LeeAnnG,

Universal health care? Would that include the effects of global pollution and climate change? Maybe prevention would be better than looking for new medicines? I mean, if the ecology dies, what health care plan would save us from that?

Just for the record, HR676 is the Conyers/Kucinich bill, and Kucinich is running for president. My favorite Kucinich quote regarding the difference between what he would do (eliminate private insurance companies) and what the other Democratic candidates would do (subsidise those companies): "I'm running for president..I'm not SELLING health insurance!"

I believe the saying is "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil." And we do see it every day, don't we?

The answer to corporate attempts to control Congress is public financing of all election; a ban on TV and radio political advertising; a requirement that TV and radio networks and stations provide equal time for all candidates to present their platforms individually without interruption and in debates.

THEN politicians who understand that the insurance industry manages health care to feed itself ever bigger profits might feel free to obey the obvious will of the people and enact universal, single-payer health care that leaves no one out and saves us as a country billions and billions every year.

Ralph Nader has been warning us about the fascists for 4 decades. Nobody wanted to listen because they liked the pretty flickering pictures more than reality. Amerika land of the fake cheap substitute of everything for reality. Enjoy your republican white cotton bread grilled american cheese food sandwich while you drink your artificially flavored, colored sugar water followed by your mcdairy substitute low fat sundae. The only reason half the idiots in this country are still alive is because Ralph drug the auto industry kicking and screaming into court to force them to put seatbelts in their petro-comsumeing-pollution-spewing deathtraps. Make everything idiot proof and we'll breed a better idiot! Don't worry though be happy! Keep watching the pretty glittery pictures while you listen to your i=diot-pod and shove the cardboard frankenfood in you're hole. Oh and before I forget, MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX for all!!! We want to make sure everybody gets the end of their wee wees cut off, just to make sure we take all the fun out of that too!!

It's time for the Doctors to demand the system be changed. How the hell have they managed to stay out of this so-called debate (which is, what - if you can't afford what they decide it costs, you're screwed?)Or do they think by hiding they'll be able to protect their incomes...

Of course, the way the future's looking... did Mad Max have a dental plan?

Now surrounded by corporate Democrats, I wonder how MM feels about the time he got on his knees and begged Ralph not to run on Bill Maher's HBO series? I wonder if he will apologize to Ralph.

If you Nader scapegoaters wanna see him back off from further runs at the presidency, then get off your asses and establish a viable third party with an electable leader who can offer some attractive alternative to the Republicrats. How do you think Canada got its universal healthcare plan? You think maybe the Conservatives or the Liberals (our version of Republicrats) just woke up one day and said, Hey, wouldn't it be cool to have universal healthcare? Get real! We had a third party with a credible leader (Kiefer Sutherland's granddaddy) who hammered and hammered until the major parties had no choice but to establish the program.

Nader HATERS are the cowards that are pushing our country deeper into trouble. I blame the Democrats and those spineless enough to vote for them for Nader's loss in the last two elections. You heard me right you spineless weasles. If you hadn't spent so much effort keeping him down we would have a powerful movement against the corporate takeover of our country. Even with Bush in office, imagine what we could do if we all united behind Nader. I will support him as long as he continues to fight for the change I want. My conciense is absolutely clear. Our country is hopeless as long as a truthful and courageous man like Nader gets attacked for standing up. Wake up America!

I don't think Nader is a hypocrite. I've never seen him give investment advice against buying stocks. I think Nader is a progressive hero. Go to his website and read his platform at http://www.votenader.org/issues/index_home.php

The guy is a true progressive, and this article in support of Moore, is one of many examples of his courageous, good work.

As far as the election of 2000, it is important to look to the future. Gore didn't even win Tennessee, his home state. Gore could have "taken" Nader's votes or asked him to not run in swing states by advocating a progressive platform.

Nader's own issues platform says this:

Major electoral reforms are needed to ensure
that every vote counts, all voters are represented
through electoral reforms like instant run-off voting,
none-of-the-above options, and proportional
representation, non-major party candidates have a
chance to run for office and participate in debates,
and that elections are publicly financed.

He advocates true solutions.

Thank you Zoya. I am so friggin tired of the whining and complaining about the last vestiges of real democracy at work. At least Ralph Nader put his money where his mouth is which is more than most of the bloggers I read here. How the hell can anyone who calls themselves a progressive trash Nadar? Are you folks out of your friggin minds????Blame someone====ANYONE---for our sorry state of affairs. What a disgusting bunch of scapegoaters. I am losing faith in the future of humanity. We just keep making the same damned mistakes.

and so it goes....

(a) Gore lost Florida for his own self when he didn't demand a recount of every ballot in the state, which he would have won, and when he allowed overseas ballots postmarked after the election to be counted -- which seems somewhat ironic in light of this week's Supreme Court decision that a criminal whose lawyer misses a deadline by one day when the judge tells him he has 14 days to file something, when the statute only allows 10, is out of luck and has no recourse to the law anymore.

(b) Nader sounds really peevish and jealous in this essay. I like the way he makes fun of Moore for being fat -- gee, that's progressive, intellectual and original. And "Having been a taught community organizer"? What the heck does that mean? Is this irony? Passive-aggressive use of the passive voice? Nader has done some great things but seems like a total nut job.

geeze - where have you people been? The Republicans RIGGED and STOLE the election in 2000 and 2004 (and 2006 - but they didn't count on the last minute scandals so a bunch of Dems made it anyway). It is all based on the polling data, their little black box Diebold machines, plus they have all their other slimy tactics like caging, scrubbing the voter rolls, and recruiting Secretaries of State to enact totally inane rules. IT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE WHETHER NADER RAN OR NOT.

I saw SiCKO in a sneak preview last weekend -- no doubt his best movie. Go to his website and you can see all the organizing he has been doing. I think this is such a hot topic right now -- this film will really get people to understand what the situation is. The status quo is so indefensible -- I just don't think they will be able to pull the wool over the eyes of even the least analytical amongst us any longer.

Well put, arpedkedarki.
Couldn't agree with you more. Everytime I hear newsmen talking about how the Republicans "won" elections, my blood boils. They didn't win either in 2000 or in 2004, though they
tried every dirty trick in the book and then some.
I agree that nothing matters more than cleaning up our electoral system.

Ralph Nader is more qualified to be the Prez than anyone who has run in the last 45 years--but he's an enemy of BIG CAPITAL and that won't even get him on the ballot in most states anymore! He is also basically right in his critique of Moore who--being a member of the ENTERTAINMENT/MEDIA COMPLEX--knows fully well which side of his toast is buttered. The fact that Nader has not yet been corrupted is due basically to his extrememy high level of EDUCATION and his DEVOTION to his career as a whistleblower/watchdog of the MEGA/CAPITALIST industries. The silly assertion that he is rich is reminiscent of the claim by the rightwing media in 2000 that Fidel Castro was the 6th richest man in the World! Where's the proof dummies??.....thought so.

health care, global warming, the war in iraq, american hegemony....none of it makes a bit of difference if we don't clean up our electoral system. we cannot make a dent in any of the other stuff if we can't get the right people in office. i'm tired of nader-bashing. the cabal stole both elections and will do it again because they have been able to distract us with all of their other nefarious doings. something about fingers in dikes....

entelechy--no you're not. It is a worthy topic of investigation.

But, when all is considered---all the variables that contributed to Bush bullying his way into the Whitehouse, why do you suppose just the aspect of Nader in Florida is highlighted?

No one ever mentions the fact that Gore had to run with the Clinton impeachment on his back. NO ONE evr mention that for example. The argument could be made that if Clinton kept his pecker in his pants, Gore would've sailed into office.
Yet, Nader carries all the blame.

Vern,

Thanks for that information about Nader. From that I guess he actually did NOT deliberately spoil the 2000 election, but hoped to win, which he certainly should have. But the reality was tragic, because had he not run, Gore's majority would have overcome Bush's Florida fix.

Maybe I should retire from all this forum discussion, since I am so bereft of hope.

Amazing how Democrats continue to attack and smear someone like Nader who has dedicated his life to trying to help people against corporate abuses, while meanwhile being a party that's entirely just corporate shills and agents themselves.

So, we get the strange spectacle of Dems attacking Nader because he dares to speak up in support of Michael Moore's efforts. And this just a couple of months after the Dems all lined up in the Senate to vote to kill a bill that would have let Americans get cheaper meds by shopping overseas.

The Dems line up to support big pharmas profits, then attack Nader for trying to look out for the rest of us.

What an absolutely disgusting political party. Face it, a vote for the Democrats is a vote to help yourself be even more screwed by corporate interests. Who cares if the Dems can win? We are just as screwed when they win as when they lose.

'His personal financial disclosure in 2000 listed his net worth at close to $4 million, including $1 million of stock in tech giant Cisco Systems.

Such revelations prompted critics to label Nader a hypocrite for railing against corporations while personally profiting from its success. But in his disclosure, Nader said that aside from "modest personal expenses," he uses his income as a "de facto philanthropic fund" for his projects. He also said that he has consistently donated 50 percent of his adjusted gross income to charitable institutions, amounting to several million dollars since 1967.

"In short, monies I earn are for strengthening civil society," he said.

Nader is well known for his modest lifestyle. He lives alone in a Washington apartment and does not own a car. He never married and has no children. He told The New York Times in 1995 that he didn't want to be an absentee father or husband. "That would have been terrible," he said.'

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/nader.html

JostaDragon,

All wealth should be equally shared or donated to a worthy cause like Planned Parenthood to reduce the human population, but money-power lures an individual to play games of influence to "change the system", which are illusory. Since money is power and power corrupts, money is an evil influence, yet we are all trapped by it.

I wonder what kind of health care plan might save us from global pollution and climate change ( ? )

Yes, Ralph, but who cares what you think?

You accepted Republican corporatist donations in your run as spoiler, so you are no different than the Republicrats to me.

And it was money well spent for them: you made sure Bush was able to steal the election in 2000 by making the count 90,000+ votes closer in Florida than it needed to be. Stealing a few hundred votes was a piece of cake by comparison; the rest is history.

Thanks Ralph -- now just dry up and blow away.

Grow up trippin. Al Gore lost the election in 2000 for the Democraps, not Nader. Take responsibility for your own garbage.

trippin,

Ralph became a millionaire, and that changes people. So, don't expect any politician to do what you won't do yourself.

I have never believed that Ralph Nader was in any way responsible for the Republican "win" in either 2000 or 2004. Bush most definitely did not win the 2000 election. We need third party candidates to shake up the establishment. Voter fraud, stripping the voter lists, interference by the Supreme Court, the weakness of the Democrats, and other factors had a lot more to do with the resulting fiasco than Ralph Nader ever did.

It's an old and stupid argument to insist that without Nader Bush would not now be in the White House. People need to grow up and stop looking for a single scapegoat.

This morning, I read a very good article in Fair and Accuracy in Reporting concerning Jeff Greenfield's s critique of Sicko on CBS. There's a concerted movement by the MSM to discredit the movie and make it appear that Moore is a fringe element. At the end of the article are the email addresses of two CBS sites that may be used to send comments.

It's a good idea to do this, even if CBS does not really respond. Every little bit helps. Without each grain of sand, the beach could not exist. America needs universal health care as soon as possible.

I voted for Nader and contributed to him and I'm proud of it. He's the only candidate who represented my views. This is a democracy, isn't it?

"Ralph became a millionaire, and that changes people."

Huh?

Ralph lives in a modest apartment in Conneticut on a personal income of something like $25,000 per year.

Ralph Nader has always been on our side.
The corporations have always hated him and now that they are more powerful than ever- with every stripe of politician in their pocket-it serves them to have you hate him. He used to be recognized as out there fighting for us, and he has spent his entire life speaking out and working for us, but because the political landscape is solely corporate-owned territory now, the campaign to demonize Nader has been widely effective. Corporate Democrats seek to blame Nader before they'll ever challenge the criminal excesses of the Right. Is it any wonder that the marks for congress are lowest of all?
Nader has gone from public citizen #1 to public enemy #1. Anyone who buys into the hate-mongering of Nader has been suckered into drinking the corporate koolaid--propaganda tactics on the level of red-baiting or patriotic sloganeering as cover for war crimes.
Those who target Nader need to frequent Democratic Underground with those who attack Cindy Sheehan in defense of partisan hacks who boast to represent Democratic party interests but who serve the Corporate state and might as well paint a big R on their forehead. Nader, at least, represents the people's interests--the same can't be said for the Democrats.

PJD,

That income is mostly from his investments, so he's worth a great deal more than that. Don't kid yourself, Ralph knows exactly what he's doing.

Entelechy:
Nader became a "politician" because the corporate duopolists in power turned their backs on public interest and civic groups that were working to better the lives of the American people, and the only way to get his message was to speak to them in the only language they understand: electoral politics. So he is not what any serious person would describe as a mere politician; he is more of an activist and civic leader. If he is a millionaire, he has not kept much of the money he has made from his books and lawsuits for himself. He used it to start organizations like Public Citizen, the Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service); Appleseed Foundation (local change); Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees); Center for Insurance Research; Consumer Project on Technology; Government Purchasing Project (encourage the government to purchase safe and healthy products); Center for Justice and Democracy; Organization for Competitive Markets; American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition); Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest; Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations); Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress); League of Fans (sports industry watchdog); Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups); Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens) and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law (supports and conducts a wide variety of research and educational projects to encourage the political, economic and social institutions of this country to be more aware of the needs of the citizen-consumer), among others.

Nader puts his money where his mouth is—and where it will work to help citizens and consumers.

By the way, isn't this REALLY off-topic? Nader always has spoken out for single-payer universal healthcare, and he will continue to do so.

If you want to learn more about a person of whom you know so little, watch the film An Unreasonable Man (www.anunreasonableman.com/).

entelechy - I agree that global warming is a huge problem. However, this article is not about global warming; it's about the lack of health care in this country, which is also a huge problem.

Restricting oneself to a single issue, and attempting to turn every other conversation into that single topic is not necessarily helpful. Your concerns are real, but unproductive in this context. As an analogy, if cancer is a serious illness, it does not follow that research concerning flu (or other illnesses) should be ignored.

Universal health care will obviously not stop global warming. But that does not mean that the flaws in our health care system should be ignored. There's room enough to care about more than just one subject, no matter how dire that concern might be.

$$$$$$ - is the root of most evil in US of Amerika today and it is the only reason we are still having this debate. The pros for a single payer system beats the cons $$$$$$

entelech,

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Climate change is a completely separate issue. The relative merits of mainstream versus "alternate" medical practice are also a totally separate issue.

50 million don't have access to any kind of medical care, mainstream or alternate, or face destituton if they seek it. The others may have coverage but it is deeply compromised by treating care as a "market" where the people's health outcomes are a distant second to cutting costs or increasing profit.

I know that a lot of the CD readership seems to be somewhay wealthy and are tempted to seek privately-bought personal "refuge" from public health and environmental probelms - just as they buy pricey organic food, and bottled water from Fiji. The result of this will only be an increasingly divided and unjust society.

entelechy:

Ever notice that when a public figure is considered a threat, they are immediately targeted for class war? Think of the charges rounded up against Gore--specifically to discredit his movement against climate change--or Edwards, when he advocates for the poor and strays from the corporate-defined perimeters of representation or even Moore for the wealth he has generated, or that his children went to private school. Ever notice that it is used--class and wealth, to pit you against those who work on our behalf, meanwhile should anyone question their obscene share of the pie they screech about class war.
If Nader wasn't effective then he wouldn't have so many powerful enemies that other public figures and politicians avoid by being utterly and contemptiously useless when not complicit.

Yeah, go bark with the Democratic party faithful and see how far that will get your issues.

If the Dims run Hillary Clinton, I'll vote for Nader again. Not that it matters, we can't have legitimate elections without major changes.

As far as who "wins" better a wolf than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

"Ralph knows exactly what he's doing."

And someone who chooses frugality doesn't "know what he is doing?"

Can you provide some documentation of Ralph's purported wealth. Or if he has wealth tied in investments, they aren't in a trust to support his projects?

As a socialist, I, on principle, will not put any money in private stocks, and I assure you I know exactly what I'm doing. Am I missing out on getting rich? Probably. But, my values lies elsewhere.

Ralph Nader is a legend! As EDUCATED Americans should know. Hell I don't even live in the United States and I even know that. To suggest that Ralph Nader was to blame for George W. Bush's "win" of the American Presidency is simply inaccurate. Ok? The reason why Ralph Nader lost the 2000 U.S. election, ultimately was because most Americans were reluctant to give Mr. Nader EQUAL mainstream media airtime and reporting as well as fair exposure with the likes of Gore and Bush. Oh well. That was the choice of the majority of Americans and they are experiencing the consequences of this choice. Remember, U.S. citizens, you are NOT immune to consequence. Although you continuously demonstrate what is contrary to reality in your opulent hypocritical nation, you still have not received the hint. Tragic... and hopefully YOUR misfortune!!!!

What would Mr. Nader do on 9/11? I think he would have done the most morally sound decision he could. You see Americans, Mr. Bush is NOT morally sound from a positive standpoint, as you have found out too little too late, as he ultimately chose revenge and scapegoating over forgiveness for 9/11 (not that the typical American cares though). Mr. Bush Jr. extols negative morality, unbeknownst to the typical American. How does this make the typical all-American redneck Nationalist feel that they indeed were tricked? Hmmmm...? They don't have the intellectual capacity to handle this sobering truth huh? Well, you know what Bible-thumping Americans who holds the aforementioned opinion - that is YOUR misfortune for holding such a nationalist ignorant clueless opinion - and someday you will suffer for your deeply held nationalist hypocritical opinion too...I promise you. Just wait and see! Time will prove that the typical American are as incorrect with demonstrating the epitome of EVIL as much as they are experts at demonstrating it, as is fitting.

Americans should have eliminated their greedy objectives from their collective mind after 9/11 instead of sharing with the world the TRUE American nature as what bin Laden accurately expected - ARROGANT AND GREEDY HYPOCRITES!!!! What a shame...

Vern,

Very good point!

It is no suprise that that left-winger Jesus targeted the hypocrites and those who would later be known as capitalists for special scorn. They were targets of the only documented case where he got a bit violent.

It is regrettable seeing two natural allies split apart by methods.

entelechy:

Ralph Nader has raised multiple millions through book sales, speaking honorariums, and other activities--but he saw this windfall as a means to empower national and state-wide public interest research groups.

Ralph has had the devotion to the cause of a monk and you can bet were there any scitilla of evidence to the contrary, the multinational corporations he has skewered over the years would have discovered it and spewed it all over the MSM. They have not because in this area Ralph is as clean as a hound dog's tooth.

Michael Moore is not as well educated, not as comitted to movement in the sense of putting his $ where his mouth is, and at times can be just a bit annoyingly tedious.

That being said, who since 1947 (when Harry Truman proposed the first medicare plan which was soundly defeated by the insurance and medical establishment)has gotten more people seriously talking about the need for single-payer, universal coverage, government run health care than Michael Moore? Nobody that's who!

If Ralph and all the PIRG's with their research and legal analysis capacity and Michael with his flair for making clear and convincing advocacy documentaries can work together (along with congress people like Conyers and Kucinich) then maybe some progress could occur.

But please don't damn Michael Moore because he is not a younger version of Ralph Nader.

PDJ et al,

If I am wrong about Nader's wealth I apologise. Yet, he did spoil the 2000 election and will do so again to any presidential race he runs, intentionally or not.

Everyone assumes there will BE an election next year, but not if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil and Cheney/Bush declare a national emergency and postpone the elections while they dictate.

Meanwhile, Michael Moore does what he can, brave man that he is. But the fascist Republicans in the White House will never allow their corporate sponsors to be inhibited by any such reforms. They stole both presidential elections for them and will do so again by any means necessary, or cancel them forever.

Obviously, I no longer have any faith that this nation can do anything right, or that the people will ever force it to. We're screwed, and so is planet Earth.

Entelechy,

I agree that the ecological question needs to be raise with absolutely every issue. There certainly is great potential for ecological amelioration in universal health care. As currently stands, the health care economy of the U.S. surpasses the GDP's of France and Spain combined and is fast catching up with the GDP of Germany. Efficiencies gained would obviously amount to a great deal. Prevention would play a huge part in reducing the need for much, much more resource intensive treatments.

I apologize for keeping this off topic, but I couldn't resist getting in on this issue of Nader's purported wealth. Even if Nader were a multimillionaire (I certainly don't know one way or the other) I don't see how that necessarily entails disregard of his message, discrediting of his character, or ousting from the ranks of progressive political identity. There is but only a loose logical connection there, seemingly based solely in the old adage that "money is the root of all evil." Even if that is so, it is certainly not clear that wealth necessarily corrupts the whole of an individual. The looseness of this logical connection, intended seemingly to discredit Nader, brings to mind for me a justification offered by al-Qaeda for their attack against civilians (otherwise totally condemnatory according to Islam). What comes to mind here is their claim that all Americans are culpable for the alleged crimes against Islam because all Americans pay taxes, which the government has used to oppress and murder Muslims. There are other justifications of course, but this isn't the time for that particular discussion; my point is to illustrate how loose a logical connection that is (Americans pay taxes that are used to hurt Muslims so all Americans are legitimate targets) compared to the assertion that because the message comes from a person of wealth, that message is necessarily discreditable. I think both cases are a huge stretch of reason.

Gore cost Nader the 2000 election. If Gore had bowed out and admitted that Nader's proposals would benefit the public to a much greater extent, Nader could have won and we wouldn't have the Bush criminal gang ruining the future of the country and the world.

And I'm with Jaded Prole on the 2008 election. If the Democrats run that fascist Hillary, I'll be voting for Nader, unless the Republicans are running Count Giuliani. Then I would be forced to vote for the lesser of two fascists.

Curious, with regard to Nader he "spoiler". Why didn't we ever hear such outcries from the right over Ross Perot's spoiling Bush Sr's election? The major part of his 17% of the vote were Republicans. Might it be that in that setup, Bush, Clinton, and Perot were pretty much threedle-dum and threedle dee?

What a bunch of dumb 'RATs out there. Every time I talk to them about Nader, they automatically bring up that millionaire BS. That must be the official demonicRAT talking point on Nader, and those brainwashed drones either couldn't google up that info, automatically went to the RAT affiliated sites that's spewing the same propaganda, or couldn't read past the first sentence in any of the write-ups on his wealth.

entelechy "Ralph became a millionaire, and that changes people."

My god, man! Just look at his clothes! Nader, a millionaire? You've been listening to too much propaganda.

I saw Michael Moore here in Denver on Sunday. He was giving a speach on the film and the health care crisis with a couple of hecklers to deal with. Before him a man came up to speak who had been a regular guy with a family, job and paying into the system. He had a kid born with problems and as the insurance companiy(Humana), kept on raising objections to his bills he realized that insurance is for the WELL, not the sick. Now his son is 4 and because of him and the company he works for where there is a group plan, with raises in the amount they have to pay-he is a $12 million liabilty to everyone he works with. This is Sicko.

just what mr. moore needs, ralph nader on his side. perhaps you can screw this one up like when you handed the republicans the election agains gore....if just 5% of your followers had voted for gore, we wouldn,t have this nightmare in the white house for 8 years......thanks alot ralph.

Logical Conundrum:

Only a poor person is qualified to discuss the concerns of the poor. Since $$$="free speech" all spokesmen for the poor will be handicapped because they possess less "free speech" than promoters of other causes geared towards the wealthy.

Edwards-Big House-not qualified to discuss poverty.
Nader-suspicion of wealth-unqualified to speak about poverty.
Me-modest savings-no public forum.