government control

[acidhead]

The reason the corporations grew so powerful was due to the lack of regulation from the government. Same reason the robber barons in the turn of the century grew so powerful. The same solution applies. Government regulation to limit their power.

yes.. who de-regulated it?

[Guest]

I would point you all to the book "Shock Doctorine" by Neomia Klein if you really want to understand how corporations stole your country, and how the Governments of the world subscribing to Milton Friedmans Free Market Mania allowed it to happen. It goes into forensic detail of how Friedman cheerleaded all the great right wing dictators of the last century. As a book it maybe flawed and biased in its own ways - but it gives enough information to draw clear conclusions as to why we are in the state we are in.

I will repeat my statement, Milton Friedman was one of the worst intellectual criminals of the last century, and he systematically lied about the implementation of his ideas and the consequences of those ideas. He was a fundamentalist ideologue every bit as dangerous as Marx and Mao.

I also repeat my position - I want governments to do what they are their to do, to protect the interests of their citizens by controlling the machinery of wealth creation to serve the general interest rather than a self selecting elite. This doesn't require the abolition of Capitalism - which in many ways serves the functions of efficiently providing services and goods well, but it does require that Governments uphold the greater social good over the good of Corporations. Stepping back from regulating the markets will not achieve that end, and is a sick fantasy created by those very corporations which serve to gain the most by deregulation.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

yes.. who de-regulated it?

Politicians who bought into a flawed extremist economic ideology.

You are confusing cause and effect. It was the politicians renaging on their obligations to the country which failed - but that was because of a corrosive and destructively cancerous idea which had at its heart the abolition of government control. Politician's failed us - not the concept of good governance.

Br Cornelius

[aquatus1]

yes.. who de-regulated it?

No one did. There were never regulations to begin with. Since there was nothing to stop them, the robber barons simply kept taking anything they wanted. It wasn't till people demanded that the government take action that regulation such as monopoly laws were put into effect.

[preacherman76]

No one did. There were never regulations to begin with. Since there was nothing to stop them, the robber barons simply kept taking anything they wanted. It wasn't till people demanded that the government take action that regulation such as monopoly laws were put into effect.

I dont know about that Aq. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act alone was criminal de-regulation by our government.

[preacherman76]

Politicians who bought into a flawed extremist economic ideology.

You are confusing cause and effect. It was the politicians renaging on their obligations to the country which failed - but that was because of a corrosive and destructively cancerous idea which had at its heart the abolition of government control. Politician's failed us - not the concept of good governance.

Br Cornelius

Corperations dont want de-regulation. How do you think they formed these monopolies? They LOVE regulation, for others. They get the government to regulate companies, then at the same time create loopholes for themselfs. Think about it, how the hell does Mcdonalds get a free pass on 0bama health care? Or the Unions for that matter.

Government should have one roll. To keep its people free. Part of that is to regulate the free market. They have failed miserably. Through greed, they have removed the free market, and created a corpratism. Now folks like yourself see this corpratism, think its equals capitalism, and want to give MORE power to the very people who created this problem to begin with. Small government equals smaller corprate influance.

[aquatus1]

I dont know about that Aq. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act alone was criminal de-regulation by our government.

I'm talking about the robber barons of the late 19th century, and the train and land barons of the old west. Simply put, if they wanted it, they took it, and they had the money to shut people up about it. If the government hadn't regulated the businesses, there would have been nothing to reign them in.

Business without regulation is like an invasive predator in a small island. With no natural predators to slow it down, it will keep eating till it is fat and everyone else is gone.

[preacherman76]

I'm talking about the robber barons of the late 19th century, and the train and land barons of the old west. Simply put, if they wanted it, they took it, and they had the money to shut people up about it. If the government hadn't regulated the businesses, there would have been nothing to reign them in.

Business without regulation is like an invasive predator in a small island. With no natural predators to slow it down, it will keep eating till it is fat and everyone else is gone.

No argument here. Regulation is nessessary. Problem is not all regualtions aplly to everyone, especialy if you have lobbiests in the white house.

[Guest]

Corperations dont want de-regulation. How do you think they formed these monopolies? They LOVE regulation, for others. They get the government to regulate companies, then at the same time create loopholes for themselfs. Think about it, how the hell does Mcdonalds get a free pass on 0bama health care? Or the Unions for that matter.

Government should have one roll. To keep its people free. Part of that is to regulate the free market. They have failed miserably. Through greed, they have removed the free market, and created a corpratism. Now folks like yourself see this corpratism, think its equals capitalism, and want to give MORE power to the very people who created this problem to begin with. Small government equals smaller corprate influance.

I don't want more government - I want government to do its job. Unfortunately that cannot be achieved by shrinking it.

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

I don't want more government - I want government to do its job. Unfortunately that cannot be achieved by shrinking it.

Br Cornelius

Of course it can. If government spent all its time focusing on freedom, the playing fields would be leveled. Bigger government as only meant more corprate control. The status quo will never work. And the bigger this monster grows, the worse it will get.

First thing that has to be done is to take the power to create currency back from private banks. That alone would be huge. Then you have to remove all lobbiests.

[Guest]

Of course it can. If government spent all its time focusing on freedom, the playing fields would be leveled. Bigger government as only meant more corprate control. The status quo will never work. And the bigger this monster grows, the worse it will get.

First thing that has to be done is to take the power to create currency back from private banks. That alone would be huge. Then you have to remove all lobbiests.

Both of those things would be a radical step forward. Still size matters when there are big bullies on the block.

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

Both of those things would be a radical step forward. Still size matters when there are big bullies on the block.

Br Cornelius

You dont need big government. You just need that government to carry a big stick. Let freedom ring.

[lightly]

funny it seems to me that the richest people in the country are liberals.

I think your right daniel! The richest can afford the lobbyists ... media influence.. and political persuasion to produce policies LIBERAL to them.

Doesn't anyone get it? Trickle down economics, means P on you!

[danielost]

I think your right daniel! The richest can afford the lobbyists ... media influence.. and political persuasion to produce policies LIBERAL to them.

Doesn't anyone get it? Trickle down economics, means P on you!

dont you get it, bill gates is a liberal. soros(spch) is a liberal.

[ninjadude]

Obamacare = communism. What planet have you been living on for the past four years?

The patient care and affordable care act does not provide healthcare. It regulates it.

[lightly]

The patient care and affordable care act does not provide healthcare. It regulates it.

Could someone answer a question for me please? I have been told that, under the act, some low income people will be exempt from being forced to buy health insurance, or pay the $3,000ºº + fine. They will, instead be eligible for MedicAID.

Is that true? .... and what level of income is the cut off point??

*

Edited March 20, 2011 by lightly

[Startraveler]

Could someone answer a question for me please? I have been told that, under the act, some low income people will be exempt from being forced to buy health insurance, or pay the $3,000ºº + fine. They will, instead be eligible for MedicAID.

Is that true? .... and what level of income is the cut off point??

Yes, low-income people are exempt from the individual mandate. In addition to the religious conscience objection that was already written into our tax code long before the ACA came around, there are five exemptions to the individual mandate, i.e. five groups of people who face no penalty for not obtaining insurance:

1. People below the tax filing threshold. This exemption was originally for everyone below 100% of the poverty line but I believe the tax filing threshold is generally a little above the poverty line (though it varies) so that would expand the number of people eligible for the exemption a bit.
   
2. People to whom affordable coverage isn't available. If your contribution (meaning the money that actually comes out of your pocket, after figuring in affordability credits or employer contributions or whatever) for the cheapest health plan in the lowest actuarial tier comes to more than 8 percent of your income, you're exempt. You would, however, have the option of buying a catastrophic coverage plan; normally those will be available in health insurance exchanges only to people under the age of 30 but they become available to you if you hit the unaffordability exemption.
   
3. Members of Indian tribes.
   
4. People with coverage gaps of 3 months or less. The individual mandate only applies on timescales longer than 3 months. But that exemption is only good for one 3-month gap per year.
   
5. People who have "suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan." The granting of hardship exemptions is left to the secretary of HHS to handle, so I would expect that there will eventually be regulations offering guidance on what exactly that means and how you would go about applying for a hardship exemption. People who get hardship exemptions also become eligible for catastrophic coverage if they want the buy it.

And yes, eligibility for state Medicaid programs is going to be substantially simplified and expanded starting in 2014. Right now only the very vulnerable--young children and pregnant women--are categorically eligible for Medicaid as long as they're under 133% of the federal poverty line, poor parents may find their eligibility thresholds are at their state's 1996 cash welfare levels (which can be pretty low indeed), childless adults generally aren't eligible for Medicaid at all, and in addition to income requirements for eligibility there are also sometimes asset tests.

In 2014, this will all get much more streamlined. Any American citizen with an income less than 133% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for his state's Medicaid program.

By the way, the mandate penalty is 2.5 percent of income (in 2016, when it's fully phased in) so it's only as high as $3,000 if you're making well over $100,000 per year. It's also capped, in that it can't be larger than the average national cost of a certain health insurance plan, no matter how high your income is. The Congressional Research Service came out with a useful report last year that has the following handy figures showing how much the mandate penalty will be for people of different incomes (three different lines represent three different years, as the penalty goes into effect in 2014, gets a little higher in 2015, and then is fully phased in only in 2016):

[lightly]

Thank You Startraveler

[questionmark]

The worst hit countries within Europe are the ones which rode the back of the deregulation craze. Ireland, my current country of residence, has been destroyed by free market extremism. This is unfortunate for me because I came here to get away from the damage which Margaret Thatcher did to the UK economy back in the 80's.

It's hard time's ahead for us all - but some unfortunates will find it a lot harder than others.

Br Cornelius

Those and the countries where nothing ever worked to start with (like Greece and Italy) and was helped by US banks to get "up to standard".

I always see many claims of people that the "social" countries are failing when at the same time their own State (Texas to be specific) is at the verge of insolvency and adore somebody who brought a state (Alaska to be specific) to insolvency to help them fight their woes.

At the same time the "social" countries (Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden to be specific) are thriving and forming the vanguard in all international comparisons.

Does that not make some (those who are still capable of it) think?

[Guest]

Those and the countries where nothing ever worked to start with (like Greece and Italy) and was helped by US banks to get "up to standard".

I always see many claims of people that the "social" countries are failing when at the same time their own State (Texas to be specific) is at the verge of insolvency and adore somebody who brought a state (Alaska to be specific) to insolvency to help them fight their woes.

At the same time the "social" countries (Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden to be specific) are thriving and forming the vanguard in all international comparisons.

Does that not make some (those who are still capable of it) think?

Ideology blinds some to the facts.

Br Cornelius

[AROCES]

Those and the countries where nothing ever worked to start with (like Greece and Italy) and was helped by US banks to get "up to standard".

I always see many claims of people that the "social" countries are failing when at the same time their own State (Texas to be specific) is at the verge of insolvency and adore somebody who brought a state (Alaska to be specific) to insolvency to help them fight their woes.

At the same time the "social" countries (Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden to be specific) are thriving and forming the vanguard in all international comparisons.

Does that not make some (those who are still capable of it) think?

Tell that to China, they seem to like Capitalist now.

Your push for socialism and an end to Capitalism won't win, for you can't argue with the end results.

The countries you mentioned are thriving as you claim, they could do much better really if only the Socialist will get off the back of those who produces.

[AROCES]

Ideology blinds some to the facts.

Br Cornelius

Agree, your ideology really decides on what facts thrills you......

[questionmark]

Tell that to China, they seem to like Capitalist now.

Your push for socialism and an end to Capitalism won't win, for you can't argue with the end results.

The countries you mentioned are thriving as you claim, they could do much better really if only the Socialist will get off the back of those who produces.

Please don't be offended...I did not mean you when I said that some should start to think....

[AROCES]

b

Please don't be offended...I did not mean you when I said that some should start to think....

like you do?

[Guest]

Agree, your ideology really decides on what facts thrills you......

You make the false (and stupid) assumption that you can only ever be a radical socialist or a radical free market ideology. That is exactly why all of your statements are so shallow and without merit.

You work in a world of simple black and whites - I live in the real world.

Br Cornelius