A quick summary of my ideology so people will understand my anger at the bill

[AllentownJake]

1) Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism has ever worked. Both will devolve into feudalism rather quickly where there will be a small ruling elite with all the wealth and political power and a large working poor who live in fear. Socialism devolves into communism, pure capitalism devolves in fascism. The two sides of the coin, on the ground level, look exactly the same.

2) When the private sector fails to provide something the public needs at a reasonable rate, the government steps in and provides the service at cost.

3) Access to family planning services should not be based on your bank account.

4) I believe in a progressive tax rate structure. The wealthy derive the most out of the government. There wealth is protected, they use the government services the most, and they derive the most benefit from existing in the society. They should pay the high taxes to pay for it.

5) I believe in one man/woman, one vote. I do not believe that financial interest should be able to influence public policy.

This bill, violates these principles. Therefore I cannot support it. It is not that I hate the President, I hate the uninsured, or that I hate anyone. When something violates your fundamental belief structure as a solution to a problem, you have no choice but to protest.

I also want to add, I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian not in the sense that I could care about whether Jesus walked on water or feed a multitude with loaves and fishes. I'm a Christian because the story of a man standing up to a corrupt system and asking his followers to forgive those who hate them and telling them they didn't need the Temple priest to know the divine is an inspiring story.

I think America would be a better place if our biggest Holiday was not the celebration of the circumstances surrounding his birth, but rather, his going into the center of the culture of his day, looking at the corruption, and overturning a few tables and whipping a few bad actors.

Merry Christmas

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Very nice.

K & R.

[paulsby]

2. sorry, but i gotta disagree with

#4. i'd love to be proven wrong, but i have seen no evidence that the wealthy derive the most out of govt.

they use govt. services the most? in what universe?

and they certainly don't use more govt. services PER tax dollar that they pay, which is the ultimate metric.

i agree they should pay higher taxes, but that's NOT because i believe that they derive the most out of govt or use govt. services the most.

which govt. services? police? no way. trust me. i been a cop for 20 yrs. it's not even close. fire services? public libraries? public schools? (no way. they have less kids per capita AND they have a higher percentage of sending their kids to private school).

are you just making this stuff up in 4, or do you have stats to support this?

like i said, i'd love ot be wrong, but i don't think i am

[AllentownJake]

5. The wealthy use public services more than you and I

If you are an employer, you are using the roads and bridges more than I am in the simple fact your employees have to use them in order to get to work, you need them to engage in commerce.

Do an experiment, go into your wealthiest neighborhood in your area, with a beat up van, dressed poorly and see how long it takes for you to be questioned on what you are doing there.

Do the same in your poorest neighborhood, and get back to me on the Police. The people who benefit the most from our military, are always the wealthiest Americans.

Public libraries and schools provide employers with people educated enough to work for them.

They derive the largest benefit. I'm ok with that, but they must stop being so greedy and pay for it.

[paulsby]

8. sorry, that's not stats

and it's not compelling.

and i been a cop for 20 yrs. in the rich areas of town, we barely even GO there. we spend the vast majority of our time dealing with lower middle class and poor people, both as victims, adn as suspects.
heck, many poor people are practically professional victims and/or call the police all the frigging time.

the "frequent flyers" we deal with are disproportionately poorer than the community average, on average.

the rich also pay for their OWN security, frequently. they are much less likely to use police services.

you are also equating workers with "products" so to speak for the wealthy. sorry, i don't buy that analysis.

a very fair %age of people who use a LOT of govt. services, from food stamps to police, to public housing assistance, etc. don't even PAY taxes.

i think the rich should pay more taxes because it's the just way to run a society. i'm not going to believe they use more govt. services, unless i am shown stats that they do. everything in my experience, AS a govt. employee (both as firefighter and as a cop) points to the opposite conclusion.

[AllentownJake]

10. Take a look at a budget

and take a look at how much money is going into what you are talking about, and get back to me.

[paulsby]

17. i have

and fwiw, you made the claim the burden is on you to support it. when every point of data, points to my conclusion, it's only that much more compelling from my side.

a very large percentage of the budget ...

well let's look at actual stats, since my million points of data are being ignored, and you aren't providing any

"http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html#usgs30280

USgovernmentspending.com lists 2009 expenses budgeted for Welfare at 395.4 billion compared to 736.2 billion for pensions, 784.2 billion for health, 821.7 billion for defense (not including emergency requests for Iraq), and 91.7 for education (other data not listed) with a total of 3,997.2 billion of a total federal expense. "

again, rich people generally pay for their own healthcare. they are much more likely to go to private hospitals. poor people are much more likely to use public hospitals and/or end up having their medical bills subsidized, since they go to ER and then often don't even pay. when the fire dept. responds and the person doesn't have insurance, guess who pays? most of time, the taxpayer.

etc. etc. etc.

i've lived around the poor. i've lived around the rich. i see what happens.

if you can provide stats, i'll listen. all you've provided is rhetoric, that runs contrary to everything i've seen in over 20 yrs of serving the public as a govt. employee.

[AllentownJake]

12. Who do the private security call when they detain someone

They don't turn them over to a private judge or a private jail.

Why are those people on food stamps. If they are working poor, why are they unable to pay for their own food with their wages, aren't their employers subsidized there.

Lastly looking at Allentown, most people don't own the housing in the slums. The people who own that property are living in the suburbs and taking transfer payments. Who benefits from protecting the property.

[paulsby]

19. deal with reality

i work in jurisdictions that have both rich and poor people. we spend FAR more time processing poor people (as suspects), housing them in jail (especially because they are less likely to be able to afford bail), they are the ones getting PUBLIC defenders, and the poor are ALSO more likely to be the victims of crime and use police resources.

like i said, and you don't seem to grok. boeing handles a LOT of stuff IN HOUSE. just like casinos do. many large dept. stores in our area don't even CALL the police when they detain shoplifters. they do the entire case BY THEMSELVES and forward the case to te prosecutor's office, saving HOURS of police time per case, when they even DO make a criminal case. many times they just trespass the offender.

the poor are also FAR more likely to be the victims of serious crimes against persons, that use a great amount of police resources. oj simpson aside, most murderers are not rich

[AllentownJake]

25. No you deal with reality

You are looking at a forest by staring at a Tree.

Of course the poor are more likely, when you have little to lose, your behavior is worse than that with a lot to lose. That coupled with the fact that the schools they go to are generally worse, their housing is generally substandard, and their wages are generally lower.

Oh and the real people who cause the most human misery aren't living in the neighborhoods you patrol, they are the ones with the private security forces, which I'm sure you'll be working for once you reach retirement age, and you get your pension.

I have cops in my family, I know how it works.

[paulsby]

30. you know how your ideology trumps facts

since you have yet to use the latter and just use the former.

for example. your entire second paragraph just gives reasons for why THEY DO use more govt. resources. that's irrelevant. your claim was that the rich used more. that's simply absurd. public education, police protection, tax payments (here's a hint. the rich pay far more), public defenders, etc. etc. - the poor use FAR more govt. resources than the rich, and the rich pay far more to the government than the poor.

and i will not be working for any private security forces. i max out my deferred comp every year and use the capitalist system so that my money works for ME and not vice versa. i'm a "fierce" capitalist.

you have yet to provide any facts. and now you are going off into tangents completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is quite telling.

this isn;t about who causes the most misery (oh, it's those evul rich peeeple!!!),etc. and here's another hint. private security forces are Not GOVERNMENT RESOURCES.

nor are private schools.

yes, the poor's housing is often substandard. DUH. how is that relevant to who uses more GOVERNMENT resources.

section 8 (govt assisted housing) is ONLY available ot low income people. i don't see alot of rich people living in public housing

you espoused a canard, you have provided no evidence to back it up, and the more you evade and fail to do so, the more clear it becomes that you are simply wrong and unwilling to admit same.

i'd LOVE to be wrong. but it becomes increasingly clear you are

[AllentownJake]

32. It is pointless to argue with you

You are looking for direct connections instead of moving your thinking.

Who benefits more from an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, I'm not saying that everyone doesn't benefit, but some people obviously benefit more.

Who benefits more from those poor people being kept in their slums by you.

Cut off government resources to those area, and see how quickly the rich are running for the Canadian border.

[paulsby]

35. you are looking for fuzzy platitudes instead of facts

since the facts clearly are not on your side.

and i am not keeping any poor people in their slums. spare me the absurd rhetoric.

i help poor people, or to be more correct, the vast majority of poor people who are law abiding

poor people are MUCH more likely to be victims of violent crime than rich people.

much more likely to need police assistance.

and as poll after poll shows, they respect and support us.

if we cut off govt. resources to the slums, innocent poor people would suffer. rich people wouldn't, not nearly as much. they are much more likely to be able to have the resources to protect themselves.

[AllentownJake]

16. I rest my case

[paulsby]

22. your "case " supports my point

sorry, i don't buy the argument that the military only defends the interest of the rich. if you buy into that rhetoric, then sure, your point is made

it's one of those DU memes that i hear all the time. it's rhetoric

[AllentownJake]

28. I guess this is the big tent now

[paulsby]

31. you mean a democrat

who, like OUR PRESIDENT, doesn't believe the military is just a tool to protect the interests of the rich?

who is pro-choice?

who is pro universal health care?

who is pro-marriage equality?

yea, that's my tent. but the tent where the capitalist system is bashed consistently, where the rich and corporations are the bad guys. that's not my tent. sounds way more like socialism (the corporations and private capital are evil) than the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

[AllentownJake]

33. Where do I bash capitalism

I believe the first statement is neither pure socialism or pure capitalism work.

Your occupation influences your ideology as much as my occupation influences mine.

[paulsby]

34. all our experiences influence our ideology

that includes our occupation, our hobbies, our friends, etc.

that's true of everybody.

i'm a democrat because i believe our ideas are better, our solutions are better. it's that simple.

but i rely on facts not rhetoric. i have yet to see FACTS that support the claim that the rich use more govt. resources than the poor, and ESPECIALLY when taken on a relative basis, compared to their payments to the govt.

like i said, most poor people don't PAY (INCOME) taxes. they are net beneficiaries of govt, services.

i wasn't referring to you bashing capitalism, as much as the general stance i see where corporations are evil, the rich are evil (it's perfectly ok to be bigoted against people because of their income. i see that all the time. ).

again, if you have some gr00vy facts, i'm all ears.

we BOTH agree on progressive taxation, and that the rich should pay more.

the rich DO pay more, fwiw.

we disagree on the facts. and you have yet to provide evidence that your facts are correct. the datapoints point to the opposite conclusion.

i can come ot the same conclusion about taxation policy as you, without embracing falsehoods about who uses more govt. services

[AllentownJake]

39. What was attacked on 9-11

Did Osama Bin Laden blow up one of the neighborhoods you work in, or did he attack the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. I'm in no way saying that the buildings should have been attacked, but you are fooling yourself if you think that Bin Laden is more of a threat to the lower crust than the upper crust of our society. Who was targeted by Anthrax? Our war benefits them more, because Bin Laden ain't going to be sending any planes to your or my house. I don't want planes crashing into their buildings or Government building, it will have a bad effect on us, but I'm not stupid enough to believe a plane is coming to any building I'm in.

I used to laugh when I lived in Fort Wayne Indiana, as people ran to home depot when Ridge told them they needed duct tape and plastic. They had designated their roller dome as a potential terror target with the federal government. Maybe growing up 60 miles from both New York and Philadelphia gave me more common sense in the matter, that this guy was after our elites, he wasn't after the rank and file in our society.

Now part of the social contract is that in exchange for providing for them, they need to provide for everyone else.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. The President is not in favor of marriage equality

He is not. He is in favor of discrimination and two sets of everything one for his kind and another for mine.

[paulsby]

59. i know

i meant i agreed with him on our military. the next group of positions was not necessarily meant to be in accord with obama.
i've been a "fierce" (lol) critic of obama and his positions on GLBT.

i get accused of freeper'ism and other such rubbish sometimes, which is ironic, since i'm more liberal than obama on lots of stuff like marriage equality, legalization of drugs, etc.

[Waiting For Everyman]

40. General Smedley Butler thought so.

Author of War Is A Racket? According to the General, the military is an enforcer for corporate interests. He ought to know. Add to that, the VA and all the intelligence agencies, and all the private contractors. The Military Industrial Complex, doncha know.

All the regulators are paid because of the wealthy, and a chunk of the IRS and civil courts which are largely collectors for them.

It's obviously more than the rest of the budget for the non-wealthy. But only services to little people COUNT, evidently.

[Lars39]

53. Corporate welfare benefits the wealthy, ie stockholders.

[girl gone mad]

7. I'm pretty sure that he is correct..

since our military in its current form exists almost entirely to protect the interests of the wealthy few who have control of our resources and want control over foreign resources. In addition, they own most of the commercial property, including retail assets, which require police protection. We've also just spent trillions protecting their financial interests. Schools, including public universities, largely train the people they later employ and they have a significant influence on curriculum, meaning they reap enormous benefit from public education, whether or not they send their children to public schools.

I didn't even mention how they use the Fed to manipulate monetary policy in their favor. I'm sure I could think of a lot more if I had time.

[paulsby]

11. sorry, i don't agree.

first of all, the whole "military protects the interests of the wealthy few" is a political stance and rhetoric. it's not stats.

most commercial property, that is owned by WEALTHY people (iow not yer average mom and pop store that is solid middle class) is patrolled by private security. iow, THEY pay for their own quasi law enforcement.

look at boeing. boeing has a (very professional and well paid) private armed security force. i've dealt with them before. they handle most stuff "in house". their facilities are well patrolled and well protected. cops aren't protecting them. they are protecting themself. they also have a very well trained and well paid private fire dept.

again, i don't buy the employees as property argument. schools, including public universities allow people to improve THEIR own lot. if i go to college, get a degree, and make good money workign FOR a rich person, that's not a case of the public school benefiting the rich person. it benefited the employee. i went to a public university fwiw.

far more rich people send their kids to private school (a la the obamas) whereas far more lower class and lower middle class utilize the public schools. they also have more kids per capita, and thus get far more schooling per tax dollar than your average rich person.

when rich people are charged with crimes they pay for their own attorney. poor use public defenders, which is a govt. benefit.

poor people (most of them) don't pay ANY taxes. the vast majority of taxes are paid by people in the top 5% of income.

sorry, but you haven't provided any stats, and your argument is not compelling.

poor people rely on govt. programs left, right and upside down - food stamps, police response, public transit, etc.

rich people are far more likely to pay for their own security, their own food, and their own cars.

again, show me stats. cause i find my argument far more compelling than yours

[girl gone mad]

41. A couple of points.

It isn't simply a matter of opinion that our military serves the interests of our corporations and the wealthy. It's the precise reason we've been meddling in the Middle East for several decades and why we went into Vietnam. These weren't ideological battles, they were economic, made on behalf of the ruling class. There are literally millions of pages of documents which back up these facts. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to know the truth. I didn't even mention the "War On Drugs", which is another racket for wealthy interests.

Secondly, food stamps are a subsidy to our giant food companies. Poor people buy far more food products than they otherwise could afford. If food stamps were merely a program to benefit the poor, it would be operated the way foreign aid programs are. We would be handing out food staples in bulk and encouraging community farming, not just giving people debit cards which can only be used in grocers and convenience stores. At the very least, we would be bargaining for bulk discounts on items, the way charities do. It would be healthier, cheaper, better. But it wouldn't be lining the pockets of big business. The very same reason Medicare Part D is so fucked up and doesn't allow the government to negotiate prices. That bill was yet another corporate handout. But what spending program isn't, these days. I digress..

I don't know that this argument is worth pursuing. You seem to want to believe this far right ideology. It goes against everything I've ever experienced and learned. We won't ever come to an agreement on this subject. The rich in this country have benefited far, far more from government spending than the poor ever will. Just in the past year, we gave $3 Trillion to Wall Street banks and backstopped the industry to the tune of $20 Trillion more. We'll spend more than $3 Trillion on our Iraq excursion, and only the giant defense contractors and oil companies were served by that war. It isn't even a contest anymore. Food stamps? You're joking, right? That has to be a joke.

[PA Democrat]

26. Who benefits most from military spending?

Corporations and their shareholders who have the most to lose if their interests are attacked here or abroad. Who gets the lion's share of the profits from the military industrial complex?

Who benefits the most from farm subsidies, the small family farmer or the big corporate farms?

Who benefited the most from the S&L bailout of the 80s, large investors and people with large deposits, or the poor and middle class?

Who benefited the most from the Wall Street bailout? I know ***I*** never received a bonus. I opposed the deregulation that allowed the crisis to occur, and I received NO financial benefit from the years of irresponsible behavior of the Wall Street banksters, as I own no bank stocks. In fact all I got were higher interest rates on my credit cards.

Who benefits the most financially from the government's spending on th interstate highway system, the ports, the air traffic control system, the public airwaves, etc., etc.? How about subsidies for mining, oil drilling, nuclear energy? Do you profit from mining , drilling, and logging on federal lands?

If you want stats, here are some eye-openers for you:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/TakeRichOffWelfare.html

[PA Democrat]

27. Edited. Replied to wrong post.

[Raineyb]

58. In this universe.

Although I will admit to not knowing which universe YOU live in.

They do use the system more. The courts where their contracts are enforced are a public service, the roads they use more often, the public schools that educate the public who they hire, the fire department, the police department, you think the ports where goods come in don't have anything to do with the government?

You ARE wrong.

[Kahuna]

3. Your ideology is very thoughtful. And I agree with most of it. However...

things have gone terribly wrong in America, and have gone downhill really fast with the advent of the repuke spin machine, and bushco. That is the reality of what we have to deal with now. Until we can rid ourselves of both, we, as a nation will not get much good accomplished. And! It is totally unrealistic to believe that one man, namely, Barack Obama, can undo all the ills he inherited, and especially in less than a year. Or, even four years. It will take time to undo the damage the repukes with the help of the "liberal media" have done. It would be better for us, as Dems, to stick together as opposed to fracturing off into opposing factions with threats of withholding support because Obama isn't acting fast enough.

:patriot:

[AllentownJake]

9. I will not support policies that go against what I believe

I do not care what the face is of the man or woman offering those policies.

As far as a solution, publicly financed campaigns are the only way to save America. Until that is accomplished expect more of the same from the Democrats and worse from the GOP.

[Kahuna]

14. Whatever. But your stance accomplishes, ZERO. You get a big fat

goose-egg. So why bother with all the spleen splitting? :shrug:

[AllentownJake]

15. My ideology is being called radical

When in reality it was mainstream 30 years ago.

You want to keep marching the country further towards fascism. Enjoy.

[paulsby]

37. the problem isn't your ideology

it's that you don't have a grasp on basic facts.

[AllentownJake]

43. Get back to me on the 9-11 issue

The wealthy derive the most benefit from society and they should pay the most for having society. They keep going the way they are going, we'll get a dictator, and that isn't good for them or us.

Have a nice day.

[Kahuna]

45. Delete dupe post

[Kahuna]

46. Your professed ideology comes across as mainstream Democrat to me..

But your reactions to events come across as radical. For me, there is a disconnect. I know that we have bumped heads recently, but it was never personal on my side. I'm shocked to discover that you and I can share the same ideology, including religion, and differ so much on temperment when it comes to addressing what is going on. As they say, c'est la vie (I hope I spelled it right).

[AllentownJake]

51. As long as the money stays in politics

You and I are fucked, and I just figured that out.

40 years ago, those principles, would have been acceptable in the GOP and seemed conservative in the DNC. The pendulum is still swinging right.

[Kahuna]

52. And that is a reality. I'm not going to get my britches in a wad over something..

the USSC has already said is legal (money in politics). And yes, the pendulum is still swinging right. THAT is why, we are not getting the HCR we wanted. We have to kick the bums out, not by staying home, but by supporting more "progressive" candidates.

[AllentownJake]

54. No where did I say people should sit on their asses

Nor did I suggest that when given two options one being absolutely horrible and the other one bad, people should vote for bad.

Just don't tell me it is good.

[Kahuna]

57. I never told you anything is good. All I'm saying is that there are forces at

play that need to be accounted for.

[elocs]

4. Good luck to you as a Christian in treading the unfriendly waters here at DU

as regards religion in general and Christianity in particular. No more than you are responsible for what some Christians do in the name of their religion neither is Jesus for the things done in his name. So many here seem to forget that in his time Jesus was a dangerous Liberal and the establishment hated him.

[AllentownJake]

6. Jesus was taken from people a long time ago

When Constantine looked at people willing to die for an ideal, and realized they'd die for the state if he wraps up the state with him.

Constantine got people killing for Jesus, and ever since, it has been pretty hard to get it to stop.

The battle between the Roman Empire and Christianity never stopped, that trial is still going on, and there are few Christian sects that fully embrace the true spirit of the founder.

Jesus was never really a guy who told people to live good wholesome family lives. He told them to love one another and do the right thing. His actions in the Temple, show that sometimes the right thing is speaking out at corruption by the powerful at the expense of the poor, and than bearing the consequences on the cross.

[Javaman]

56. I'm an atheist, but I really like your style.

Thanks for posting, you bring a very refreshing view to religion to me.

Peace. :)

[Echo In Light]

13. K&R

[Agony]

18. If you will throw in an IMpenetrable Separation of Church and State,

I will stand beside you on the firing line "so to speak" even tho I am not a christian.

Happy Solstice! (12:47pm today)

[AllentownJake]

20. Of course

Christianity getting involved with governing has caused more damage to Christianity than persecution ever could.

[Agony]

21. Cheers! I had a feeling you would agree.

On with the day.

[NNN0LHI]

23. Do you have health insurance right now?

You didn't say in your OP.

Don

[Dinger]

24. Proud To Give This A K & R

Honored in fact.:thumbsup: :patriot:

[PA Democrat]

29. K & R.

[Laelth]

36. Nicely said. k&r n/t

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Chan790]

38. I'm right with you on #2-#5 and one #1 with a small tweak.

Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism has ever worked. Both will devolve into feudalism rather quickly where there will be a small ruling elite with all the wealth and political power and a large working poor who live in fear. Socialism devolves into communism, pure capitalism devolves in fascism. The two sides of the coin, on the ground level, look exactly the same.

I'd agree completely if you'd said: "Neither pure capitalism nor pure communism has ever worked...Communism devolves into totalitarianism, pure capitalism devolves into fascism."

Democratic Socialism has worked wonders in much of Western Europe over the past 30-50 years...like France. We should be more French, German or Swiss...of course, we'd have rampant suicides among the capitalist ruling class with the 70% tax-rate but that just makes radical egalitarianism easier to achieve.

[AllentownJake]

42. Capitalism is alive and well in France

I interviewed with a french firm in the United States 3 years ago. I assure you both the US subsidiary and the French holding company were for profit.

[Chan790]

49. Aye, there is the rub.

People assume that socialists, like communists, are anti-capitalism.

I'm not looking to nationalize everything (just those things that are vital to society: energy, medicine, non-renewable resources, public services, a larger amount of housing than we currently have for public assistance.) and I like restrained capitalism, it's too hard for the state to tax things if we own everything and only slightly-easier if nobody has a profit motive. I really do believe in the promise of high progressive tax rates though as I do think that the state is capable of running many things better than private industry or the individual and that the poorer members of society (those below ~=85% of the median household income for a family of their size) shouldn't pay anything at all.

I don't really think of my socialism as a ruling ideology, more as a management philosophy for the state. I have no dreams of a communist utopia and I really like the concept of democracy...a concept that is dependent upon at least some capitalism, just a smidgen.

[placton]

47. my 2 cents

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7287123

[AllentownJake]

61. Quitting is not an option

You have two options

quitting waiting for the collapse and waiting to rebuild, or looking for ways to reform the system, it might be impossible, but at the end of the day, you can die knowing you at least fought.

[sendero]

48. I'm in near lockstep agreement ....

... with you, except I'm not a Christian. It's good to be reminded that not all Christians are the screaming, grasping banshees you see on TV and in politics.

And a Merry Christmas to you too!

[Odin2005]

50. Good post. I would add my disgust at the mandate.

IMO the state has no ethical right to force people to buy the product of a private entity, especially because there is very little regulation to prevent it from being mere feudalistic rent-seeking behavior (hence my use of the term "serf").

In fact I am against requiring people to buy auto insurance for the same reason

[bvar22]

55. Thanks.

Here is a "quick summary of my ideology so people will understand my anger at the bill."

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.---FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights"

Notice the line I put in BOLD.
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,"

The current Bill does NOT strengthen that basic Human Right.
It does NOT even acknowledge that "adequate medical care" IS a Human Right.

The only RIGHT this bill addresses is the RIGHT to MANDATED PROFITS by the Health Insurance Cartel enforced by the IRS.
Now THAT is "A Uniquely American Solution".

[glitch]

60. Your best post IMO

Especially point 1), very well stated. Whether the corporations own the government (fascism) or the government owns the corporations (communism) is irrelevent when both groups are made up of the SAME PEOPLE.
I rarely completely agree with anyone, even myself over time. But this post especially speaks for me.

Merry Christmas to you, and a much Happier New Year!

[AllentownJake]

62. Merry Christmas

Hopefully 2010 will be better for everyone.