Whatever happened to the Obama sycophants?

[pikto99]

ElQueso and FAS, let me disagree on this point: "... Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspective".
When ideology based on national recognition and prevaliance it is irrelevant to mention in which interests INSIDE it would be based on or "play in favor to".
Lets just stick witch "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome" from the original meaning. Why in Italy and why at the same time as in Spain and Germany? What is it united all of them?
Duche for surre wants Italy for Italians, Hitler - Germany for Germans, Franco's Spain - for Spanish.
Neither nation before them back in 20's was in any angle a "socialistic", as for example Soviet Union.

So by digging History of these countries we could clearly see that the whole their economy used to be based on mixture of smaller businesses and corporations. The only thing they were enforcing is these issues that smoothly passed our attention here in the US: transnational corporatism.

Lets read fron the Author:

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society...

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].

Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.

So by pushing out foreigners (by their national recognition) out of their respective countries they were trying to protect their own, INTERIOR markets first.
What is wrong with that?

When I post my own thoughts about "Obama's corporate fascism" I am in clear understanding that term "fascism" has symbolic meaning of some unity, unity of corporations. I would not open another non-productive treat about why "fascism" in the US has specific nationality - I have limited supporters over here with such point. But I do believe that US being hacked by very specific nation.
Not Italians though...

 

[mini]

Which particular socialist countries have the kind of system Obama endorses? No West European country I know of offhand has the system that Obama and Congress have passed. The Scandinavian system is not what Americans will be getting.

They certainly aren't socialist, but the Swiss have this type of system.

 

[bigbadwolf]

They certainly aren't socialist, but the Swiss have this type of system.

But if memory serves, the Swiss government regulates prices of insurance policies and prices of pharmaceuticals. Obama Care makes buying health insurance mandatory -- but doesn't impose price controls. And Obama Care might mean an insurer can't turn away soneone because of an existing condition -- but remains mum on what the insurer can charge. In Germany also there exists a system of private insurance -- but again a system of government regulations to make sure the private sector doesn't price-gouge its customers and lives up to its obligations (by not welching when payment becomes due, for example).

 

[Choripán]

But if memory serves, the Swiss government regulates prices of insurance policies and prices of pharmaceuticals. Obama Care makes buying health insurance mandatory -- but doesn't impose price controls. And Obama Care might mean an insurer can't turn away soneone because of an existing condition -- but remains mum on what the insurer can charge. In Germany also there exists a system of private insurance -- but again a system of government regulations to make sure the private sector doesn't price-gouge its customers and lives up to its obligations (by not welching when payment becomes due, for example).

Interesting. The absence of meaningful price controls is why many progressives in America, myself included, are wary of ObamaCare. The insurance mandate is necessary to make the risk pool function properly. Without it, there's really no such thing as reform. I guess a social scientist would say that it's a necessary but not sufficient condition of reform. But Reps and centrists Dems succeeded in killing the "socialist" public option, which would have been the only effective way to manage prices in the health care market. Thus ObamaCare is not really reform in the strongest sense, because it does very little to control the wildly escalating medical costs that are crippling our economy. It's a half-step at best.

A friend of mine is an expert in comparative health systems, especially in Europe. His latest book Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France is worth a read if you have the time. The history of health care in America is a frustrating and depressing story. The recent battle over ObamaCare is just the latest sad chapter.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Interesting. The absence of meaningful price controls is why many progressives in America, myself included, are wary of ObamaCare. The insurance mandate is necessary to make the risk pool function properly. Without it, there's really no such thing as reform. I guess a social scientist would say that it's a necessary but not sufficient condition of reform. But Reps and centrists Dems succeeded in killing the "socialist" public option, which would have been the only effective way to manage prices in the health care market. Thus ObamaCare is not really reform in the strongest sense, because it does very little to control the wildly escalating medical costs that are crippling our economy. It's a half-step at best.

A friend of mine is an expert in comparative health systems, especially in Europe. His latest book Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France is worth a read if you have the time. The history of health care in America is a frustrating and depressing story. The recent battle over ObamaCare is just the latest sad chapter.

When I was in Panama three years ago, they were showing someone on television (CNN?) who was discussing his forthcoming book on European health care systems. I wonder if it was Paul Dutton. Whoever it was, he was arguing that only two European countries -- Britain and one other -- have national health services available free of charge to anyone and everyone. The other European countries have different kinds of health insurance system. But they are all regulated.

Some liberals are arguing that what Obama has done is better than nothing. But I think they are wrong. This is worse than nothing and not only doesn't address the problem of inefficiency and high costs but probably exacerbates them. The bill itself was crafted behind closed doors with the heavy involvement of industry lobbyists. It is a travesty designed to further fill the coffers of private interests, and these interests run counter to the needs of the mass of people. There's been a plethora of well-written essays on the net which criticise in detail the provisions of the bill.

The US government -- regardless of what figurehead is at the helm -- is incapable of enacting anything that runs counter to the cupidity of the business sector. In Europe, the state is a contested area between the private sector and workers. In the USA, big business and the state have morphed into one entity. Thus the absurdity of expecting the state to provide safeguards against the predation of business. This is as true of financial regulation, environmental protection, and military spending as it is of health care. Obama is Bush with a darker complexion and one who can be trusted not to break into a smirk at the malarkey he's spouting.

 

[mini]

But if memory serves, the Swiss government regulates prices of insurance policies and prices of pharmaceuticals. Obama Care makes buying health insurance mandatory -- but doesn't impose price controls. And Obama Care might mean an insurer can't turn away soneone because of an existing condition -- but remains mum on what the insurer can charge. In Germany also there exists a system of private insurance -- but again a system of government regulations to make sure the private sector doesn't price-gouge its customers and lives up to its obligations (by not welching when payment becomes due, for example).

The Swiss do not have price controls on their insurers but they do set price limits on pharmaceuticals. Insurance companies are allowed to set whatever prices they want. The only prices that are somewhat* controlled are the basic insurance plans. All other plans can we whatever each company wants. Companies can not use risk, pre-existing conditions or previous medical records as a way to raise prices nor deny coverage at least the basic coverage. The Swiss gov't subsidizes if you can't afford at least the basic health insurance.

 

[bigbadwolf]

The only prices that are somewhat* controlled are the basic insurance plans. All other plans can we whatever each company wants. Companies can not use risk, pre-existing conditions or previous medical records as a way to raise prices nor deny coverage at least the basic coverage. The Swiss gov't subsidizes if you can't afford at least the basic health insurance.

These significantly distinguish the Swiss system from Obama care. First of all, as I understand it, there isn't any real quality or price control on the basic policies presently uninsured Americans are going to be pressganged into buying. Nor, as I understand it, is there any price control on what a company may choose to charge should there be a pre-existing condition. I understand there is to be some subsidy for those too poor to buy even some basic policy -- but this is not intended to cover all those uninsured (perhaps a maximum of 11m out of the presently 45m uninsured) and even then will only gradually kick in after some years. The problem is understanding the 2,000 pages of small print with all sorts of subsidiary clauses deliberately designed to confuse and obfuscate yet another piece of legislation whose primary beneficiaries will be the corporate sector.

 

[jaredwb]

Hmmmm...WTF?? An "A-1" job? Are you mental or just in complete and utter denial of the facts?

If you are talking about raising our dept to 14 Trillion (more than the ALL the previous presidents COMBINED"), passing a socialist healthcare bill that will turn the U.S. healthcare system into basically Venezuela and Argentina (and I just recently experience public "health" process here) AND that 68% of the people STILL reject, and completely dividing the country in 2 while lying, stealing, and cheating with a smile...then yes, I guess he is doing an A-1 job.

I guess the people that still believe in hard-work, free enterprise, and NOT being entitled to other people's money would disagree.

I guess I'll be seeing you at the next Gremialista picket in front of the Min of Trabajo demanding more money for nothing...OR, you'll be back in the states asking "where's the free Obama money"? Go get'em tiger!

 

[pikto99]

Speaking of Swiss "public health care"

Social health insurance gives everyone living in Switzerland access to adequate health care in the event of sickness, and accident if they are not covered by accident insurance.
Social health insurance is operated by a number of insurers. Only those which meet the conditions set out in Swiss legislation, and which are not profit-making, are authorized to handle social health insurance. They must apply the legal provisions in an identical manner and separate from other insurance (for example, complementary insurance according to by private insurance law). If an insurer becomes insolvent, the cost of its statutory benefits are taken over by a joint body funded by contributions made by the insurers on the basis of their social health insurance premiums.

The role of the insurers is not restricted to reimbursing the cost of services provided to insured persons. They also work together with the cantons to encourage health promotion. Insurers and cantons operate a joint body whose aim is to promote, co-ordinate and evaluate steps aimed at promoting good health and preventing illness.

 

[pikto99]

What so-called "Obama socialists" are doing is they are pulling the "Act" first, and once it became a Law there will be all kinds of shit to roll onto us from all different directions of such "reform".
The dilemma for every country is to support "those who in need" and to not squeeze too much those "who's working".
If the Government will continue on as before the "ObamaCare Reform" then Feds will have to support the Medicaid/Medicare for these in need. And cut some pieces from fiscal budget (state and Fed) for it.
What "they" want to do is to push the cost of "MADicaid" to everyone. Feds required mandatory to have a "health insurance" but not to provide one.

So the Government could continue to fund something like this instead: http://www.usobserver.com/archive/april-10/america-do-you-feel-violated-yet.html
In this prospectives the Government really became a wholesale money distributor.
I think the next decade we'll have to pay for EducAid, PoliceAid, FirefighterAid and whatever "aid" is left from Government (state and Fed) supposedly funded services.
Imagine calling to police and being asked to provide ur "valid" number to match. And (Holy Jesus with rusty shmeisser!) see what will happening if you forgot to pay your monthly fee...