More Socialism!
It is a banner day for socialism in Delaware.
(If you are keeping score at home please note: Anything that benefits large corporations is inherently good and just. Anything that benefits people (especially poor people) is teh bad socialism.)
“The Markell administration should look into the possibility of ending the state’s contractual agreement with Walgreens in the state group health program,” Rep. Barbieri said. “Between state employees and Medicaid recipients, we send more than $60 million in business their way each year for prescriptions while they posted $2.2 billion in net income last year. And yet, Walgreens is entering a practice of only targeting those who would get them the greatest profit. It seems that when some corporations are so far removed from the state, they lose sight of the state’s needs.
“If that’s how Walgreens is going to do business in Delaware, then perhaps we as a state should not do business with them.”
Sen. Bethany Hall-Long, a member of the Senate’s Health and Social Services Committee and one of the General Assembly’s two health care professionals, agreed, noting that Walgreens was not singled out by the state.
“It’s unfortunate that a company is turning its back on our neediest citizens at a time when everyone in the state is feeling some kind of pain because of the recession,” said Sen. Hall-Long. “Walgreens wasn’t a special case. We asked them to make the same sacrifice being asked of our other pharmaceutical providers – no more, no less – and this was their response.”
“It seems that when some corporations are so far removed from the state, they lose sight of the state’s needs.”
That, my friend, is a hallmark tenet of fascist corporatism.
And must I go back to how the state is screwing the needy far more than Walgreen’s? The state has every right to cut off Walgreens (provided they are not contractually obligated), but that comment is mighty scary. The state’s needs? Wow.
And while you joke about socialism, we get news stories like this:
“Ten of the nation’s largest banks will be allowed to repay $68 billion in federal aid granted at the height of the financial crisis, the Treasury Department announced this morning.”
Allowed to means that there was a time they weren’t allowed to.
Yes, they were refused. The government wants to control them.
I am glad that Jason is finally seeing the light in the last two socialism posts. It took long enough. Now all we have to do is educate him so he stops looking at it approvingly.
Allowed to means that there was a time they weren’t allowed to.
Which also means you aren’t following the story especially well, either.
“Which also means you aren’t following the story especially well, either.”
You’re doing a whole lot of throwing around of meaningless garbage today when you know I have been following very closely.
If you followed the events, you would have seen that the banks were previously refused and the treasury put them through hoops “out of concern” that they not under capitalize themselves. I think the only reason they are taking it back is that the public is sick of it so they won’t give any more money. They want to make a show of taking back part of the money. It also gives them more for other projects.
You guys on the right keep using that term, “Socialism”, and I think you do not understand the true meaning of the word. Or at least too cowardly to admit that some things in this country (things you wouldn’t want to go away) are “Socialist” in nature….in other words, you’re trying to have it both ways.
And wasn’t it Bu$hCo and Paulson who forced these unwilling banks to take the funds?
Well no, you haven’t actually. If you have been following then you wouldn’t be trying to link “socialism” and repayment of the TARP. That is just Wingnut Bullshit and not a consideration of either the repayment history or what it means today.
And Delusional David doesn’t even know what conversation he is in, so forget it.
Rush330 is the one using the term socialism.
“If you have been following then you wouldn’t be trying to link “socialism” and repayment of the TARP.”
You’re talking awful confidently for someone who is incorrect. Arrogance and ignorance don’t mix well.
Rush 330 – You can call him that once Jason develops a nice prescription dependency and a taste for pre-pubescent sex junkets to third world nations.
In the meantime, labeling him a partisan is sufficient. 😀
Again, I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word….
De facto receivership is Socialism….ok I got it.
Arrogance and ignorance don’t mix well.
Would that you knew this lesson.
And while you are busily trying to link Jason with Rush — the socialism schitck is a Limbaugh Project. Not meant to be either accurate or meaningful — just intended to let you guys get your scared of everything act on.
And I note that you haven’t actually addressed my point, either. Which would require you to stop with the Limbaugh talking points.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Now remember, wee trolls, any gov’t action must hit all of the points above…not one or two, but all.
You label shit way before the gun goes off….
Chicken Littles
Where exactly did I label anything socialism?
I clearly labeled this as fascist corporatism.
The labeling gets them off the hook for actually understanding what is going on. Total Maximum Leader Limbaugh (and all of the wanna be Limbaughs) behavior.
Allowed to means that there was a time they weren’t allowed to./i>
Meanwhile FSP completely misses the point – the $68 billion flowing back into the Treasury. Any past criticism you had of TARP is now devalued by $68 billion.
Of course they weren’t allowed to repay it until they had proved to be healthier. Government is responsible for overseeing banks including their minimum cash on had. This is part of good governance.
Yellowstone is a bastion of Socialism.
And Dave, sorry, I attributed Repub Dave’s comment to you….my bad.
But my points stand, regarding the monolithic right-wing’s rhetoric…..
“The labeling gets them off the hook for actually understanding what is going on. ”
EXACTLY what Jason did in this post and EXACTLY what you do regularly.
“Look, it’s Rush Limbaugh! Ignore the actual issue and focus on the unelected paid entertainer!”
“Any past criticism you had of TARP is now devalued by $68 billion.”
Praising Bush, now, are we?
EXACTLY what Jason did in this post and EXACTLY what you do regularly.
“Look, it’s Rush Limbaugh! Ignore the actual issue and focus on the unelected paid entertainer!”
Panties in a bunch over this, huh? Which still counts as avoidance of my original point.
Nevertheless — we do not ignore the issue to focus on Limbaugh. We always highlite your Maximum Leader’s idiocy on behalf of your party as a Point and Laugh opportunity. Plenty of issues get discussed — but when your Maximum Leader hijacks the conversation then we point and laugh.
But you can get back to the point here anytime you’re ready.
The alliance of the state and corporations is the definition of fascism.
Corporations exist to make a profit; government exists to serve the people’s common good.
The statement “It seems that when some corporations are so far removed from the state, they lose sight of the state’s needs” is extraordinarily naive and a dangerous way of thinking.
Like church and state, there should be a wall between corporations and state. Corporations should act in the interests of making a profit; states should act in the interests of the common good of its citizens.
“But you can get back to the point here anytime you’re ready.”
I think a1 did a perfectly fine job of it. And the only avoidance here is yours.
A1 doesn’t have the definition of fascism quite right, but I wouldn’t expect you to know that, either.
You know what, cass? You have not once commented on Barbieri’s statement. You can keep avoiding it like the plague, but it’s still scary as hell and reeks of fascist corporatism.
And might I ask why you’re being so arrogantly condescending today?
cassandra_m,
As you know there are many definitions of fascism, and the word has been misused so many times in ridiculous terms such as “Islamic fascism” that the word has come to stand much more as a meaningless political pejorative than the definition of a specific type of totalitarian-like government.
When I use the term “fascism” I am using it in terms of its original meaning of a corporatist form of government.
Your definition might be different, but that’s how I define it
Barbieri: “It seems that when some corporations are so far removed from the state, they lose sight of the state’s needs. ”
Why give this the fascist reading? Barbieri isn’t proposing a law forcing Walgreens to do anything. He is simply proposing that the state act in its own interests in the marketplace. (by “state’ that means “the people of the state”).
Barbieri: “If that’s how Walgreens is going to do business in Delaware, then perhaps we as a state should not do business with them.”
That my friend is rock-ribbed free market capitalism. It’s Walgreens’s move.
“by “state’ that means “the people of the state”
No, it doesn’t. In that context, it means that corporations should put the interests of the state government first and align themselves with the state – the pure definition of corporatism. Companies like Walgreens are not “so far removed” from the people, but they are from the government.
“That my friend is rock-ribbed free market capitalism.”
I have no problem with the state doing that if they so choose, provided that they are not contractually bound.
it means that corporations should put the interests of the state government first and align themselves with the state
Again, Barbieri proposed no law restricting the rights of the corporation or requiring them to do anything.
The extent to which the corporation acts in the interests of citizens is a perfectly legitimate criterion to use when evaluating whether the citizens should do business with them or not. There is nothing fascist about it; it is rational self-interest.
“Again, Barbieri proposed no law restricting the rights of the corporation or requiring them to do anything.”
He suggested that they be financially punished for failing to align themselves with the wishes of the state government. That’s corporatism.
“corporation acts in the interests of citizens”
“Citizens” want affordable drugs from a convenient location. Barbieri & Co. want Walgreens to play ball. Markedly different.
$350million of Paulson Tarp money is missing? Elizabeth Warren on Bill Maher who is responsible for that money, wanted the world to know…its gone. Wheres the extorionist Paulson? Why isnt Bernacke held accountable? Oh I forgot, Bernacke refused to tell Congress what he and Paulson did with our tax dollars?
Three trillion missing from the Pentagon, billions missing in Iraq…and we wonder why the US is broke?
Walgreens is a corporation that cares little about the poor and disabled, they are only interested in their bottom line..that means the everyday citizen who still have a health care plan can be plucked again and again.
He suggested that they be financially punished
Financially punished? By doing business with different corporations who offer more for the taxpayers money?
So now in your world the taxpayers owe corporations a living. Look in the mirror for your corporatism.
Fascism is a difficult word to define, if it really can be defined. Most would agree that it morphed from the Bismarkian welfare state…in the U.S., fascism was most closely associated with the ‘Progressive’ movement.
I am not sure why people think that the customer should be allowed to dictate to a business what price they will pay for their products. It seems to me that Walgreens is setting their prices higher than the state is willing to pay. Walgreens is not a monopoly nor does it have monopolistic power over its market, so they have every right in a capitalistic economy to do this.
If customers choose to make their pharmaceutical purchases at other stores because of this decision by Walgreens, that is absolutely fine. Walgreens has to decide which course of action is better for their bottom line: losing the state’s business or losing the business from angry customers who can’t get their prescriptions filled. But that decision is up to the corporation, not up to the state.
Corporations do not exist to meet the needs of the state, and it is dangerous for citizens to believe that they should. At the same time, corporations should not be given the rights that are guaranteed for citizens by the Constitution. Corporations are not citizens.
I am not sure why people think that the customer should be allowed to dictate to a business what price they will pay for their products.
Who thinks that?
We used to regulate prices charged by monopolies, but now we don’t even do that anymore (i.e., Delmarva).
If the business remains free to say “No thank you” to the price offered, then there is no dictation.
in the U.S., fascism was most closely associated with the ‘Progressive’ movement.
callerRick, that is utter malarkey. You have been listening to too much Glenn Beck. You can’t find a single objective (non-right wing) source that supports the historical validity of that statement.
The fact is that you wingnuts have been trying to associate fascism with liberalism or progressivism for years, yet the ones who come closest to practicing fascism or corporatism are the conservatives and repubs.
Who thinks that?
Obviously, Barbieri does.
Well, Liberals are Fascists because the Nazis were really the National SOCIALIST Party, and we all know Liberalism is basically Socialism, so using the logic we deploy at any conundrum, Liberals are Fascists!
Unfortunately, the logic is having an issue with the whole Democratic People’s Republic of Korea….we’ll get back to ya.
You can keep avoiding it like the plague, but it’s still scary as hell and reeks of fascist corporatism.
Give me a break. If the State is sending alot of business to Walgreens then the state is free to stop sending its business to Walgreens. Just like Walgreens is free to stop taking lowered payments for drugs. The only coercion here is the usual financial one. If Walgreesn doesn’t need the business then they are good to go. What businesses are you people in where your bigger customers don’t throw their weight around? You get to real fascism when the GA starts creating laws to compel Walgreens to accept their business. So when the State of Delaware gets around to creating law and sending the State Police around to make Walgreens do business with it — wake me up. In the meantime, this is all a bunch of hot air trying to pretend that the state has neither the agency or the entitlements to place its business where it sees (reasonably) fit.
And might I ask why you’re being so arrogantly condescending today?
Today? This is a bad bit of deflection from the fact that you’ve not been able to hold up your end today.
:clap:
“Financially punished? By doing business with different corporations who offer more for the taxpayers money?”
They’re not pulling the state benefit account because others offer more. They’re doing it to punish Walgreens for not aligning their interests with the interests of the state.
I just punished Acme by buying the cheaper milk at Pathmark.
I’ve made my point.
They’re doing it to punish Walgreens for not aligning their interests with the interests of the state.
Sorta like the tens of conservatives punishing GM for not aligning their interests with the interests of GOP ideologues.
“Sorta like the tens of conservatives punishing GM for not aligning their interests with the interests of GOP ideologues.”
Yeah, but Rush Limbaugh isn’t the government.
“If the State is sending alot of business to Walgreens then the state is free to stop sending its business to Walgreens.”
You continue to focus on the state’s decision, which I’ve stated ad nauseum is perfectly above board, and ignoring the statement made by Barbieri. It’s clear, 45 comments in, that you won’t be addressing it, so I bid you good day.
Well Good Day!
But here we find ourselves with the situation that people keep telling me doesn’t exist — conservative Litmus Testing. Since Barbieri said something scary to FSP, FSP feels free to ask every liberal at a liberal blog to “address it!”
Without, of course, dealing with the fact that said legislator can likely be contacted fairly easily and asked to justify his own words. Coming over here to demand that anyone in this blog justify, explain or otherwise be accountable for what anyone else says is a clear recipe for FAIL.
And what else is a FAIL is simply not reading what is there. I wasn’t kidding — when Barbieri gets some legislation through and the State Police enforcing laws to make Walgreens sell anything, you may some issues. But you don’t. You just want to demand that people submit to your litmus tests.
ps.
Yeah, but Rush Limbaugh isn’t the government.
That’s bloody obvious, yes? And the effects are about the same — neither one of them is enacting legislation or forcing people to buy or not buy here.
You’re right. I apologize. I should not have challenged you for criticizing me for what I did not say and ignoring what I actually did say. My bad.
I’m confused about the Republican beliefs in the free market. Walgreen’s is charging more, so the state is shopping somewhere else. That sounds like the market at work to me.
I should not have challenged you for criticizing me for what I did not say and ignoring what I actually did say.
That’s what I was waiting for! More of the Maximum Leader’s lame debating tactics.
You may want to distance yourself from the Entertainer-In-Chief, but that doesn’t mean all that much when you take refuge in the man’s debating style.
What? You’re off your rocker.
I said Barbieri’s statement reeked of fascist corporatism. You went after me for criticizing the state’s decision, which I never did.
You can try to tie me to Rush all you want to distract from the point that you’re arguing with yourself over something I never said.
And you have a really unhealthy obsession with Rush Limbaugh.
This from the guy who keeps calling Jason Rush330.
And I responded to you re: the statement. I’m sure Barbieri himself will talk to you directly about the so-called “fascist” words.
Riddle me this: What part of Medicaid is not socialism?
The answer: When Happy Harry’s is allowed to opt out of it.
Guilt tripping the corporation for not “sharing sacrifice” for its neediest citizens is downright nearly an exact quote out of Atlas Shrugged.
It turns into straight up socialism when the state decides to mandate their participation. We are not far away from that as someone in Delaware’s government has already run statistics to see if the program can afford to be run effectively without Happy Harry’s. If HH was large enough to affect the whole Medicaid system, I would not have been surprised if legislation hit Leg Hall this session to force the issue.
“I’m sure Barbieri himself will talk to you directly about the so-called “fascist” words.”
Maybe he can stick to the point.
If you can find one, I bet he could. Especially since your point seems to be one that only he could answer.
When Happy Harry’s is allowed to opt out of it.
Which they’ve done. Succumbing to “guilt tripping” means they’ve made a business decision.
I heard that AARP is considering a national boycott based on Walgreen’s action in DE and Washington.
Bloggers can talk all they want. If AARP jumps in Walgreen will fold like a cheap suit.
And if Walgreens does fold like a cheap suit, you can start the timeline to tick down to the end of the retail pharmacy. Prepare to line up down at the government medical supply store, after that move to the next line for some government cheese.
Bob here apparently has had a steady diet of government cheese for the better part of his life. If there is one thing prevalent here it is places to buy all of the goods that Walgreens sells. Only Liquor Stores are more prevalent. The world will survive.
If the government commands a significant portion of a stores sales (via Medicaid lets say) and has the ability to set the merchants prices below cost how long before there are no merchants ? Seriously, if the government wants to mandate certain prices the they should ensure the supply to the retailer allowing for a fair markup. If no manufacturer will supply it for that the government can always start their own or save the trouble and just seize them. Thats how its done in some countries.
Comrade Bob,
Thank you for your endorsement of the glorious five year plan. The collective salutes your courage and foresight.
That was an endorsement right?
Other countries negotiate with our drug companies for way cheaper prices than we get. Remember all of the people going to Canada to get their medicines? At the Mexican border, lots of folks cross over to get the same meds, but cheaper. Manufacture of their own drugs has largely been limited to HIV related drugs. But other countries get the benefit of the one thing that this government refuses to do — ask for quantity discounts. Discounts that the companies freely give to everyone but us.
I’m actually pretty sick of the talking point that gov. bargaining for prices will shut down research. We know already that the bigger the customer, the bigger the bargaining power. Why should American consumers continue to subsidize lower prices for other countries by paying higher prices?
But why put the onus on the merchant? That is just plain theft. Put the burden on the government to negotiate, or make it their own damn selves. The need to get out of our business before there is none.
It isn’t theft is the merchant can say no to the government’s money. Which Walgreens has done. They’ve lost nothing yet.
They have lost something, a class of customers and their trade, and as that class of customers is continually grown through government mandates they will continue to lose a larger and larger portion of avilable trade. In the end we all lose by this kind of government activity.
““Citizens” want affordable drugs from a convenient location. Barbieri & Co. want Walgreens to play ball. Markedly different.”
First of all, lots of different citizens want different things. As a taxpayer, I, too, want Walgreen’s to play ball, and I’m fine with punishing them if they don’t. That is NOT the definition of fascism, or even an example of it, FSP. PLEASE try to speak in standard political science terms rather than your pet conservative terms when you’re dealing with the reality-based community. Pretty please?
More minor, and yet not — a convenient location? What century are you living in? What could be more convenient than your mailbox? Who the heck is still picking up prescriptions at pharmacies, and why?
Who the heck is still picking up prescriptions at pharmacies, and why?
Not defending Walgreens, but answering the question. Technically, mail-orders don’t cover everything. Anyone who needs to regularly see a dermatologist could tell you that. Compounds are very hard to get. Anti-biotics are useless via mail-order; by the time you’d get them, you’re probably in more trouble. Those are my examples, but ones that are fairly significant.
I know this, because as a dolt who is a freaking magnet for strep throat, I get this lovely manifestation in my skin (never contagious, so relax) called Guttate Psoriasis. In addition to getting UVB rays (a doctor/technician-monitored glorified tanning booth), you have to get this compound Rx. Also, with three young kids constantly getting sick from school or daycare (and giving dad strep throat yearly), antibiotics are the rage. *sigh* I use my mail-Rx service as much as possible, but for those, no-can-do.
Walgreens doesn’t have an absolute right to the state’s business. They have to compete with other pharmacies and at this time they’re losing the battle. I’m sure Walgreen’s feels it will do just fine with other customers. I don’t quite understand why we have to keep explaining this concept.
“That is NOT the definition of fascism, or even an example of it, FSP.”
Again (I would think you were Cassandra if I didn’t know who you were), the fascist corporatism was in the statement that Walgreens should align their interests with the state:
“It seems that when some corporations are so far removed from the state, they lose sight of the state’s needs.”
And again, financially punishing Walgreens for failing to toe the government line is a completely legitimate response.
Gotcha, FSP. I think it’s a reach — I read that more as a cheap shot than a true statement of core beliefs — but I do now see what you’re referring to. Thanks for the clarification.
And to the people who criticized me for saying that the state wanted to punish Walgreens for failing to play ball, here’s Barbieri:
FSP, that is still not punishment, it is simply the state bundling its purchasing and considering its procurement as a whole, instead of piece by piece. It is smart business and good for the taxpayer.
“FSP, that is still not punishment, it is simply the state bundling its purchasing and considering its procurement as a whole, instead of piece by piece. It is smart business and good for the taxpayer.”
And anon, you remain as full of it today as you were yesterday. At no point did Walgreens change the price structure for state employees. So the state is not saving a dime by pulling their employees access. It’s about “playing ball.”
“So the state is not saving a dime by pulling their employees access. ”
It is not about “lowest bid,” it is about most benefit for the recipients of the service. The state must be able to use its purchasing power to leverage the lowest price. If that leverage is to be credible, the state must follow through on its threats (for want of a better word). Otherwise the state will be negotiating as a paper tiger and all vendors will take additional advantage of the taxpayer.
It’s about “playing ball.”
So what? Big customers (or groups of customers) throw their weight around for all kinds of reasons with businesses — better prices, better service, additional service, inclusion of types of people, better environmental practices, better schedules, you name it. No business is entitled to customers, especially big ones. You earn that business and you have to keep earning it. If Walmart can do it, I don’t see why the State of Delaware shouldn’t.
“…callerRick, that is utter malarkey. You have been listening to too much Glenn Beck.”….anonone
Speaking of Nazi Germany, W.E.B. DuBois; “It was absolutely necessary to get the state in order….there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than in years past.” (1937)
Or, R. Guy Tugwell, member of FDR’s ‘brain trust,’ on Italian Fascism;
“It’s the cleanest, neatest most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.”
I could go on and on….
callerRick,
1) I did not speak of “Nazi Germany” and I now invoke Godwin’s law: You lose.
2) Neither of those statements supports your claim that “in the U.S., fascism was most closely associated with the ‘Progressive’ movement.” You lose again.
Not know ing what terms mean – but using them anyway is all the rage in Wingnutia.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,” it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
From Through The Looking-Glass: And What Alice Found There
by Lewis Carroll
Dishonest uses of quotes is apparently all the rage too.
Is “cassandra_m” the same person as “cassandra m”?
Yes!