Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Politicians are too Responsive to What Corporations Want

By

“I think that both the left and right are finding that our politicians in Washington, DC are much too responsive to what the corporations want these days (…and I’ll actually take issue with what Catherine said just a little bit because this is worse than attacks, what they’re actually contemplating.)

They want every person in America to pay 8% of their income to private corporations. That’s actually worse than attacks because these corporation are not supervised, they’re not limited what they can do with the money. So they privatize the profits and they socialize the losses and that’s not capitalism, it’s not socialism, it’s creating create too big to fail entities that are not going to serve the needs of the public. And both the left and right agree the mandate is absolutely wrong… I could not agree with Catherine more on that.

– Jane Hamsher 1/1/10

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. The problem is that the political system is broken. The Democrats elected to majorities in House and Senate, and the Democratic president elected a little over a year ago, don’t see their role being to do what the public elected them to do. Rather they see their role as being to prevent the public from getting what it wants, in order to protect the interests of the very industries that are benefitting from the status quo–in this case the insurance companies, drug companies, physicians and hospital companies.

    Until Americans rise up and start making politicians accountable to them, what we’ll get instead of real reform or, in this case, real health care reform, will be rip-offs, screwjobs and flim-flam, which in the end, after months of sturm and drang is all the current health “reform” legislation really is. link

    <

    p>

    • …constantly complaining about making policy through the courts when people can’t get their way legislatively?

      • As a friendly reminder, the title of the post is:
        “Politicians are too Responsive to What Corporations Want”

        <

        p>Efforts made to discuss the topic are appreciated. The topic  relates to this part of the comment posted above

        Rather they see their role as being to prevent the public from getting what it wants, in order to protect the interests of the very industries that are benefiting from the status quo–in this case the insurance companies, drug companies, physicians and hospital companies.

        • …if I like the mandate the answer is no.  I was responding specifically to the idea of going to court to get it overturned, a tactic with which I disagree.

    • I think it is unfortunate that AGs may have to turn to the courts to uphold the powers granted to the states under the constitution.

      <

      p>I agree with the need for health care reform on both the cost and access (pre-existing conditions, etc) sides, I do not agree with mandating coverage.  I also am not sure that the Congress has the authority to mandate that individual acquire health insurance.  It seems that capability exists, if it exists at all, at the state level.  The Constitution enumerated certain powers to the federal government and left the remainder to the states and the people.  Within the powers enumerated to the federal government there is no clear ability to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

      <

      p>Therefore, when the rights of the states are threatened by a federal law, it is my opinion that it is the role of the states AGs to take action to block the potentially unconstitutional taking of their states’ powers.  What is disappointing is that more states have not raised their hands and said “whoa, can you do this constitutionally?”.  

      <

      p>It would seem to me to be a very fair question and one that deserves an answer before a mandate, if there is one, goes into effect.

Archives