Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Who Benefits from Obamacare? Democrats, Republicans & the Corporations that Control Both Parties.

Posted 11 years ago on July 2, 2012, 3:19 p.m. EST by vvv0701 (-5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


Both Democrats & Republicans are lying for their corporate masters: Obamacare was not primarily about healthcare OR taxes. The goal was the individual mandate.


In last week's United States Supreme Court ruling re National Federation of Independent Business Et Al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Et Al (11-393/28-Jun-2012) a.k.a. "NFIB v. Sebelius", the individual mandate to purchase health insurance and associated penalties for non-compliance contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148/H.R.3590/PPACA/23-Mar-2010) a.k.a. the "Affordable Care Act" a.k.a. "Obamacare" were declared to be a tax and therefore constitutional:



The Obamacare bill is a massive piece of legislation - depending on formatting, anywhere from 900+ to 2000+ pages - much of which can loosely be construed as "healthcare reform". That millions of Americans will be impacted by this law is beyond dispute. Whether that impact will be positive or negative, on the other hand, will be a source of sociopolitical debate for many years - assuming of course our illegal and immoral death-from-above droning and Oil Wars Iran-baiting antics in Syria, Balochistan and elsewhere don't get us all blown to Kingdom Come in the interim:



There are, however, three clear and immediate beneficiaries of Obamacare: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the Global Corporations who control them both:

1) THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY can truthfully energize their base of lemmings on the left side of the false divide by declaring a victory for "healthcare reform" - although the percentage of Americans who can expect to receive a net benefit from all the changes in that mass of legalese is only about 10 percent, and some 5 million of us are projected to actually LOSE our health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

"Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years, leaving 26 million to 27 million nonelderly residents uninsured in those years... The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance is projected to rise from 82 percent in 2012 to 93 percent by 2022. According to the current estimates, from 2016 on, between 20 million and 23 million people will receive coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and 16 million to 17 million people will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. Also, 3 million to 5 million fewer people will have coverage through an employer compared with the number under prior law."


2) THE REPUBLICAN PARTY can legally (and from that narrow perspective truthfully) energize their base of lemmings on the right side of the false divide by parroting Chief Justice Roberts' proclamation that its individual mandate and therefore Obamacare represent a "tax increase" from a President whose campaign promised no tax increases on the middle class, and who personally and through his administration vowed repeatedly that Obamacare was NOT a tax. In Obama's own words:

a. "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."



b. "I absolutely reject that notion," Obama said under repeated questioning by Stephanopoulos. "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said. "You can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."



3) THE GLOBAL CORPORATIONS that control both the Democratic and Republican Parties - and through that "Two-Party Tryanny" our government and all of us - are the biggest beneficiaries of Obamacare. The global fascist elite 1% could care less about improving the health of the other 99% or what new tax burdens are placed on the backs of a middle-class struggling to survive yet still desperately hanging on to the belief that somehow, someday they too will be rich, famous and have their own Reality TV show if they just stay on the treadmill and keep running. And by using the Congressional power to tax rather than the Commerce Clause as the basis for his decision, corporate puppet Chief Justice Roberts made sure the NFIB v. Sebelius ruling would stir up a partisan political firestorm - and accompanying smokescreen - to keep the Sheeple divided and fighting each other, blinded to the white-collar crime being perpetrated by their common enemy:

Reaching far beyond the corporatization of medicine and privatization of healthcare in America, the 1%'s objective with Obamacare was to establish a constitutional legal precedent for individual mandates by which the wealthy can become even wealthier simply by having their paid political puppets pass laws mandating that we buy their corporate products and increase their profits - regardless of whether we want, need or can afford them.

Today, it's overpriced health insurance. Tomorrow, it might be underpowered Chevys.

Where are the Jeffersonians? And where is the outrage?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."--Thomas Jefferson



NOTE TO TWITTER USERS 1: Please tweet this: Both Ds & Rs lie for corporate masters: #Obamacare not about #Healthcare OR #Taxes but legalizing #IndividualMandate: http://bit.ly/LXrpe8

NOTE TO TWITTER USERS 2: Since our recent unrelated disclosures that (a) eating a bowl of Cheerios is no more "heart healthy" than eating a bowl of dirt ( http://bit.ly/zDYa45 ) and (b) many American Bikers suffer from Sensenbrenner Syndrome ( http://bit.ly/MBBIBQ ), tweets from @VVVPR are being blocked from the Twitter search stream. If you are a Twitter user, we ask you to contact @Support and demand this corporate fascist censorship be ended.

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com | http://twitter.com/vvvpr )

Related Image 0: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/obamacare.gif

Related Image 1: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/obamacare_1.jpg

Related Image 2: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/obamacare_2.jpg

Related Image 3: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/obamacare_3.jpg

Related Image 4: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/obamacare_4.jpg

Related Video (A MUST SEE): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzfcOFc5xjY

Show Your Support: https://www.wepay.com/donate/ironboltbruce

Tag: #obamacare, #romneycare, #healthcare, #scotus, #sebelius, #aca, #universalhealthcare, #sensenbrenner, #democrats, #republicans, #gop, #demopublicans, #bushbamney, #obama, #romney, #privatization, #fascism, #fascists, #kleptocracy, #anonymous, #ows, #revolution

Key: obamacare, romneycare, healthcare, health care, scotus, supreme court, nfib v. sebelius, affordable healthcare act, affordable care act, aca, sebelius, single payer, universal healthcare, universal health care, sensenbrenner, democrats, republicans, gop, bushbamney, obama, romney, privatization, fascism, fascists, kleptocracy, anonymous, ows, revolution

This document contains links shortened using http://tinyurl.com to facilitate emailing. If you are concerned that we would use them to cloak phishing or malware, you should open them with this: http://longurl.org



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 11 years ago

Isn't this really Heritage Foundation Health Care?

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 11 years ago


[-] 0 points by HCHC4 (-28) 10 years ago

More Fascism:

via http://wendellpotter.com/2013/10/healthcare-gov-disaster-symptom-of-larger-problem/

"But Congress is not the only branch of government that has become part of the problem. Johnson says the way the executive branch goes about selecting and awarding contracts for projects like HealthCare.gov almost guaranteed that the website would not function properly when it launched.

HealthCare.gov is just the latest in a long history of projects that have underperformed because of long-standing protocols that discourage all but the biggest technology companies — and the ones with the best political connections — from even submitting bids for government projects.

As Johnson and Harper Reed, former chief technology officer of Obama for America, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Friday, “Much of the problem has to do with the way the government buys things.” As a consequence, an astonishing 94 percent of large federal information technology projects over the past decade failed to meet expectations in one way or another, according the Standish Group, a research firm. More than 40 percent were complete failures.

“The questions Congress should be asking would be about the procurement and hiring policies inside the Department of Health and Human Services and CMS (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which was given the responsible of building HealthCare.gov),” said Johnson.

“How did HHS and CMS determine which contractors got to work on this stuff? The other question would be which policies prevented the U.S. federal government — the biggest customer in the entire world — from getting the absolute best and brightest (to do the work)? What is preventing government from getting that kind of talent?”

Johnson believes the answer to those questions can be traced back to procedures put in place over the past several years that make it cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive for private companies to bid on government contracts, so much so that relatively small firms — where many of our best and brightest work — won’t even consider submitting bids."

Looks like the corporatist agenda- regulate all the competition out of existence, then give the big guys a free pass, is still alive and well.






[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 11 years ago

There's only one game in town now. It's called the biggest insurance company wins.

[-] 0 points by vvv0701 (-5) 11 years ago

Clueless commentary made just for the sake of commenting, perhaps?


[-] 0 points by vvv0701 (-5) 11 years ago

U.S. Supreme Court Obamacare Decision Makes Individual Mandate A Fact & Universal Healthcare Coverage A Fiction:



[-] 0 points by vvv0701 (-5) 11 years ago

Obama's Corporate Health Care Law Was Designed To Prevent Single-Payer:


[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 11 years ago

I don't understand why any average American should be against social security, medicare, or the recent APPACA health care legislation. I can understand some saying these programs don't go far enough ( I certainly agree with that), but all in all the average American is immensely better off with these programs in place than without them.

I can understand some concern about the "mandate" in the APPACC legislation, but the legislation does provide consideration for those who cannot pay, Tax credits and financial assistance are available to households making up to $88,000/yr; that covers about 99% of everybody. I can only conclude a lot of this "mandate" hubbub is nothing more than right wing political rhetoric in an election year.

[-] 2 points by liberybell (49) 11 years ago

Shule, If I would believe on sick-care like You do, then yes, I would agree that this is a benefit. The problem is that the sick-care system is just that sick!! If you want to stay sick and plugged into a system that profit from You being sick then there You have it! But if You are looking for true health, if You are looking for options, if You are looking for an stability and reduction of sickness on this country then the sick-care only option is not the solution. And being force by our tyranic federation is even worse. Why do You think over 50% of people that have not sick-care insurance don't want it? Are they just dumb? No, they are not. And the industry knows it! Which it is why the sick-care industry has spent all that money to ensure that the health care reform turns into a settle mandate to force that 50% to buy that useless sick-care shit.

[-] -1 points by Shule (2638) 11 years ago

So what do you do when you get sick?

[-] 1 points by salta (-1104) 11 years ago

wrong, the poor will not benefit from obamacare, they wont get any. the middle income group will pay , a lot. the rich dont need insurance, they can and do pay for their own healthcare.

[-] -1 points by vvv0701 (-5) 11 years ago

Your grasp of everything from the acronym on down is errant, and to read this analysis and conclude the mandate concern is "right wing political rhetoric" is nothing short of ludicrous. Before you embarass yourself further, please watch the video:


[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 11 years ago

Like I said; right wing political rhetoric.

[-] 1 points by vvv0701 (-5) 11 years ago

Like I said... Your grasp of everything from the acronym on down is errant, and to read this analysis and conclude the mandate concern is "right wing political rhetoric" is nothing short of ludicrous. Before you embarass yourself further, please watch the video:


[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 11 years ago

I watched the video the first time. thanks.

So what do you do when you get sick?

[-] 0 points by harry2 (113) 11 years ago

For the once that call it a TAX = it may be a reason to vote for a single payer system. (If insurance premiums are now a tax?)

For Corporations it would not be a loss, because they could sell the de luxe insurance coverage and still insure healthy customers without pre existing conditions.

and The politician can just provide equal healthcare to the people, just as they receive it in congress.

If its a tax, then a single payer is the fair option. Premium based on income.

For the governors and senators to return all the electoral donations from the insurance industry. That would be a problem.

So lets call it a tax even we all know that insurance premium is not a tax!

But emergency care for the uninsured have been paid by taxpayers and then it was not a tax?

[-] 0 points by vvv0701 (-5) 11 years ago

Very general reference. "Not really" WHAT?