Curb Your Enthusiasm for Obama
Barack Obama's health care plan coddles the corporations that profit from the misery and illnesses of tens of millions of Americans. The plan is naive, at best, and probably disingenuous when it insists that we can coax these corporations, which are listed on the stock exchange and exist to maximize profit, to transform themselves into social service agencies that will provide adequate health care for all Americans. I wish we lived in such a rosy world. I know, and I suspect Obama knows, that we do not.
"Obama offers a false hope," said Dr. John Geyman, the former chair of family medicine at the University of Washington and author of "Do Not Resuscitate: Why the Health Insurance Industry Is Dying, and How We Must Replace It." "We cannot build on or tweak the present system. Different states have tried this. The problem is the private insurance industry itself. It is not as efficient as a publicly financed system. It fragments risk pools, skimming off the healthier part of the population and leaving the rest uninsured or underinsured. Its administrative and overhead costs are five to eight times higher than public financing through Medicare. It cares more about its shareholders than its enrollees or patients. A family of four now pays about $12,000 a year just in premiums, which have gone up by 87 percent from 2000 to 2006. The insurance industry is pricing itself out of the market for an ever larger part of the population. The industry resists regulation. It is unsustainable by present trends."
We face a health crisis. The Democratic and Republican parties, awash in campaign contributions from the beasts they should be slaying on our behalf, have no interest in addressing it. A report in the journal Health Affairs estimates that, if the system is left unchanged, one of every five dollars spent by Americans in 2017 will go to health coverage. Half of all bankruptcies in America are because families are unable to pay their medical bills. There are some 46 million Americans without coverage and tens of millions more with inadequate policies that severely limit what kinds of procedures and treatments they can receive.
"There are at least 25 million Americans who are underinsured," said Dr. Geyman. "Whatever coverage they have does not come close to covering the actual cost of a major illness or accident."
Obama, like John McCain, did not support HR 676, the single-payer legislation. The corporations that run our for-profit health care industry, which would be shut down if the bill was enacted, have vigorously fought it through campaign contributions and armies of lobbyists. A study by Harvard Medical School found that national health insurance would save the country $350 billion a year. But Medicare does not make campaign contributions. The private health care industries do. They have lavished money on Obama. He received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And Michelle Obama is a vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $316,962 annually.
"The private health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry completely and totally oppose national health insurance," said Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, one of the founders of Physicians for a National Health Program. "The private health insurance companies would go out of business. The pharmaceutical companies are afraid that a national health program will, as in Canada, be able to negotiate lower drug prices. Canadians pay 40 percent less for their drugs. We see this on a smaller scale in the United States, where the Department of Defense is able to negotiate pharmaceutical prices that are 40 percent lower."
Sen. Obama argues that we can improve the system by expanding government oversight. The government, he says, should require doctors and hospitals to prove they provide quality care. His plan links payment with reported quality. This would mean that health care providers would have to hire even larger staffs to collect and report this data to the government. There would be a $10-billion federal investment in health care information technology over five years under the Obama plan, in essence turning record keeping from paper to electronic data.
Obama's plan, said Dr. Don McCanne, who writes on health care issues, would actually make health plans "more expensive, which compounds the problem."
Obama says he would require insurance companies to use more income from premiums for patient care.
"There isn't an enforcement mechanism," Geyman said bluntly. "Most states have been unable to control rates or set a cap on rates."
Obama's plan would also not cover all Americans. Unlike in Canada, citizens would not be enrolled in a plan automatically. Americans would have to go looking for one they could afford. And if they could not find one they would remain uninsured. Dr. Woolhandler, who is also a professor at Harvard Medical School, estimates that "tens of millions" of Americans would remain uninsured under Obama's plan. These numbers would swell as employers, who provide plans for 59 percent of those who are employed, continue to reduce coverage.
"The only way everyone will get insurance is with national health insurance," she said from Boston in a phone interview. "There is nothing in the Obama plan that will change the bitter reality that working-class families face when their breadwinner gets sick. People with catastrophic illnesses usually lose their jobs and lose their insurance. They often cannot afford the high premiums for the insurance they can get when they are unable to work. Most families that file for bankruptcy because of medical costs had insurance before they got sick. They either lost the insurance because they lost their jobs or faced gaps in coverage that meant they could not afford medical care."
Obama has borrowed John Kerry's idea to have the government absorb certain severe costs, although again the details are not spelled out. Insurers, he says, would no longer be able to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. All children would have health coverage. He would, he says, expand Medicare and Medicare-like coverage to protect the very young and the elderly. This is laudable, if he can make it happen. But the fundamental problem is a health industry run for profit. Our health system costs nearly twice as much as national programs in countries such as Switzerland. The overhead for traditional Medicare is 3 percent, and the overhead for the investment-owned companies is 26.5 percent. A staggering 31 percent of our health care expenditures is spent on administrative costs. Look what we get in return.
We on the left, those who should be out there fighting for universal health care and total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, sit like lap dogs on the short leashes of our Democratic (read corporate) masters. We yap now and then, but we have forgotten how to snarl and bite. We have been domesticated. And until we punish the two main parties the way big corporations do, by withdrawing support and funding when our issues are ignored, we will remain irrelevant and impotent. I detest Bill O'Reilly, but he is right on one thing-we liberals are a spineless lot.
Labor unions don't negotiate with corporations on the basis of good will. They negotiate carrying the threat of a strike. What power do we have as long as we cave on every issue we stand for, from opposition to the death penalty to battling back against the military-industrial complex?
It is not about liking or not liking Obama. It is not about race or class or gender. It is not about growing up poor or a member of the working class. There is no shortage of greasy politicians who, once in power, sold out their own. Look at Bill Clinton. It is about fighting back. It is about confronting a system that belittles us, what we stand for and what is best for the majority of Americans. We need to throw our support behind alternative candidates who champion what we care about, whether Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. Bob Barr's health care plan, like John McCain's, is even worse than Obama's tepid proposal. We need to begin to actively and militantly defy the corporate state, and this means stepping outside of the two-party system. Universal health insurance is one issue. There are others. Nothing we care about will change until we do.
The Democrats, who promise to end the war in Iraq, create jobs and provide universal health care, ignore these promises once election cycles are over. And we never make them pay. They gave us NAFTA, the destruction of welfare and increased military spending, and we gave them our vote. This is the party that took back Congress in 2006 on an anti-war platform and then increased troop levels and funding for the Iraq war. This is a party that talks about the crushing weight of debt carried by Americans and then refuses to cap predatory interest rates as high as 30 percent imposed by credit card companies. This is a party that promises to protect our constitutional rights and then passes the FISA bill to protect the telecommunications companies. The list goes on. These politicians, including Obama, must begin to feel heat. They must learn that there is a cost to be paid for working on behalf of corporations and disempowering citizens.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
300 Comments so far
Show AllObama promised change and delivered. He came out of the closet and took off his mask. He stopped pretending and showed us his true colors: pro war, pro status quo, pro police state, pro establishment. His choice for VP is telling: the consummate establishment and Washington insider, the saber rattling Joe Biden. Yuck! Vote 3rd Party!
CLINTON OBAMA CLINTON OBAMA
OBAMA CLINTON CLINTON OBAMA
CLINTON OBAMA OBAMA MCCAIN
MCCAIN MCCAIN OBAMA INSANE
I want FREE not "affordable" health care.
(1) You are playing word games with the fundamental reality that it is not fair to people who have been paying for health insurance, not relying on Medicare, for years to simply forfeit their payments? get a refund? to switch to a single-payer system. This is not as easy economically or politically as you make it sound. And it is not fair to people who are heavily dependent on their health insurance and for whom a a new federal system would not necessarily be better. The better answer is what Obama has proposed- a federally regualted private health insurance market that has premiums, co-pays, and deductibles whose fairness can be evaluated next to a government health insurance plan.
(2) You fail to acknwoledge that Obama is proposing significant reforms that lead us towards an affordable healthcare system and mostly single-payer system: (a) a health plan that guarantees that the uninsured will be covered by a national health plan without exceptions and that employers who don't offer coverage would be forced to pay into the national plan and (b) that ensures people that already have private insurance will be covered in a more regulated federal national health insurance market.
(3) I agree with you that private health insurance for the most part is seemingly an appendix, but the best way to show that is for government programs to out-compete private health insurance plans (and hospitals) into redundancy. A national health insurance plan is a necessary 'transitional program' towards a mostly single-payer system that incorporates the presently uninsured and that encourages others to drop their private health insurance, or encourages private health insurance companies to offer better deals/better coverage. There's nothing wrong with a private health insurance plan that works better than the government's. For example, private health insurance that covers medical procedures or offers more efficient service than the government (think UPS, FedEx vs USPS) that forces our government to be more efficient, respond to consumer demands, and have a responsible coverage portfolio. The market is not always 'pure evil'.
I don't believe there is any hope for the American electorate. They remain too stupid and willing to always vote for the lesster of two evils and then reationalize their actions.
They repeatedly ignore the reality of how right wing, corporate, neo-con the Democratic Party has become and, in essence, how passive they've become in doing anything about it besides rationalize why they must always vote for the lesser of the evils.
Bill Clinton is a good example. His party's involvement in the destruction of the Ygoslavia Union system which was the leader among the Eawt for democratic principles, his aggressive invasion of Kosovo, his creation of NAFTA that has created the economic woes in America, his cozying up with Wall Street/WTO/IMF his support for the big pharmaceuticals and insurance companies who have a strangle hold on the helath care system and on and on.
Yet the dupes don't realize that Obama's close affiliations with Clinton and all of his advisors, whom Obama has called his own, says heaps of where the Democrats/Obama/Hillary and the whole lot are at.
Yet the dupes are willing to ignore all this and rationalize it all away.
Yet in a couple of years time, when things haven't changed that much, the health care system is a hopeless morass, we are stuck in the quagmire of Afghanistan, NAFTA and its Frankenstein offshoots are booming, the economy is tanking even more, the dupes will be moaning, "We've been betrayed again! We're are outraged! Who will we turn to? Oh, woe is me! What are we to do?
Good luck Amereica if you think Obama will do the trick. Hero worship lives on! Long live the next hero!
I always did remark that the one-party, two-right wing system sucks, but they did not post my comments. Now let’s see who flags this one. I’m sure it will not be other posters.
MLS -
I respect your feelings and your personal struggle.
Sincerely.
I struggle too as do millions of other Americans.
Though none of us Americans struggle as horribly as the foreign victims of our government's plundering wars and inhumane economic policies abroad.
We need to have compassion and concern for all humans abused by deceit, greed, and violent misrule.
I don't think you need to worry about Obama loosing, though.
I think he will win.
But he won't be able to do much good, given what he has to work with, and his disinclination to tell deeper cleansing truths.
The system is too deeply corrupt for that; it's vastly wealthy and greedy manipulators still too ruthless and powerful for one idealistic president to verbally 'hope' this gigantic mess into virtuous reform.
Obama winning, alone, can't clean the vast rot underneath, even if he is a far better person than McCain, as you believe.
You don't want to blame anyone -- is that your kindness or your fear talking?.
I agree that blame-as-hate isn't helpful; can't create positive change.
But assigning responsibility to those who've knowingly violated public trust and caused vast harm to others, Is helpful: It begins the process of shared recognition.
And shared recognition has to precede any useful change.
Is it really 'all of us' who are responsible, then?
Think about what you are saying.
If you are drunk and self absorbed and someone you trust beats and robs you, would your drunken self-absorption make you just as responsible for your injury and loss as the violent robber?
Would Justice ever say: Society has no interest in holding the perp accountable because You were drunk? Or because You shun blaming him?
A large part of the rot that lies underneath, and which Obama doesn't want to talk about, is that average, innocent Americans are trained to be drunk with self absorption and denial and civic ignorance by the same ruling brutes who then betray them in their degraded state for personal profit and gain.
If such brutes are never to brought justice by an awakened people or by new, decent rulers committed to transforming the system into shared decency, how can any of us, brutes included, ever wake up from what you call 'this nightmare?'
Stay kind and decent, MLS, as you are.
But don't shun courage when it is required.
Beautiful post! I think Obama might have shown an inclination to tell a deeper truth when he made his speech on racism.
Sometimes I think we're all to blame for this empire---just our lifestyles and over-consumption and our disregard of other cultures---then I read something like this and...I'm not so sure.
thanks
If John McCain wins the abyss is inescapable whereas if Obama wins we still have a chance. How much of a chance? That depends upon whether or not Obama's means it when he says that change comes to (not from) Washington D.C. If indeed he means it, as to what type of health care system, if he becomes our president we'll have to to make sure that he & Congress don't settle for anything but a single payer health care system. Similarly it'll be us to us to bring change to Washington when it comes to the other matters discussed in this article, including taking on the MIC and dismantling Empire-USA.
As for supporting a third party candidate such as Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader? This would be a viable alternative if time weren't running out on us (running out in the sense that the Republicans win and the Fascist trap door slams shut on us, as with these preemptive strikes on anti-war resisters in St. Paul, only far worse. And why else last month's sneak (Pearl Harbor-like) attack upon South Ossetia by the U.S. armed and trained Georgian army, which offers John McCain the possibility of launching a preemptive first strike nuclear attack on Russia and there goes life on earth.
Yet we have Chris Hedges & other progressives saying teach Obama and the other Democrats a lesson, so that next time they'll listen to us. Fine, except if McCain wins for sure there won't be a next time. Yes, the same thing could happen with Obama as with McCain, but maybe not. We'd have a chance and any chance is better than none.
"Yet we have Chris Hedges & other progressives saying teach Obama and the other Democrats a lesson, so that next time they'll listen to us."
I know what you mean. It seems like they've been saying that for the last two elections, and look what we got. And it's happening again. Just watching the RNC convention and this new VP woman who's so slick and scary, with the chants of USA--USA--USA... very disheartening. I'm losing hope for us...
I'm talking about progressives on this site calling other progressives names and abusing them because they choose another tactic to get, ultimately, to the same place. I've probably done it myself, so I'm not trying to blame any one group. It's all the labels like "lesser-evilist" or "progressive-purist", and the arguments that just seem to run back and forth over the same ground again and again. It seems like our priorities are all screwed up. We shouldn't be fighting each other.
I marvel how people can actually believe the Democrats are the good guys and the Pugs bad. Both are rotten to the core and beholden to the powers that be. The president is just a gloried water boy that carries water for the status-quo. Won't really matter THAT MUCH which one wins. The wars will go on that's for sure. We'll continue to squander our national treasure, starve social programs and kill people. Trust me.
The PTB (powers that be) buy both parties off and call all the shots. I wouldn't doubt they decide who's going to win while playing a game of poker. Or perhaps they trade places after one gets too discredited.
We saps dutifully go to the booth and make our choice on a paper trail-less Diebold machine made by Republican allies. Like it mattered. We bury our collective heads in the sand and try to forget Bush stole not one, but two elections in row and got away with it.
Not a single Democratic Senator would sign on to an investigation. I guess it wasn't their turn.
Those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. And that's the truth!
Both parties are far too hawkish, corporate, and generally conservative. But to say there is no difference is a lie. The difference between Obama and McCain could be the difference between millions of Americans getting affordable healthcare, or being left out in the cold. Maybe the difference is in talking with Iran instead of bombing them. The difference is a divided Supreme Court instead of an overwhelmingly conservative one. There are serious differences.
I don't hate or resent Nader. Nader was low down on the list of things that cost Gore the 2000 election (beneath Bush's theft, Al Gore himself, Bill Clinton, and low Democratic turnout). I have great respect for Nader for most of his work on progressive causes like consumer safety and open government. I just think that a vote for Obama would have a greater chance of actuall enabling progressive reform (however gradual) than a vote for Nader.
Obama is more than marginally better than McCain-- he is much better than McCain. I wouldn't wish the job of presidency on my worst enemy. As someone who is uninsured and has gone through major surgery within the last year-- I am voting for Obama. He inspires me and you may call him an elitist or another corporate pawn but he is still 20 times better than McCain/Palin. If we progressives out there disagree--fine-- it is good to debate. If you think that voting for Obama is the lesser of two evils then vote for a third party or write in the candidate of your choice. As a Floridian I cannot afford to do that. I will not curb my enthusiam for Obama! There is plenty of time for that after he gets elected! It is up to us to pressure the politicans and the health care system to come up with a better way. I struggle to pay my bills and may do so for the rest of my life-- who knows? I don't blame anyone for this situation-- it is what it is. It is not just the politicians who created this nightmare. It is all of us. Come on folks-- let's pull together on this one! Please!
I usually agree with Chris Hedges, but d@mmit, Obama is the only Democrat running for President. We need to get a Democrat into the White House, THEN and ONLY THEN we can argue with him and disagree with him over policy. The Rethuglicans have demonstrated over and over that they will neither listen to the People nor tolerate dissent. Our country CANNOT afford another 4 years of Bush/Rove/Cheney.
"No more blood for oil"
Prior to the 2006 elections we could have said the same thing as you state. But look what happened; immediately the leaders of the Democratic Party took impeachment off the table; continued to vote funds to continue the occupation of Iraq; voted for FISA again but this time granting immunity to the communication industries. What did we get in voting the Dems in? Did we get what we HOPED for? What pressure could we bear upon them? - letters begging; a Kucinich entering 2 impeachment efforts; - all to no avail.
Hedges is right; the politicians will only listen to threats. And what is their biggest threat? IT IS LOSING AN ELECTION!. If Cindy Sheehan could be bankrolled as much as Pelosi, she might well beat Nancy. In the State of Washington a Speaker of the House, Tom Foley lost. Pelosi could lose hers if we supported Sheehan; and if it looked to Pelosi that she might lose I'd bet all the tea in China that all of a sudden Pelosi would say, "let's impeach" - unless it meant that she would be uncovered as complicit in some of the crimes.
Amen!
Amen!
Aa we talk these duopoly insufficiencies and corruptions to death, year after year, the political left remains nationally disorganized year after year; still unable to mount a visible, coherent challenge to the duopoly's status quo.
At this point, a Ralph Nader or a Cynthia McKinney can't even power their way into the duopoly's upcoming phony prez debates, as Ralph and John Adnerson were at least once able to.
And yes, Obama may be marginally better than McCain, but neither he or his timid Dem party will ever become progressive enough alter the rigged status quo that not only chronically misgoverns but also crushes-out all meaningful challenges .
Without an alternative party framework, the oligarchy-serving Dems will continue to make starving beggars of all progressives, and the general public will continue to be denied even the hope of hearing real, progressive policy alternatives discussed in the media or duing elections.
My conclusion is that:
A nationally competitive progressive party STILL needs to be built. One that, unlike the Greens (or perhaps a re-vamped Greens):
...is headed by current or former elected officials with national name recognition who bolt the Dem party in publicized disgust while explaining WHY;
....can reasonably unify the US left ( and open minded moderates) within a few election cycles;
....can start electing genuine progs to local, state, and congressional offices, and thus eventually run credible candidates for prez whom the MSM can't easily ignore.
You'd think that someone like Kucinich, seeing the handwriting on the wall (the hopelessness of the Dem Party), would've tried to create such a party alternative by now.
God knows, I and many others have urged him to do so many times, but so far he says 'no,' and seems unlikely to ever change his mind.
Neither can Nader be the one to do this. Nader, as noble as his policy positions are, is never going to get elected to any public office, let alone ORGANIZATIONALLY unify the US left under a viable party banner -- the latter being sine qua non for creating high public exposure, electable alternative candidates to duopoly candidates.
Nader is a policy theoritician who, even when and after he's run under the Green banner, has never shown interest in or ability at building an enduring progressive/left national party.
At some point, activist progressives will have to begin more competently attending to these basic political/organizational realities/requirements, if their candidates are ever to become empowered.
Nice to hear some concrete ideas for a change. I could see Gore being the one bolting in disgust. He certainly has the name recognition.
Good post!
Chris Hedges, as always, you say the word.
I am a nurse who just watches daily as the health care system gets worse and worse and worse.
And I have to say that EVEN if we went single payer, private health insurance would still exist. And I say that is fine with me. But do it like Medicaid already does. If you are double covered, the private pay insurance is the first payer.
And let's be clear about something else, single payer insurance would be a basic health care package. It would not have an unlimited formulary. It would not pay for all of the newest dandiest treatments. It would have limitations. But as I live and breathe I KNOW we are better off managing hypertension, than treating strokes; managing pregnancy and providing contraception than we are treating high risk pregnancies; managing obesity and diabetes than treating the expensive sequealae like renal failure.
But even _prevention_ has its' limits in usefulness. Some things can not be prevented and when found should be treated supportively and not necessarily with a no-holds-barred philosophy.
But here's the facts folks: Health care is a limited resource. we need to quit treating it like an unlimited resource. We need to understand that all people have some right to basic health care. And that means you manage that limited resource with some rules. Wouldn't be easy but it would be far better than this bizarre situation where some get everything and others get _nothing_.
I always wonder how Hedges can be so right on politics but so wrong on religion, while Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens can be so right on religion but so wrong on politics.
Crazy world.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
There is no spoon. Vote Obama!
Obama will be President.
Don't change your screen-names when things get better.
Because they will; McCain would be tragic, cost untold lives in WW3.
Obama is not a saint, but he is going to be the best thing that has happened to America in a very long time.
Read it and weep Nader loving Obama haters. "Your Man" has done NOTHING except come out once every four years TO ATTACK THE DEMOCRATS ON FOX NEWS AND GET HIS PICTURE TAKEN.
Nader is where he has put himself. No freaking where.
Obama '08. Thank God. You all are had-hee hee. Ask Sara Palin's daughter if you think I'm wrong.
(Nader is a Lowly Republican Tool. Like many of his supporters.)
Anyone who thinks that Nader has accomplished nothing needs to read up on Nader's history and myriad consumer protection laws he helped establish. He does a lot more than run for office every four years, you know?
Can I quote you on the "Obama will be the best thing that has happened to America in a very long time" when nothing has changed in four/eight years?
I can? Great!
I was at the huge Obama rally in Portland, and when he started saying "universal healthcare" this and that, I was yelling "single payer! single payer!" people just gave me funny looks. No one knew what the hell I was talking about.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Wow! Really intelligent! Way to win people over! I believe that I will be unhappy about the concerns I voiced about Obama's move ot the right, and al the Obama supportesr wil be disappoiinted--well, not all. Some people just need a hero!@
The one who has put himself where he is, already running behind McCain in some polls, is Obama, through no ones fault but his own.
Lobo Gris
Once again, Hedges hits the MARK! Hear, Hear. It is always a pleasure to read Hedges prophetic words. The only true authentic progressive voice on this site.
There are only a few states in which are votes would matter and mine isn't one of them. Obama will get the electoral college votes from my state. So what I suggest is that we intentionally (progressives) vote for McKinney or Nader precisely so we CAN have influence in future elections to move leftward, and to grow grow grow the progressive movement. The movement does not grow when voters, out of fear of McCain, vote for Obama. My hope is that Nader and McKinney will get combined at least 10% of the votes this year. That's 1 out of 10 voters!!!!! (: This is so important!! We can start to get the corporate mainstream media to understand that our votes matter!!
I suppose if you live in one of the few battleground states voting for Obama for the very marginal differences makes some sense - I would STILL vote for McKinney or Nader myself. I still think McCain is going to win regardless, esp. with the brilliant pick for VP (tactically, not due to her beliefs).
the only thing I've curbed my enthusiasm for is this website. The People's Party is fighting the Taliban in Pakistan and you want to sell them out. The Taliban are overthrown in Afghanistan and you want to give it back to them. What is wrong with you?
And as for healthcare, GET REAL. Hillary's plan for mandatory health insurance is 'so much better' than Obama's support for single-payer?
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php
At least Obama levels with Americans that you have to take on the costs of health insurance before you can issue a mandate.
The Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Plan
“But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.
Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state’s insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year’s national average. That would undercut the plan’s secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs.“We’re going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits,” said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. “If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don’t think health reform is sustainable.”…
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html
no comment?
1) Maybe you should re-read the link, because it is disingenuous to suggest Obama opposes single-payer healthcare when he has repeatedly said in crystal-clear language that he does support single-payer: "'If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'"
Only a total retard would suggest that a transition to single-payer would not be opposed. Obama is right to identify those objections. The fact that he is more articulate than you on the challenges of creating a single-payer system is not a reason to suggest he opposes single-payer.
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consist...
2) It is extremely disingenuous to suggest he has no plans to reduce costs. You could find this out by looking at his website. Affordability is the issue, not the mythology that "You simply eliminate the necessity of INSURANCE altogether via the single payer system of gov't financed privately provided health CARE". In reality, it is not fair to people who have paid into health insurance plans for years to simply forfeit their payments to the very insurance companies that have charged them out the ass for years. And in fact, even though you didn't see it anywhere on his website (which is disingenous at best), Obama is suggesting (1) a federally regulated national health insurance exchange and (2) a new national health plan that caps premiums, co-pays, and deductibles:
(1) National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
(2) Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses.
(3) Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all
Dear dougnwagner,
Oh my! Where to begin? let's see
1) By what form of logic can this statement - "'If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside." - be used to say that Obama supports single payer? This statement says, quite clearly, that IF certain conditions existed, in this case, "starting from scratch", THEN a "system like Canada's ... would probably make sense" (notice he doesn't say he would SUPPORT such a system). It goes on to say BUT we are not starting from scratch - "we've got all these legacy systems in place," - THEREFORE I am not proposing such a system. The rest of his statement goes on to explain why he is NOT supporting such a system, unless you want to argue that his proposal incorporating continued reliance on the private insurance industry, which has produced such a mess in the first place, is somehow, magically, the same as a proposal which removes such insurers from the equation. Please explain.
2) You are quite right that "Only a total retard would suggest that a transition to single-payer would not be opposed." And because I don't think, though perhaps you do, that I am "a total retard", I know that single payer would be, and is, opposed. Our difference seems to exist in our definition of precisely who opposes it. Obama never says who opposes it. All he claims is that it would be "disruptive", if such a system that "people have known all their lives" is "thrown by the wayside". The argument that displacing a system is wrong because doing so would be "disruptive" to something people have "known all their lives" is subversive, to say the least. Would people who have known, say, dictatorship or hunger, all their lives, oppose an end to it? In fact it is the system that he proposes to continue incorporating that has been truly disruptive of people's lives in that it has been a barrier to obtaining healthcare. In fact, the current system itself is quite "disruptive" as people already undergo "transition" from this incredibly convoluted system of multiple insurers to the single payer system of Medicare at age 65, and are often quite relieved when they can do so. The people themselves would be more than happy to have their lives "disrupted" by eliminating this "system they have known all their lives" and they are telling us so! The only "people" who would be unhappy about such a "disruption" are the insurance companies. Come on, doug, you know this is true.
3) You never addressed the point that we already have a single payer, Medicare, and so extending this to all would NOT be "starting from scratch" as Obama claims we can't do.
4) I never said he had "no plans to reduce costs", I merely asked you how he was going to do it. You claim it is mythology to say that "eliminating the necessity of insurance" would reduce costs considerably but do you deny that the "administrative" costs for private insurance plans are considerably higher than those for Medicare? Not to mention the profit margins? Good luck with that one. Even your man Obama doesn't go that far. You are right, doug, I didn't see anywhere on Obama's website a suggestion for "a new national health plan that caps premiums, co-pays, and deductibles". That's because it's not there. What I did see was a suggestion for a "national health plan" with "Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles." Every private insurance plan that advertises on TV claims it's "affordable". And if it's so "affordable" why does he also feel the need to provide "subsidies" to people who still cannot "afford" to buy into his new "affordable" plan?
5) notice that his proposal is to provide people an opportunity to buy, with or without subsidies, "affordable" coverage that "is similar to" what is "available to" members of Congress, with benefits "similar to" those offered to Congress. Shucks, a vest is similar to a coat, but it doesn't cover you in the rain. Just how "similar" is this "affordable" plan? Oh, I know, you can't expect all the details now, he'll work it out - later. But why "similar", doug, why not the "same"? Sounds like the ole' bait and switch to me.
Look, doug, this plan uses some magic nouns, but it's those all important adjectives that you have to pay attention to. If you want to support Obama for whatever reason, go ahead, but please don't claim his healthcare proposal is anything more than a band-aid for a broken leg. Private insurance companies are like the appendix, doug, we don't need them, and when they become inflamed, we don't need to "repair" them, we need to remove them and get on with the business of life.
You are probably right that Obama is "more articulate" than I on the challenges of creating a single payer system. But being "more articulate" is not the same as being more honest. We know who opposes such a system and it ain't the people.
(1) You are playing word games with the fundamental reality that it is not fair to people who have been paying for health insurance, not relying on Medicare, for years to simply forfeit their payments? get a refund? to switch to a single-payer system. This is not as easy economically or politically as you make it sound. And it is not fair to people who are heavily dependent on their health insurance and for whom a a new federal system would not necessarily be better. The better answer is what Obama has proposed- a federally regualted private health insurance market that has premiums, co-pays, and deductibles whose fairness can be evaluated next to a government health insurance plan.
(2) You fail to acknwoledge that Obama is proposing significant reforms that lead us towards an affordable healthcare system and mostly single-payer system: (a) a health plan that guarantees that the uninsured will be covered by a national health plan without exceptions and that employers who don't offer coverage would be forced to pay into the national plan and (b) that ensures people that already have private insurance will be covered in a more regulated federal national health insurance market.
(3) I agree with you that private health insurance for the most part is seemingly an appendix, but the best way to show that is for government programs to out-compete private health insurance plans (and hospitals) into redundancy. A national health insurance plan is a necessary 'transitional program' towards a mostly single-payer system that incorporates the presently uninsured and that encourages others to drop their private health insurance, or encourages private health insurance companies to offer better deals/better coverage. There's nothing wrong with a private health insurance plan that works better than the government's. For example, private health insurance that covers medical procedures or offers more efficient service than the government (think UPS, FedEx vs USPS) that forces our government to be more efficient, respond to consumer demands, and have a responsible coverage portfolio. The market is not always 'pure evil'.
dougnwagner,
You make my case on several points:
1) Obama does NOT support single payer - check your own link!
2) Obama refused mandates because he knows that under the current system, health insurance is already too expensive for many. You say that his plan is to reduce costs first - just how many people will suffer from lack of care before he does so? And precisely how will he reduce costs? By capping insurance premiums? or co-pays? or deductibles? Funny, I don't see that mentioned anywhere. He knows that his corporate backers would yell bloody murder if he did. So, instead he offers to subsidize premiums out of public coffers, i.e. corporate welfare for insurance companies. Now you might say "who cares, if we get healthcare?" But your own article shows what happens when you do - insurer's increase their rates when they know they can suck more out of the public coffers, and, as pointed out, such health "reform" is not sustainable. So, without "mandation" his plan ain't "universal", which is supposedly the point of this whole affair, and with mandation, going through private insurers is not sustainable.
3) you do NOT have to take on the costs of health INSURANCE before you can deliver a universal system. You simply eliminate the necessity of INSURANCE altogether via the single payer system of gov't financed privately provided health CARE. Obama's argument about not being able to "start from scratch" is disingenuous to say the least. We already HAVE a single payer system, it's called MEDICARE. All we need to do is extend that same program to everyone. THAT is "universal healthcare" and single payer is the ONLY proposal out there that could deliver it.
4) Ironically, the most efficient way to reduce healthcare costs, if that's what Obama really wants to do, is to eliminate the billions that are siphoned off to the insurance companies. He knows that. He knew that in '03 when he publicly supported single payer. It's not that he "understands" the healthcare system better now, it's that he wants the insurance companies campaign contributions now. Do you not realize that a chunk of the overblown amount of money you/your employer is paying for your quite possibly inadequate health coverage is NOT going to healthcare providers, it's going into campaign coffers to help "insure" that they get to continue to fatten their coffers at your expense. We're paying for health insurance, all right, but it's not OUR health that's being insured.
5) Medicare was initially INSTITUTED to make sure that healthcare was affordable "for those at the margins". Its initially intended recipients WERE those most at the margins - the elderly. With regard to decent, adequate healthcare more and more of us are at the margins and we know it or this debate would not have reached the level it has. And it will get worse if we don't fix it properly. If you have acute appendicitis you don't cure it with an expensive band-aid (McCain) or an overpriced aspirin (Obama), you take out the appendix. You can cross your fingers, if you like, doug, and hope it doesn't rupture as you take Obama's aspirin and go home, but any physician who advises you to do that had better have pretty good insurance of his own. You're getting some pretty bad medical advice, doug.
1) Maybe you should re-read the link, because it is disingenuous to suggest Obama opposes single-payer healthcare when he has repeatedly said in crystal-clear language that he does support single-payer: "'If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'"
Only a total retard would suggest that a transition to single-payer would not be opposed. Obama is right to identify those objections. The fact that he is more articulate than you on the challenges of creating a single-payer system is not a reason to suggest he opposes single-payer.
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php
2) It is extremely disingenuous to suggest he has no plans to reduce costs. You could find this out by looking at his website. Affordability is the issue, not the mythology that "You simply eliminate the necessity of INSURANCE altogether via the single payer system of gov't financed privately provided health CARE". In reality, it is not fair to people who have paid into health insurance plans for years to simply forfeit their payments to the very insurance companies that have charged them out the ass for years. And in fact, even though you didn't see it anywhere on his website (which is disingenous at best), Obama is suggesting (1) a federally regulated national health insurance exchange and (2) a new national health plan that caps premiums, co-pays, and deductibles:
(1) National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
(2) Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses.
(3) Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all
Obama's "health care plan" sucks! Plain and simple. It will not make a diff for the people that really need it.I believe that that is unforgiveable in a "progtressive " candiate. It is killing our economy, brought on the mortgage crisis,. and the Joe Biden Bankruptcy Bill--
Obama is not a progressive candidate. He doesn't call himself a progressive, nor do his supporters - at least those who have a clue. He is a Democrat, and as such, the only candidate in a position to challenge the relentless Republican/neocon slog to the Rapture. Progressives have a lot of work to do to develop our influence on the Democratic Party and/or build our own party. Meanwhile, we do not further progressive values and clout by helping elect Republicans.
Poor Doug, he sees it all slipping away for Obama, thus the only thing he has left is his own existential angst.
For any of you Cats who do not already know, Doug is one of the all time great Democratic apologists on the planet. His one size fits all sensibility represents his dogma ad nausea. He likes to characterize himself as a "progressive" but the only thing he offers on this site is MORE OF THE SAME. The only progress he reports is his own jaundiced and narrowness. Ignore the mouth piece.
That's right Raptor---go after the messenger---ignore the message. Good move!
To Raptor: is this a free speech forum or only for those who agree with your mouth piece?
*stunned!*
To Aladdin:
Too bad you see only that which you want to see. I was referring to Doug's constant preaching on this forum. Not his, or yours, opinion. But such is the case of all true believers disseminating their salvational praxis and born again, one size fits all sensibility.
ditto
Malthus2 September 2nd, 2008 1:28 am writes about not voting for 3rd parties, "Be pragmatic and not foolish."
-be courageous not a chump and stand up for your principles.
If you can't influence Obama to not support the destruction of our civil liberties (FISA) and oppose war NOW what makes you think you can once he's in office? What does he need you for once elected?
Democrats and the Republicans are in the pockets of the powers that be. Vote for a 3rd party that isn't a front for the status-quo.
Samson hey, I just read your Samson's World "Notes on Obama's Speech"
-Kudos! Well done. Thanks so much because I couldn't stand to watch more than a bout 10 minutes of the marketing campaign called the DNC without risking throwing up.
I imagined that's what one of his speeches would sound like, full of platitudes and crap and devoid of substance and details. That's what I always hear about his speeches. The saps lap it up. I usually have to read about what he says because I can't stomach phonies and pretenders.
I think your comments on that sold out and phony front for the powers that be, Obama, were right on.
Just to let you know I always find your posts to be insightful and full of truth. Keep up the good work!
-tailcap
I recommend it: http://www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com/
Hey there is only one of two tickets to be elected: McCAin/Palin or Obama/Biden. I recommend that we be enthusiastic about Obama given the choices. Idealism is great except it sometimes results in the worst ticket winning for example, G.W. Bush. If you want to pressure Obama, do it after he gets elected, not by voting for a 3rd party. Be pragmatic and not foolish.
Does that include you? Obama soaring idealistic speech at the convention represents unrealistic goals. Besides, if he follows his environmental plan focused on Nuclear, Coal, and Bio fuels, he will help hasten our demise as a species. Wake up for Christ sake.
Oh my god do you really believe that ? You're advising people to throw away their beliefs, their honor, their character, the essence of who they are, for corporate induced lesserevilism.
There are candidates running who stand firmly with the people and will fight for a living wage, universal health care, better schools, reduced military budget, clean air & water, etc.......but you ask that we turn away from the candidates who stand for our core values, turn away and leave these candidates unsupported, telling the world that the American people do not share the values they (Nader-McKinney) stand for..... so that we can once again stain our souls and support the less monstrous corporate candidate because, although evil, he or she is slightly less evil than the other corporate whore-monster candidate.
Why don't you be "pragmatic" and stand for something besides corporatism.
When a person votes for McKinney or Nader they don't have to bust out the spin machine and play lesserevilism. Both candidates are genuinely decent people with values and positions worth supporting.
It is "foolish" to continue playing the corporate game. It is "pragmatic" to support candidates who fight against the corporate takeover of our country. It is "foolish" to sell-out. It is "pragmatic" to fight against our corporate masters, to fight for a better future for our children and our children's children.
Hedges is so correct about so many Democrats having spine deficiency.
Funny.
Chris Hedges - Bravo!
Inaru - I find your posts, spoken "from the trenches", as it were, powerful. But I suggest to you that those of us who support third parties, far from being indifferent to your plight, are doing so precisely BECAUSE of your plight and of the millions more who are descending into it (frankly, including myself). You are disillusioned with the current state of Medicare and understandably so. But please understand that healthcare coverage, even under Medicare, has deteriorated under the administration of BOTH major parties over the past 20 plus years and until at least one of them commits to fixing it, it will continue to deteriorate. I have been in the medical field for over 20 years. It is because I have seen so many cases like yours that I am so passionate about it.
Medicare is a single payer system for those over 65. For many it is the only thing that stands between them and no healthcare at all. if it's in bad shape it's because both parties are neglecting it. If you want to see what further penetration of private health insurers into the system, as Obama proposes, will accomplish, simply look at the increase in costs to Medicare that resulted from Medicare Advantage plans. His plan basically proposes subsidizing private insurers so that insurance becomes "affordable". How much would he have to provide you to make private insurance "affordable"? Insurance, that is, that would get you decent healthcare? But why subsidize insurance companies at all when all that money could be put directly into providing care? Does it not seem strange to you that the private insurance companies, the same companies that are now bleeding the system dry while denying health care have raised no peep of objection to his plan? That, in fact, according to a recent surgical trade mag, they proposed something that sounds eerily similar to it? That instead of taking out attack ads, ala Harry and Louise, they are contributing to his campaign? A plan very like his was enacted in Mass and, not only is failing, but is breaking the bank.
In '03 he made a statement that he was for single payer - now he refuses to support it. Why? Because it's "impossible"? And why is it "impossible" here in the good old USA when it has proven quite possible in many other nations? My answer is because politicians, like Obama, apparently are more afraid of Harry and Louise than they are of Osama bin Laden. And they believe that they can count on us to vote for them no matter how often they compromise our most fundamental needs. Remember, Obama has been running on his ability to "work with the Reps". But every time the Dems "work with the Reps", we all get screwed. Folks need to understand that the answer to reforming our politics is not to have fewer of us supporting those third parties, but more and more of us. ONLY when either or both major parties understand that they will NOT win unless they champion what we need, will they do so. It really is that simple. We have lost so much time already, we cannot afford to lose more.
For me, I will vote on the issues. If a Dem. proposes the best solution, fine. If another candidate does, then I will vote him/her. We will not get what we need until we vote for it. We may not get it even then, but it is guaranteed that we won't if we vote for less. And "hoping" will not make it otherwise. But we better hurry up. it won't happen overnight and, as they say, time's a wastin'.
I understand Obama's appeal, but any candidate who asks me to "hope" for "change" and then advances proposals that really change nothing is not one I have any hope for.
"We will not get what we need until we vote for it."
Wrong. You will possibly get it when you work for it. With luck, you will be allowed the opportunity when you vote for it. Vote for the moon, and you will get bupkis.
And I will add that this is a uniquely American view - that we can get what we want by only lifting a finger to flip a switch.
Mr. Markow,
I never said that we will get what we need by only lifting a finger. What I said was that we will NOT get it if we do NOT lift that finger. THAT sir, is the simple truth. You can march 'til your shoes wear out, phone 'til your ear falls off, write 'til your fingers crack, petition 'til your ink runs dry, but if, in the end you do not vote for that for which you are working, you will not get it. You have only 2 ways to leverage a candidate - with a big check or with your vote. If you have a big check, fine. If, like most of us, you do not, then all you have is your vote. Once you give it, you cannot take it back. If you sell it so cheaply, as all too many seem to be willing to do, you are betraying all you have worked for. Once a candidate knows (s)he has your vote (s)he has no further need of you, has no incentive to meet your needs. And (s)he knows that the next time (s)he needs your vote you will sell it as cheaply as you did before. We have been doing that for decades now. It is way past time to "Just say NO!", or, if you prefer, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!", unless, of course Hedges is right and "we liberals are a spineless lot."
The problem in bringing back power to the people (we had a little up to the sixties) is that the public is still pretty much unaware of how much their political opinions are manipulated by the MSM. If we interview the average American who reads the NY Times each day, subscribes to Time or Newsweek, watches the six o'clock news and listens to pretty well ANY political talk radio show, they would consider themselves to be politically "well informed". But in reality the populace is channelled into a box believing that the only 'serious' choices available to them are the two corporate parties.
I personally don't see how we can wrest control from the powers that be when a corporate media all but guarantees our silence on any real issue. One way to reverse this trend is to teach our children at a young age why everything on TV is manipulated as a means to a corporate end.
Another way is to organize grass roots groups to band together to make politicians accountable... follow the money trail!
Finally, we still have a free Internet for the time being and therefore we still have an opportunity to redirect people away from the corporate propaganda to alternative news sites whether through word-of-mouth, small ads in and around town or a mass e-mail campaign on the eve of an election.
Let everyone you know that if someone quotes the MSM, then it will be regarded as nothing more than gibberish.
[sarcasm] As a lifetime member of the "Nothing is ever good enough" party, I am going to abstain from voting this year. That will teach the horrible democrats that I mean it when I say, "That's not good enough". I like being an irrelevant voice. And I'm easily discouraged. I don't want to build up political capital, I'd rather throw stones.[/sarcasm]
The chronically disaffected always remove themselves from the process. And complain the process doesn't work.
Mr Obama didn't believe that, McCain doesn't believe it, Ralph Reid didn't become disaffected and remove himself.
Why are you?
"The chronically disaffected always remove themselves from the process. And complain the process doesn't work."
If that is all you believe that we do why do so many of you bother posting drivel to try to convert us. It's because your candidate Obama is in trouble. He needs our votes to win but he is unwilling to address any of the issues that are important to us. In other words he wants our vote he just doesn't want to have to do anything to get it. Well scr#w that, if he wants my vote he has to earn it.
Lobo Gris
And he has to do and be everything you want, right Lobo?
Waiting for Godot, Act II...
"And he has to do and be everything you want, right Lobo?"
You should bother to actually read my posts before replying.
My words were;
"He needs our votes to win but he is unwilling to address any of the issues that are important to us."
Notice the word "any" in that sentence? Since when does "any" mean "all"?
Lobo Gris
Well that does it! I am voting for a third party. I knew Obama was fiddling with the health care issue. This information just spells it out for me. I do not need to relive the Clinton years; my health and wealth can nay take it again.
I am sure he will be elected. However, the Repubs will probably do some weird sh*t to get the old man elected, so stay tuned.
Why are we as a people so disconnected from holding these people accountable and just taking no for an answer? Health care is our right! I pay beau-cue taxes every year and I am NOT getting any bang for my buck.
We stand here and just let this war roll along sucking up the lives of our friends and families and allowing our wealth to be flushed down a rat hole. They all sit there with those stupid grins on their faces and think we are impotent to stop them.
What the hell will it take for us to just get in their faces and say, …..”NO! I don’t think so. This is what you are going to do for all of the American people. No if ands or buts!. No means tests! No paying above and beyond all rational means. We unincorporate and we nationalize everything now!
If other countries can do we so can we. Companies will have to show that they are a benefit to their communities to stay in existence. Kick them out of town if they don’t.
I have a very strange feeling about this election. I feel all this odd stuff from the Repubs is just pushing and positioning Obama to take the office of President . What the hell are we in for?
Who was enthused about the blue lipped agent anyhow? Obama was Michael Scott Speicher, former Navy pilot who undoubtedley bombed children a many in GWI (gulfwar 1). Michael Scott Speicher whose body has never been found, matches Obama's profile and was shot down over Iraq. Supposedly with their multibillion dollar satellite surveillance systems the agencies conducting that war just couldn't figure out where MSS went. All that was found of him is his initials on a wall in a prison cell. I don't know if everyone here is blind or brain dead or what, but the original Obama disappeared entirely about 3 years ago. The new Obama Michael Scott Speicher has had 2 dopplegangers at his service that I've been able to pick out...
CheeryO,
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Suprise Suprise!
One hopeful note of which I'm aware is that 80% of Americans are considering voting for a 3rd party according to a poll I saw a while back.
If only there were some credibility to the vote count!
I'd put money down on a bet that post election day the "polls" results do NOT match the exit polls, as has been seen in the last two elections in a few places.
I'd also put money down on a bet that when that is the reality it is only reported in alternative media. It probably won't even be reported here on fascistdreams.org
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
It appears Chris Hedges has a firm grasp of why lesserevilism is evil. Is it time for the Fakeocrats to attack him ?
"We on the left, those who should be out there fighting for universal health care and total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, sit like lap dogs on the short leashes of our Democratic (read corporate) masters. We yap now and then, but we have forgotten how to snarl and bite. We have been domesticated. And until we punish the two main parties the way big corporations do, by withdrawing support and funding when our issues are ignored, we will remain irrelevant and impotent. I detest Bill O'Reilly, but he is right on one thing-we liberals are a spineless lot."
peacegurl September 1st, 2008 9:45 pm wrote, "I'm going to take a chance with Obama..."
-isn't there a contradiction in having "peace" in the name of a person who votes for a candidate that vows war???
1984, people for "peace" vote for people that promise war (Afghanistan). War is peace. We make war for peace. We kill for security. Democrats are for peace and Republicans are for war. Democrats must fund war in order to bring peace. In order to protect our troops we must keep them in harms way. They must stay in Iraq because we can't sleep at night worried sick about Iraqis. That's why we send our troops to fight and die. It's 1984.
one of the best articles i've read on this site for awhile... you should forward this to everyone thinking of voting for obama. there really is no excuse for supporting the 2 party system. i'm so disgusted with DPAs that i can't have a rational discussion with such ignorant people.
i will be more disappointed, at this point, if obama wins than if mccain does. that way, our progressive causes just gets pushed even more to the side as the dems now will see that they can just stay as corporate and republican lite as ever and even more so should we give them our votes like blind idiots.
.
If Democrats cannot beat the Republicans without the votes of the folks who vote Independent, then that is the Democrats fault, not the fault of the people who chose not to vote for them.
.
You're right, and who loses? Fragmentation does not serve us well.
.
http://www.youtube.com/user/votenader08
.
EVERYTHING about Sarah Palin and what she stands for should be fair game and "on the table"!
Esepcially what her own party says about her.
"At least under Obama the time may come for the reforms you bring up."
I'm going to take a chance with Obama...the idea of McBush and Palin is not a risk I am willing to take in order to make a point.
.
Put Ralph Nader in the debates for starters...
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
.
http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/09/01/tafthartley/
NADER/GONZALEZ DEMANDS REPEAL OF 1947 TAFT-HARTLEY ACT WHICH STIFLES WORKER RIGHTS
Statement by Ralph Nader
On Labor Day, and American Workers' Rights
September 1, 2008
.
.
The Nader/Gonzalez independent presidential candidacy will be on the ballot in 45 states, is polling at 5-6 percent nationally, and a new Time/CNN poll shows Ralph Nader polling 8 percent in New Mexico, 7 percent in Colorado, 7 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6 percent in Nevada -- all key battleground states.
votenader.org
.
During an interview recently, Nader quipped: "If Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form."
True. And I will be helping the Democrats do just that, Ralph. How about helping me, Ralph? It takes all of us to make a landslide, Ralph!
couldn't the same thing be said about Ralph Nader and if he can't land slide the democrats this time?
What, he doesn't have the backing to be a real player?
hmmmmm, I wonder about this comment from Ralph, why would any sincere and authentic person even need to say such things?
.
http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/08/27/cnntimepoll/
NADER POLLING AT 6-8% IN 4 KEY BATTLEGROUND STATES
.
Well, by Jimminy, you're right, Nannie.
Maybe Nader can make the debates, but doubtful. My wet dream is that he does make the debates, scores some real points and forces Obama to make some concessions, then withdraws from the race and asks his supporters to back Obama for some real quid pro quo's after the election.
Unfortunately, wet dreams are pretty unsatisfying and not based on reality.
The UN occasionally comes out with vote to make healthcare and nourishment a basic human right, starting from 1981. The votes generally win the General Assembly by numbers like 135-1 as it did in 1981. Usually the only abstainer is the US, who has veto power.
The thing you have to realize, besides Obama only being a puppet of the shadow government, is this.
There has been a plan to lower Americas living standards since the Trilateral Commission came to power, starting with Jimmy Carters Presidency and continuing on to today (Bush is just a puppet also), in order that we live close to how the developing world and can be comfortably merged into one Global Government.
The execution of the plan involves several strategies. Listing some below:
Outsource jobs and manufacturing to the developing world.
Reduce real income by suppressing minimum wage, lying about CPI to reduce COLA's and wage adjustments, allowing illegal immigration, reducing welfare benefits, incarcerting more people in prisons over the phony war on drugs (Bidens was a leader on this) so mothers are left on their own to raise children.
Inflate energy, education, housing and health care costs (recently we saw housing drop with a boom in food and energy prices).
Now, some people believe your government would love to see everyone covered, and cures for diseases so people can live longer. Heh, heh. LOL. The War on Cancer is like any other phony war, it is to prevent a cure for cancer, or make the treatment so expensive it will bankrupt even the insured.
People living longer means more people collecting social security. They do not want that, and it has nothing to do with money (to make this point is hopeless since people are so brainwashed about what money is and where it comes from, but it is true). They want you to die younger, shortly after you have past your most productive years (anytime after 55).
It has to do with the neo-malthusian outlook of our global masters, the creators of eugenics in the 20's and 30's. They want less people, not more people. To justify their actions, they give you myths on overpopulation, sustainability issues, global warming. The real objective though is to eliminate inferior races and obtain total control of the remaining population. DNA testing will determine who can marry and to whom. On birth, DNA testing will determine who lives and who does not. When you can not work due to disability or old age, you (or your kids when they grow older) will be sent to a happy home to be disappeared as they were in Maos China.
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
.
.
retraction
Nader sounds great! Do you know how he's doing in the polls?
Um...he doesn't even register in the polls (if I take your meaning).
Touche!
.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
OBAMA TOP CONTRIBUTORS
” You gotta dance with the one who brung ya ”
Read this also...
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-90003343
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/america/bundlers.php
.
Mammon needs your children's blood. Vote McKinney.
Vote for Nader. Die for your principles.
Die anyway--Andrew Young "It is a blessing to die fora cause. Because it is so easy to die fornothing".
Vote for Obama, die in a hospital parking lot with no health care.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
to know, and not to tell the truth, is to lie
Obama and McCain can propose plans till they are blue in the face, it won't make any difference, they have no ability to put their "plans" into action. The Health Care plan for the US will be worked out after the election.
Single payer insurance is the only real solution, much like Canadas. But surely we can adapt the best parts of all plans from all over the world.
After teh election, ther will be no motivation.
Then there was never anything worth voting or working for in the first place.
And I don't believe that for a second.