're welcome.
It did work at one time, not too long ago and they are more efficient with their resources because they HAVE to be. Whereas a government stooge (please, government stooges, please don't take this personal but bureaucrat is too hard to spell) has no problem with resources because as long as he spends all of his budget, this year, then he is guaranteed an increase, next year. A church or private charity has to live within it's means so they don't overpay for their goods and they don't lose money to waste. They are accountable.
I don't know what evidence there is that convinces so many that the government has the answers and the governed need so much protection, when, in reality, they need more protection from​ the government.
 

nontheist

Well-Known Member
single payer system is what you need i wont deny thatnext you'l be telling me if it wasn't for you guys we'd be speaking german
LOL, No put you wouldnt wanting me drinking a pint and telling you what the fuck you guys need to do to "make it better". Its just a respect issue.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
?
I really don't see how that is what he is recommending or how you get to that conclusion...As I wrote in my post above expanding on it a little: Medical equipment costs(regulations and contracts), patents(drug companies), monopolies(pfizer big pharma influence and control), ER wait times, Bureaucracy(increases ER wait times due to unavailable beds), technology(Medical system largely still on paper), frivolous law suits(Doctor patient relation is tarnished), Mental Health etc..)

Those are just some of the problems we face, none of them have to do with insurance coverage, insurance coverage is fine, people are not turned down for treatment, I would however agree that "Obama Care" did in fact address some insurance coverage issues...but at a great cost...and additionally these are only small problems as a consequence of the above issues.....how about please just read my post above.
so you really would rather have the poor depend on churches and private charities for health care ????
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
You're welcome.
It did work at one time, not too long ago and they are more efficient with their resources because they HAVE to be. Whereas a government stooge (please, government stooges, please don't take this personal but bureaucrat is too hard to spell) has no problem with resources because as long as he spends all of his budget, this year, then he is guaranteed an increase, next year. A church or private charity has to live within it's means so they don't overpay for their goods and they don't lose money to waste. They are accountable.
I don't know what evidence there is that convinces so many that the government has the answers and the governed need so much protection, when, in reality, they need more protection from​ the government.
sounds like the problem is health services costing too much ?? and this systems does not tackle the problem of over-cost..is that the jest of what you are saying ???
 
Top