FDR on why forcing people to buy private insurance is a bad idea:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.... Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."

kr

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/219075.Franklin_D_Roosevelt

Here's a couple more:

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

"We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals, we now know that it is bad economics."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

:)

!

free riders?

"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

Yet right wing propaganda has certainly sought to convince of just that!!

Washington, in large measure.

Excellent quote.

should have to account for it.

You know in Mussolini's Italy, the Third Way was nearly the same path chosen by the American neo-liberal (laissez faire), though in Mussolini's time they were less naive about private consolidations of power. The difference is, our contemporaries are unwitting idiots, not fascists. They bought the war is peace, capitalism is freedom bit. That's the elephant in our contemporary room, that they don't want to speak about. So long as they cash in, the rest is sold down river, along with our civic forms of public power. Meanwhile bit by bit a consolidated power bloc interlocks with the corporate world, where nothing gets done without their approval. I don't think they are master's of the universe, I just think our representatives are hapless idiots who suckle up to them for favors. Hero worshipers bowing to false idols.

unwitting idiots. They know exactly what they are doing.

that is possible is naive and, in some cases, a well meaning, idiot. Doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. But its a danger grounded in an inability to handle data and reason with it. I think big business folks on the other hand have no scruples and are just gaming the system by playing these idiots for the fools they are.

Their belief that markets bring freedom is akin to the believe that a spaghetti monster created life. They knew they were "ridding" the world of the evil regulations, what they didn't know (and I think right wing libertarians are the ideal type here) that the biggest threats to liberty are the private consolidations of power being put together by corporations.

now I am beginning to think that both were somewhat correct, and our current situation is a mixture of the two dystopias written in 1984 and a Brave New World. Which is depressing beyond belief...

and Soma from multinational corporations.

The next great dystopian novel should have them working together.

"liberal" about neo-liberal.

hold them to it.

this is a fascist nation... people have been lulled and conned right into without even noticing. And unfortunately many still live in denial this nation isn't fascist.

a Time magazine article from 1938 with that quote; in the next paragraph FDR says:

"The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living. Both lessons hit home. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,759590,00.html#ixzz0brWo2YS1

More deja vu.

It has gotten more complex than that now, but that's the basic idea. They are far easier to eliminate than bad government.

I don't think people realize what it means. We focus on them when it's about us. We are the ones who give them their power.

I mean that if we want to change this situation, we have to change. I ought to post the Michael Polin interview from the Daily Show last Monday night. Our health insurance industry thrives off the processed food industry. I'm not saying we must be healthy in order to kill off the insurance industry. But we could go a long way toward doing that without being super human. Drive less, exercise more, eat good food, stop smoking and drinking alcohol and fructose drinks...

And that's only health. We could stop wars in the same way. But I know most people would disagree with this idea. Most people want to look outside of themselves for a solution.

we wouldn't even need healthcare if it weren't for our consumption of soda.

is there room in your world for a few more, b/c it sure is nice and happy in there!

Haha.

There is truth in what I was trying to say. No, forced insurance is about as bad as it gets. Forced anything.

My idea is that we get back to smaller sized and more competitive corporations. These monsters are killing us. But I'm seeing how that growth is a natural tendency. I just bought some kitchen appliances, and noticed that the company that sells it now owns a dozen companies. One was Toastmaster. Instead of letting evolution takes it's toll, which may be bad, these bigger companies feed on any potential there may be in these dying ones.

More than anything we get what we pay for. Isn't that partly how we ended apartheid? We can do that to end health insurance. Our problem is that we aren't unified as one group. If we were we could have huge power. Enough to put fear in the corrupt leaders, corporations.

I'm not saying much. It's obvious stuff. And we aren't unified at all. So our only hope is that we gain seats with people like Kucinich.

Like what my business has to carry?
Or the kind you have to buy to legally drive a car?

Like That?

you don't have to do either one. Here just by being alive you are forced to buy something. I would never suggest that's facism (neighter did FDR as the OP tries to imply) but comparing this to car insurance is disingenuous at best.

Just like you can do with vaccinations, something else that's pretty mandatory to have if you're alive in the USA.

In both cases you cause yourself and society more problems than if you complied. Because it's a good idea to do both.

So you can opt out...And pay a penalty.
Is there a federally enforced penalty for not owning a business or driving a car?

What happens if you don't pay the penalty after opting out? Why, the full force of the government and all its laws works to make sure you either deal with the corporation or are duly punished. Is there another definition of fascism I'm not aware of?

I assume you either have a job or have a job in the insurance industry.

If you make $2,000 a month if the fine is 3% you'll pay about $60. $4,000 a month you pay $120. You can't get insurance that cheap.

they don't give you coverage in return for that fine. so to compare it to the cost of insurance is being disingenuous

out three years ago at $750.00. It has now more than doubled.

But where in our history does it give Congress the right to fine American citizens for not buying a product from a private business? And whose idea was it to use the IRS as a collection agency for a private business?

The Private Ins. Ind. was collapsing. This bill is nothing more than a bailout for them. An industry that we don't need and cannot afford. They use up nearly one third of the money that without them in the middle, providing nothing of value to the welfare of American citizens, would be spent on actual health care.

Coverage, the quality of which will depend on whether you are rich or poor, will discriminate against the poor and the elderly. On top of that, the insult of forcing people who cannot afford it to pay for it, and taxing the middle class on their Health Care benefits, is simply astounding coming from a Democratic administration especially.

Health care is a right. And Insurance 'coverage' is not health care. This bill is already devastating the chances of Democrats to retain their majority in 2010. It is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation across the political spectrum ever. As many political observers have said, it will be political suicide for the Democratic Party which is already losing the Independent vote over it.

And of the ones that do? Such as the people who ran Citigroup or Chase or Countrywide? Are they the ones who charge exorbitant interest rates? Would any of us do the same if it meant earning 20,000,000/year for the next several years plus a 50,000,000 severance package when we walk out the door?

In the vast majority of the country if you want food you buy food produced by an AG corporation and sold by a corporate retailer.
If you need any appliances you certainly have to go through a corporation, and most of the appliance corps are owned by some of the nastiest megacorps around. You can't DIY cars and you can't really refine your own gas.

Choice is pretty much an illusion at this point. You can deal with these evil bastards or those evil bastards, but you're going to deal with evil bastards either way. At the rate we're going, it wouldn't shock me when we did manage to stop buying something in large enough numbers to make a difference if the fate of the nation didn't suddenly depend on either a new law forcing us to buy it or bailing them out. While cutting their taxes enough to repay the bailout so it at least looks like a loan, of course.

I know the latter would happen if we all stopped drinking fructose based drinks and cut demand for ethanol. Only we wouldn't even bother trying to make it look like a loan. We'd just call it a subsidy and be done with it. I state that with confidence because it's what we do now when they're raking in billions.

By the way, I'm not sure it'd bother the health insurance industry in the least if everyone became healthy now. After all, we're forced to deal with them whether we like it or not. All that would do is increase their profit margins. The only way to really hurt them is for a large percentage of the population to refuse to buy insurance and refuse to pay the fine. Which can't happen. Too many people have their kids to think about and I don't blame them. Idealism withers rapidly when your kid is sick.

I agree with all of my replies. Great posts.

If one had pasture, running water, and could live off of the land, they would be doing what I was mentioning. In all of my experiences living on ranches and farms, the people I've talked with tell stories about a time when things were like that. Forget about civil rights. But there was a time around 1900 when we had electricity, lots of fish in our waters, and no big corporations forcing petroleum products down farmer's throats.

That time died when the population grew. Farmers could not produce enough food without artificially boosting the soil. Once again I'm coming back to population. It is what drives all of this.

Now we are stuck.

I believe that there is a reality that we are fighting. We can't have it all. We can't have comfort and this amount of people. You get to choose one or the other. Both means that we have to go against nature. We have to start making what nature can't, or won't. And when we do that, not only do we kill the planet, but we create monsters.

but to suggest that solves the problem is naive and does not hold the corrupt corporations or the bad government accountable. How are corporations easier to get rid of than bad government when they are one and the same at this point in the history of our country?

however, we have been trying to stop war --

and on and on it goes -- Panama, Gulf War I, twenty years of bombing Iraq --

Bush warmongering all over the planet and Obama/Rahm seemingly following same pattern --

Overwhelming anti-war sentiment . . .

AND, as Nancy Pelosi, herself, confirmed the day after the '06 election . . . on video . ..

"Dems were elected to end the war!"

The only reason private power without equal in history is growing, is because the same is true of the power of the government. Write the rules and regulations, and they will be broken and gotten around. That will cause a need to write more rules and regulations, which will then be broken and gotten around. That will cause a need to write more rules and regulations, which will then be broken and gotten around.

and a DUer wrote that "if FDR and JFK descended from the heavens to endorse THE ONE, many Dems still would not bend their knee"

surely those must have been objective, levelheaded appraisals: but even if not, we can agree that actually looking at what he does on the issues is the worst thing that could happen to this country

just like how the Soviets took over Western Europe and Canada when Nixon was being investigated--thereby showing weakness

or how NYT columnists asserting that the health insurance bill is the worst thing to hit America since Dred Scott, but we should still pass it because it's something, or has a few bones that'll fund clinics, or makes "the radicals on both sides" angry (and is thus a good thing)

I tried. I tried really hard not to "piss in this thread."

But first the OP quotes without cite, then kiva posted about the Time article without reading through to the end. I would also like to note, that at its most benign, Time magazine has always been pro-status quo; at its worst, anti-populist or neo-con.

The Time magazine article was not, repeat, not praising FDR.



The final paragraphs from the Time article is another FDR quote:



It's really cool that a whole lot of "We, the People" benefited from FDR's programs. It's also true that he saved capitalism as they knew it and as we now live it. He was called a "class traitor" by the very people whom he helped saved. Some of it "trickled down" to "We, the People." As I've said before, we usually get nicer gilding when Democrats are in charge, but it's still just gild.

The populist upheaval during that time scared the piss out of the "Robber Barons." The "Robber Barons" had been shown as the evil, manipulative bastards they were. Had FDR not enacted many of the policies he did to save the "little guy," the "Robber Barons" may have met the fate of the ruling classes of yore.

...even though he didn't really mean it. i believe we are seeing a repeat of FDR and that is not a good thing...another sellout meant to look like progress from the masters of bone-throwing, the democratic party.

Clinton. Yeah, this will probably be shunned horrifically.

But I was there. Clinton was a "bone," as you say, to the people of this country to reassure us that the political machine worked for "We, the People."

We got our big D Democrat. It quieted people for a bit until they realized it was more of the same; again, with better gilding.

I hate knowing this. I hate having lived this. I hate being the "fly in the ointment."

It is what it is. Until people start to realize that regardless of party our "party leaders" have more in common with the "ruling class" than they do with the "working class," we're gilded nicely but still gilded.

We have had centuries of warning about the "ruling class." "We, the People," have either ignored or been ignorant of, those warnings.

something the current government appears to be loathe to do.

Well, we all have our shortcomings.



Now, that's good!



Bad in the short term, potentially fruitful in the long if it leads to heightened conflict in which les citoyens go Jacobin on the aristocrats.

... the fact that the same elites who were saved tried to topple FDR and the rewriting of history by the Right to demonize FRD... sort of indicates that the elites in our country operate under a completely sociopathic MO. I am sure there is more honor among thieves than among the den of vipers which make up the socioeconomic elite in this country (and probably any other place on earth).

Recommend.

.

:bounce:

I just hit the recommend button 100 times.

This has nothing to do with having to buy insurance through a regulated exchange. Government gets to pick which plans "qualify" to participate.

Individual participation was always going to be mandatory in any system that had any hope of working. Social Security is mandatory as is medicare, and medicaid. If you are working, you are paying into these systems. Single payer or "medicare for all" would have been mandatory. The difference between single payer or "medicare for all" and the OPM regulated exchanges is 5 percent on the "medical loss ratio". Yes, this is a fairly large sum of money, but, massive profits in the healthcare industry would have remained and the mandate was coming either way.

Insurance, whether socialized or private only becomes a benefit when people who do not need the services at the moment are sharing the costs. If all the money in the system comes from people who are making frequent large claims then there is little purpose in having the system in the first place. Total premiums will always need to be somewhat larger than claims in any system, so folks in this circumstance might just as well go without and pay the medical costs directly to remove the added cost of third party administration.

Now, my preference might be to socialize the industry, but it is quite clear that this remains politically untenable. A large number of people (voters) are employed through the profits of the existing system. A great number of them would lose income or even become unemployed under a socialized system. This is where the true cost savings are to be found. However, if this were the proposal, it would fail and the status quo would remain. Better 90 percent of a loaf, than no single slice.

Why are there so few who even attempt to get at the truth. History just keeps on proving FDR was one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known and there are so few who fit into that pantheon: Since it has been despots and mediocrity and the downright stupid, hand picked by the junta.

What we have been experiencing for decades is unregulated capitalism which is

merely organized crime.

Re-regulation should begin immediately -- and then we should re-regulate capitalism

out of existence!

K&R


:hi:

At all.

The mandate is social policymaking with the aim of lowering premium costs for high-risk people. You can argue that it's bad social policymaking, but it has nothing to do with the ownership of government by any "controlling private power."

Note that Roosevelt does not here make the silly claim, which should be made only by libertarians but is echoed too often by liberals here and elsewhere, that the government mandating the purchase of something is somehow a horrific breach of fundamental liberties.

Get with the program!
We NOW have "New Democrats"!
The "New Democratic Party" is NOW fully approved by the Chamber of Commerce!

The DLC New Team
Working Class Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


They threw out all that "old Democratic Party" stuff in the 80s.
Read the following for a whole bag of laughs:


What happened to THAT "Democratic Party"?:shrug:

isn't it? You know, the ones whose slogan is "Make Noise Not Sense!"

:sarcasm: