Advocates of Social Justice explain that the problem with capitalism is that there are "winners and losers." Here is Dr. A.W. Frank of the University of Calgary arguing the importance of studying Marxism.
[I]t was Marx who first showed,
with a drama that captured the world’s attention, that capitalism is about producing
winners and losers; that’s what a capitalist economy is designed to do. And Marx establishes a fundamental task of
social science as figuring out the conditions that lead to some people being
winners and others being losers. Thus
Marx continues to set a large part of the social scientific agenda.
How is it that we still have so many out there who think capitalism is about producing winners and losers. Capitalism doesn't choose anything. People choose, if they're fortunate enough to live in a capitalist society. It's the opposite in the socialist model where individuals are not permitted to choose. But guess what: Socialism still has its winners and losers. It's just that somebody else gets to pick them. In this case, it's Barack Obama.
Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website
glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases
for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public
support for President Obama's signature legislation.
"This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people," said
Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy
Research. "There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act."
Gerald F. Kominski, Ph.D. is a Health Services Professor at UCLA Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Equity. The L.A. Times provides no context for the professor's comment about ObamaCare picking winners and losers. Is it a flaw in ObamaCare, or is he outlining strategy? Based on his biographical information, I'm inclined to think the latter.
Dr. Kominski received his Ph.D. in public policy analysis with a
concentration in health economics from the University of Pennsylvania in
1985, and his B.A. in chemistry from the University of Chicago in 1978.
He teaches classes in advanced research methods, health economics, and
cost-effectiveness analysis. His research focuses on evaluating the
costs and cost-effectiveness of health care programs and technologies;
improving access and health outcomes, particularly among ethnic and
vulnerable populations; and developing models for estimating health
expenditures and forecasting population health.
First we apply the sticker shock. That starts the destruction of the private insurance market. And finally we move to single payer. Rejoice. The tragic injustice that results when people choose their own insurance policies is remedied by ObamaCare.
I still get annoyed when I think about the sanctimonious jerks on the left who accused George W. Bush of lying at every turn. When nuclear weapons didn't turn up in Iraq, it wasn't because the intelligence was bad or inadequate. No. Bush lied, they said. When Bush said tax cuts would promote economic growth that would help everybody, he was lying because that contradicted the leftist zero-sum theory that said tax cuts for the rich meant more taxes for the poor. Policy differences were lies. Differences of opinion were lies.
WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency ended a program used to spy on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a number of other world leaders after an internal Obama administration review started this summer revealed to the White House the existence of the operation, U.S. officials said.
And even the press can't help but notice. Turns out the "U.S. officials" who said spying was only just discovered this summer... were not from the NSA.
WASHINGTON -- The White House and State Department signed off on surveillance targeting phone conversations of friendly foreign leaders, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said Monday, pushing back against assertions that President Obama and his aides were unaware of the high-level eavesdropping.
If U.S. spying on key foreign leaders was news to the White House, current and former officials said, then White House officials have not been reading their briefing books.
Some U.S. intelligence officials said they were being blamed by the White House for conducting surveillance that was authorized under the law and utilized at the White House.
"People are furious," said a senior intelligence official who would not be identified discussing classified information. "This is officially the White House cutting off the intelligence community."
How unlike our press to report anything unflattering about our historic president. Why now?
Suddenly Obama poses a serious threat to liberalism. ObamaCare was supposed to usher in a generation of progressive majorities in Congress as Americans acclimate to socialist utopia. Unfortunately, the ObamaCare rollout has demonstrated astounding government ineptitude and poor judgment. And people are getting really angry. Many quite content with their current health policies find that they can't keep them, and now they find that the White House and HHS knew all along that they couldn't, in spite of promises to the contrary. The whole thing raises questions not only about government's ability to the things that improve people's lives, it also raises questions about government's intentions when it claims to be improving things.
With ObamaCare hitting the fan so dramatically, the press is discovering more stories like this one, where Obama really did know about NSA spying on world leaders — stories that show Obama's cavalier attitude towards the truth, and there could be lots of them.
Truth to Obama is whatever he thinks will flatter him in the light of the moment. It's is a moving target. It's Obama calling Benghazi a spontaneous demonstration on day one, then later it's Obama claiming that he said it was a terrorist attack all along.
Wasn't that a remarkable moment when moderator Candy Crowley jumped into the middle of a Presidential Debate to defend Obama, announcing to stunned challenger Mitt Romney that yes, the president really did say Benghazi was a terrorist attack — the very next day in the Rose Garden. She then proceeded shut down any further debate on the subject. Our watchdog press at work.
The hogs at the trough are threatened. It's too bad, but to most Democrats, too many Republicans, the Washington press corps, big labor, and to a host of others, Obama's choice of politics over governance, his overreach, and his incessant dishonesty are not so much a threat to our democracy as a threat to liberalisim. With ObamaCare heading for the rocks the formerly fawning press are switching from cheerleaders to critics, distancing themselves in hope of salvaging some shread of credibility. It would be a welcome change, except that it's probably only temporary. It's about preserving the trough and saving their places at it.
"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."
No matter what! That was Barack Obama selling ObamaCare. As we contemplate our buyer's remorse, we can be reminded of the words of Nancy Pelosi.
“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
There are some, I suppose, who believed Obama meant it when he said, "Period," although it's difficult for me to imagine. Gullible seems such an inadequate description, especially now that we're finding out "what is in it."
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
Obama knowingly lied about healthcare reform. Period. But, why should anybody be surprised about that?
When Chris Stevens was killed in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of September 11th last year, it was only the sixth time that the United States had lost an ambassador to its enemies. The events of that night have been overshadowed by misinformation, confusion and intense partisanship. But for those who lived through it, there's nothing confusing about what happened, and they share a sense of profound frustration because they say they saw it coming.
"...overshadowed by misinformation, confusion, and intense partisanship." About that misinformation. In 20-20 hindsight it's clear that the administration knew right away that Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foriegn Service Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty were all killed in a well planned terrorist attack. Yet five days later President Obama sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice off the the Sunday talk shows to say that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video that insulted Islam.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
Later on President Obama made prominent mention of that YouTube clip in a speech to the UN General Assembly, implying that somehow the video was a catalyst for the violence in Benghazi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even promised to prosecute the film maker.
Woods explained, “I do appreciate her taking the time from her schedule to meet with the four families. While we were in the pod over there with our family she came over shook my hand and I reached out and hugged her shoulder. Her countenance was not good. And she made the statement to me that first of all she was sorry and then she said ‘We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.’ ”
It's as if the murderers themselves were not to blame.
60 Minutes may be commended for finally working up the integrity to report how additional security for the consulate in Benghazi had been requested and denied. Unfortunately, the program studiously avoided any investigation into why the Ambassador's requests were denied. The names Clinton and Obama are conspicuously missing from the program script.
We got what we normally get from the mainstream media — a pretense at integrity, an attempt to rehabilitate a reputation destroyed by the partisan bias of its own reporting. Events were overshadowed, CBS says, by "misinformation" and "confusion." Unmentioned is that the misinformation originated in the White House and the confusion was desperately needed in order to get Obama re-elected.
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is set to go straight from misleading the country about a matter of national security to a promotion.
A top candidate to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Rice famously purveyed erroneous information about the Benghazi terror attack on five Sunday shows a few days after the deadly incident.
But, hey, these things happen.
For the sin opposing a Secretary of State nominee who deliberately misinformed the American public about what happened in Benghazi, Republicans were labeled racist. This is the "intense partisanship to which CBS referred in its introduction to the Benghazi piece.
Ironically, every word that CBS said is true: Events of that night really have been overshadowed by misinformation, confusion and partisanship. But in the context of the moment CBS can be confident that the larger part of its audience will believe that Republicans were guilty of intense partisanship for grilling administration officials about what actually happened. 60 Minutes can reasonably expect that its audience will chalk up the misinformation and confusion to the fog of war, not from the fog that emanated from the White House.
CBS has not set the record straight. it's a year after the critical re-election of Barack Obama, and now CBS has judged that it's safe to broadcast some of the facts about Benghazi. In fact, now it's probably even necessary. The 60 Minutes Benghazi broadcast is a bid to re-establish the illusion of integrity. Without it the network will be hamstrung in its battle to elect a Democratic in the 2016 presidential race.
WASHINGTON — Congress plunged the nation into a partial government shutdown Tuesday as a long-running dispute over President Barack Obama's health care law stalled a temporary funding bill, forcing about 800,000 federal workers off the job and suspending most non-essential federal programs and services.
A few paragraphs down, Associated Press reporter Andrew Taylor focuses the blame for us. Can you guess where?
Until now, such bills have been routinely passed with bipartisan support, ever since a pair of shutdowns 17 years ago engineered by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich severely damaged Republican election prospects and revived then-President Bill Clinton's political standing.
Boehner had sought to avoid the shutdown and engineer passage of a "clean" temporary spending bill for averting a government shutdown.
This time tea party activists mobilized by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, mounted a campaign to seize the must-do measure in an effort to derail Obamacare. GOP leaders voiced reservations and many Republican lawmakers predicted it wouldn't work. Some even labeled it "stupid."
While the Mainstream Media is gearing up for government shutdown horror stories and analyses that put the blame for them on Ted Cruz and the Tea Party, an apparent fracture among Democrats may be widening. There is a splinter of hope for compromise, even after the spectacle of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejecting even the possibility of debate on any of the House resolutions.
A repeal of the medical device tax may be a point of compromise between the House and the Senate as the two houses of Congress work to end the government shutdown, the number two Democrat in the Senate said Tuesday.
"We can work on something, I believe, on the medical device tax. That was one of the proposals from Republicans, as long as we replace the revenue," Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said on CNN's "New Day."
It should be noted that the continuing resolution was a bipartisan measure since two congresssional Democrats voted with the Republicans to delay the start of ObamaCare.
Two Democrats -- Jim Matheson of Utah and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina -- voted with Republicans to add the provision. Two GOP representatives, Chris Gibson and Richard Hanna, both from New York, voted against the measure.
Republican establishment types like Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer have opposed the ObamaCare challenge, not because they like ObamaCare, but because they believed a government shutdown would further damage the Republican brand, making it all but impossible to repeal the ObamaCare disaster later on. They would prefer to have this fight when the debt ceiling issue comes up since Americans favor the Republican position on it. I've shared Rove's and Krauthammer's fears, but Senate Democrat intransigence, refusing any negotiation whatsoever, leads me to think those fears won't be realized. And, it's not an either-or situation. We'll have this fight again when we have the debt ceiling debate.