There was always a Senate block of 30-40% of the Democrats there who happily jumped on board the latest violation of our rights or business-only beneficial programs. Obama was funded heavily from Wall Street because of his charm and abilities to engage the public. He's just doing his job and little Timmy and Larry Summers proved that from the very start. This is a victory for the constituents of The Money Party, that bipartisan collection of servants for the ultra rich and major corporate interests.

In what way is this kind of thinking helpful? You REALLY DO want to be helpful....don't you? or do you just want to prove how smart you are and cannot be fooled by those wise guys who have all the power?

we need big brains at this point to be on board with what will save all of our asses. it's very very late in the game.

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

If this Congress and this President "legislate" the same dreck that corporate lobbyists write for them as a Republican congress and Republican president would, they have no business being in office, no responsibility to the people who elected them, and no reason to govern.

Signing an executive order reaffirming the Hyde amendment (behind closed doors, in shame and disgrace) is a kick in the gut to every single woman who ever voted for a Democrat. Obama is a Liar. He lies about everything he does. He holds nothing sacred. He cannot. Ever. Be. Trusted. About. Anything. Ever.

Frankly, if crippling these clowns with gridlock would at least show supposed "liberals" in congress how to be an effective opposition, even if it's to our the new Republican President Obama. I hope they stop Chris Dodd's bullshit "financial reform" that creates yet another sham federal regulator, and actually codifies and pardons all the ponzi scheme shenanigans that brought us this mess.

We can't trust the stock market. It's blown sky-high with money printed by the Fed (only for people who already have money, by the way). We can't trust that the companies are fairly valued, because all and I mean ALL of the large accounting firms are as crooked as Arthur Andersen were before Enron. We can't trust the ratings agencies, because they're crooked too. We can't trust the SEC, the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Office of Thrift Supervision, because they're as crooked as they come, and just make excuses for not regulating anything, and slapping bullshit parking-ticket fines on Hindenburg-style financial catastrophes.

We can't trust the Department of Justice, because THEY NEVER PROSECUTE ANYONE IMPORTANT FOR ANYTHING UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE OR IT'S ALL OVER.

What's next on the agenda after that? Social Security "Reform."

Yeah, I got your reform right here, motherf%cker.

They are simply some kind of anger projection. The bill was important, by so many measures probably the most impotant in the post war period because not only did it provide important social justice legislation it reverses a philosophy of trickle down economics.

You can vent your spleen but there are plenty of folks who will see the historic significance. Many who have carried a lot of water for the progressive movement. This is not a bar game where you get to say whatever the he'll you want. This was a really amazing piece of legislation that cements Obama in history.

Fascism in the guise of social justice. Bush shoved it down our throats. The right loves to take it the hard way and that really turned them on. Obama brings back some of the old slogans to lead the left that just loves to be seduced into the honey pot.

It does cement his place in history. He is the one who brought a significant portion of the left into the grand coalition.

The corporate mob utilizes accounting to enrich themselves while the great unwashed are forced to spend their time accounting to their masters, you know them, the controllers of access to all of the media (internet, television, telephone, the new triple play) that "enriches" our lives, all of the insurers (of our homes, our cars, our health, our lives), and the bankers who hold (and slice and dice and resell) our mortgages, our car loans, our credit card debt, our governments which demand that we assess the value of our property, our time and, once again, our lives.

Again Scotgen, why don't you answer the plain as day betrayal of women by this administration's embrace of the Hyde amendment when Obama promised during the campaign to seek its repeal. That assertion is not false nor is it anger projection. You do say so many nasty things to so many of the people here.

I don't know what you are talking about. The health care bill was neutral to abortion rights issues, and Obama kept it neutral. That is what the executive order did. Hyde has nothing to do with this bill, where that issue even comes from I do not know.

One of the first things Obama did when he took office was an executive order ending what is called the The Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy is a United States government policy which requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion in other countries. It was in place from 1984 until 1993 and again since 2001.

Like the Clinton presidency, the Mexico City Policy will be suspended by the Obama administration. Thus spending will once again be accessible to NGOs who perform and promote abortion overseas.

As far as the Hyde Amendment it has not yet come up, and I would anticipate there will be a strong attempt at its appeal. The Hyde amendment has nothing to do with the health care bill though. It is a rider attached to the yearly appropriations bill for Medicaid, and is subject to debate in Congress each time that it comes up for renewal. It has been in place since 1976. I don't doubt that Obama in league with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate President Harry Reid will not set that rider in place this year.

So why would you think he has reneged on that promise when the rider issue has not even yet come up?

I don't realize the seriousness of the situation. I'll try to moderate my tone suitable to David Axelrod's liking. Please give him my regards next time you see him in the elevator.

From the Kucinich Interview:

"I made up my mind that, notwithstanding how much there was in the bill that I didn't like, that I had a higher responsibility to my constituents, to the nation, to my president and his presidency, to step forward and say, "We must pass this bill. And we must use this bill as an opening toward a renewed effort for a more comprehensive approach to health care reform."

Notwithstanding the left wing bullhorns that live and breath ideology without rational thought, this was an important piece of legislation. It is supported by Move On, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Roger Moore, Noam Chomsky (for gods sake), The Progressive publication, The Nation. I am donating regularly now to those organizations ready to primary any Democrat that opposed this legislation.

It takes courage to accomplish what was accomplished, and arm chair quarterbacking is fine. But now effort can be made on improving what was accomplished.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210#ixzz0j7cgQhLI

must read and know:
"...are part of an effort to destroy the Obama presidency. And, of course, to produce gridlock — so that nothing can happen. Because if this bill goes down, which figured into my calculus — the bill goes down, we'll be gridlocked. We will be unlikely to pass any meaningful legislation about anything. The presidency will be weakened, the Congress will be in a place where the leadership will be undermined.

But let's go deeper than that. We're at a pivotal moment in American history, and in contrast to a crippled presidency, I have to believe that this effort, however imperfect, will now have a broad positive effect on American society, and make possible many things that might not have otherwise been possible. Once this bill is signed into law, more Americans are going to be aware of this as they ask, What's in it for me? And as they become more familiar with the new law, more people will be accepting this bill. The president will have a stronger hand in domestic and international affairs, and that will be good for the country. The Democrats will be emboldened to pass an economic agenda, which has been waiting for this bill to pass. Wrong or right, as far as a strategy, the White House invested so much in this health care bill that everything else was waiting. Now, I think there's a chance that the party will regain some momentum. And if it does, then the American people will finally have a chance to see something done about creating jobs, about keeping people in their homes, about helping small businesses get access to credit, which is a huge problem right now."

i.e. the first wave of unraveling of greedy, blood-sucking Reaganomics and the lies of all it's idealogical minions, especially the likes of Norquist.[UGH!]

thanks for posting Scotjen61

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

But the mendacity around single payer and the "public option."

And the "pragmatic necessity" to protect health insurance companies, coupled with the IRS as a collection agency for private business.

Is that armchair quarterbacking, to believe that one was lied to?

a lot of BS was thrown around. it was sickening to see and hear. i truly believe we cannot stand the social upheaval engendered by more. maybe i'm too pessimistic, but i am serious. the corporatists will be taken down only piece by piece.

Hell, if i had my way, we'd have totally free healthcare, free unlimited abortions, sex education beginning at age 5 for ALL, free schooling all the way through university, schooling without testing or homework - only accomplishment based, the rich would be in the 60-70% tax bracket, everyone would be guaranteed a place to live, meaningful work, and food to eat...NOW! for starters.

heh. imagine if all that happened. it would be an interesting thing to watch.

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

But don't call it progressive.

and thus human happiness. my definition of progressive.

is there a codex of the meaning of the term that all who use it agree upon?

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

...beyond the fact that Scotjen61 defines "progressive"?

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

This bill is neo-liberal to its core: privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Please be more specific in separating "Reaganomics" from the neo-liberalism practiced by both legacy parties.

As other have pointed out, this is the health care bill that Nixon tried to pass. Have we redefined the liberal/progressive as the equivalent of Richard Nixon on the political spectrum?

Or as i quipped to friends last week, "We'll be damned lucky if we ever see a president as liberal as Nixon in our lifetimes." (most of the assembled lived through Nixon, unlike me who was just born under him)

We are back to Nixon who on the tapes agreed to promote private health care like Kaiser Permanente over public because it would actually reduce access to health care.

Re: Reaganomics:
The whole Greed-is-Good, "so you're poor? pffsst! i spit on you!" agenda of Reagan and his fawning millions, in my opinion from the very beginning ALWAYS appealed to the lowest and basest human ideas and emotions. I was always terrified and sickened by him. So now all that backlash of fear and hatred of the upheaval of the 60's and 70's has come to fruition, and here we are.
NOW what the hell do we do?

We do what Dennis K did.

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

as Dennis K states, [if you read his message] it's not about the bill at all. It's about power, and it's use.

I agree with almost all of you here about the betrayal, the lies,the sickening immorality and smug self aggrandizing behavior of the bought and paid for Congress. I do not need to be disabused of what the people in power of this country have devolved to.

However, THESE ASSHOLES ARE ALL WE'VE GOT AT THE PRESENT MOMENT! And if you think a third/fourth party will be ushered in by their failure, talk to Ralph Nader! There are millions of other people in this country with just as much power as you and they would NOT tolerate your/my agenda. It's that simple.

I'm not about to resort to violence, but the other side? Not so sure.

Hell, i dunno, maybe a huge revolution and social upheaval, civil unrest, and what-not will clear the air. kill 'em all. could be interesting.

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

successful and popular piece of legislation. Access to care will increase and I think the only problem that is rather large in the south is that the health care infrastructure is not large enough to provide for accessible health care. It is that bad down there. Some money is going to be earmarked to try and build out the necessary infrastructure.

The proof will be in the pudding and the measures over time will show the US rising in the WHO standards.

That this is not progressive legislation I do not even understand the reasoning. The social justice aspect of the legislation alone, the rational approach to the problem, the minimal disruption to the sizable number of persons who already have a health care regime. Why disrupt what is already in place for 85% of the population to accommodate 15%. I am not a socialist, and to those out there who dislike this bill because it is not a government take over of the health care system, that's fine. It was NOT a socialist solution, but don't then turn around and say it is also not progressive.

Everything about it is progressive.

This was the bipartisan bill - a republican bill sold to the left as change you can believe in with the republicans helping the sale along by calling it all the right names. A good portion of the left bought the routine. We will all pay the price.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

and I remember he backed immediately off fixing the crap that Bush pulled. I remember all the talk about accountability and transparency with was immediately thrown out the window. Now it appears I just don't give a shit, but hey I'm just one of the wimmin folk. I'm sure I will get over it. ;)

I met and chatted with Dennis K last year at a talk he gave at a PHILOSOPHY department endowed lecture series [where by the way he talked a lot of spiritual principles].

He was interviewed by the school newspaper and the reporter asked him what he thought about Obama's promise to "clean up Washington".
Dennis smiled and said with an only slightly sardonic laugh and knowing look "I don't think he realized how much soap he was going to need!" that's about it.

He really does talk that way in a really humble, but savvy aw shucks kinda manner. kinda like Will Rogers, but citified. but make no mistake he is a rock, morally. and one of the most authentic persons i've ever met. He said and did other things at which i was just amazed.

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

thanks.
We have to try. Not to try, to give up, is the Great Mistake.

1600: "Abolish slavery!"
1700: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

"...one giant baby step..."

Over at The Billy Blog our old friend TJFHX (Tom Hickey) submitted comments that echo and enhance your take. He sums it up with this:

The one good thing that has emerged, and the president is rightly touting it as a great accomplishment, is that health care reform recognizes universal health care as a right and not a privilege. However, this bill only recognizes it as a right of citizenship and not a human right by excluding non-citizens. But some progress anyway. Otherwise it would be a bust — mostly a subsidy that is really an oligarch’s tax.

I might have used a stronger adverb than "mostly". What would a notch under "exclusively" be?

The entire comment is worth a read and represents TJFHX at his best. As usual, he puts it all in perspective of the much larger real picture.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=8909#comments

...

The debate over health care in the US was driven by cost considerations and the president and his party tied their hands by declaring from the outset that the solution would have to be deficit-neutral. As a result the emphasis was on cost-cutting, rather than promoting the general welfare or accomplishing public purpose.

...

Most of the issues the US faces are political in a courntry that is deeply divided.

...

In addition, there are many sociological conditions in the US that influence the system as a whole. For example, one of the problems affecting health care is the food industry.

...

These are just a couple of problems out of many. The entire society is bascially dysfunctional based in no small measure on the present economic incentives and an educational system designed to serve commercial interests while promoting pursuit of self-interest and life as passive entertainment.

...

While MMT would get the debate on the right track, there’s a whole lot more to it that is bitterly contentious thn fiscal policy. The US has a long way to go to straighten itself out.

...

The way I see it, Reagan-Thatcherism still has a way to run before its energy is exhausted, and it may take a depression to do it. The middle class in the US is just not hurting badly enough yet to be be able to get it. But without meaningful reform a bigger financial crisis is on the way. Not a pretty picture to contemplate.

The one good thing that has emerged, and the president is rightly touting it as a great accomplishment, is that health care reform recognizes universal health care as a right and not a privilege. However, this bill only recognizes it as a right of citizenship and not a human right by excluding non-citizens. But some progress anyway. Otherwise it would be a bust — mostly a subsidy that is really an oligarch’s tax.