Let's face it. As long as unrestrained capitalism reigns we're SOL on healthcare.

[FlyingSquirrel]

You look at the facts - only in America where healthcare has become a for-profit enterprise, do people go bankrupt for medical reasons. Possibly half a million per year, at this point.

This is a worst case scenario. Unrestrained capitalism has done damage before to this country, and we have managed to wrest control back from the robber-barons. But never before have they been in direct control of our very lives, the way they are now.

We cannot afford to fail. We cannot afford to stop fighting and give up. We cannot afford to allow Congress to pat themselves on the back and say they've done the best they could. We cannot afford to say, "We've taken a small step, someday we'll build on this." The Republicans are down, but don't count them out. NOW is the time, while we have the majorities that we are currently enjoying plus the presidency. We need to force action while the craven bastards who call themselves Democrats have nowhere to hide and no more excuses for their inaction.

NOW.

[emulatorloo]

1. "we have the majorities" and "the craven bastards who call themselves Democrats"

seems kind of contradictory.

The Lieberman and the Blue Dogs are the big problem here, with that crowd we don't really appear to have a majority.

But I agree we cannot afford to stop fighting. That crowd has to go, more Republicans have to go, and more Dems with convictions need to come in.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. The biggest problem, even bigger than for-profit insurance,

is our totally corrupt campaign finance system. Because of it we have little chance of really meaningful health care reform, really meaningful banking reform, or any other kind of change that will significant benefit individuals. The corporations will always be able to buy the votes of members of Congress, and both parties are in it up to their necks. And they almost have to be, because if you don't hustle up huge wads of money you can't get elected or re-elected -- and the big money comes from the big businesses. So unless you pander to the corporations it's damn hard to win elections. The lobbyists for which the corporations spend millions ensure that their clients' concerns are heard once they've purchased their elections. In Buckley v. Valeo, back in the '70s, the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment's right to petition for redress of grievances includes the right to contribute piles of money to politicians; in other words, money = free speech. And the case before them now will probably be even worse.

Considering the insane amounts of money the insurance companies have spent to thwart health care reform, I'm frankly surprised it's gone this far, as lame and watered down as it is. I'm afraid this will be as good as it gets unless somebody figures out how to end the legalized bribery that constitutes out campaign finance system.

[clear eye]

8. Major change for the worse in that dept. is expected from the Supreme Court

They are expected to announce a decision next week calling all corporate donations to campaigns, "free speech". See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=492488&mesg_id=492488

[ProleNoMore]

10. Ocelot, This Is The Truly Fundamental Underlying Problem

eom

[keep_it_real]

3. It's not unrestrained capitalism it is "CRONY" capitalism

[Pharaoh]

4. Disaster Capitalism

[Myrina]

5. And we have a winner!

:thumbsup: If it were real, unrestrained, free-market capitalism, all those "too big to fail" institutions would have been allowed to sink or swim on their own merits.


Instead, we got .... :hurts:

[KansDem]

6. It's "corporate communism"

Corporate Communism Is Killing Us

Dylan Ratigan

Lately I have been using the phrase "Corporate Communism" on my television show. I think it is an especially fitting term when discussing the current landscape in both our banking and health care systems.

As Americans, I believe we reject communism because it historically has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over national resources (including people), in the process stifling competition, freedom and choice. It leaves its citizens stagnating under the perpetual broken systems with no natural motivation to innovate, improve services or reduce costs.

Lack of choice, lazy, unresponsive customer service, a culture of exploitation and a small powerbase formed by cronyism and nepotism are the hallmarks of a communist system that steals from its citizenry and a major reason why America spent half a century fighting a Cold War with the U.S.S.R.

And yet today we find ourselves as a country in two distinctly different categories: those who are forced to compete tooth and nail each day to provide value to society in return for income for ourselves and our families and those who would instead use our lawmaking apparatus to help themselves to our tax money and/or to protect themselves from true competition.

If you allow weak, outdated players to take control of the government and change the rules so they are protected from the natural competition and reward systems that have created so many innovations in our country, you not only steal from the citizens on behalf of the least worthy but you also doom them by trapping the capital that would be used to generate new innovation and, most tangibly in our current situation, jobs.

--more--
Business Insider

[clear eye]

11. That term is a cop-out.

Sorry, but political science already has for years had a well-understood name for a system where the state's resources are used primarily for the benefit of corporations and the elite corporate and gov't power structures have merged. It's called fascism. Being located in the U.S. doesn't exempt such a system from the term.

[glitch]

13. Thank you! Too many are afraid to call it like it is. nt

[jonnyblitz]

7. great thread so far, no apologists to stink it up yet. K & R nt

[eridani]

9. Nonsense. Capitalist Taiwan has single payer and "communist" China does not.

All developed countries with universal health care are capitalist--they just regulate it much more intensively than we do.

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. Hence the qualifying term, "unrestrained". eom

[mdmc]

14. --