Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Top Senate Democrat: Bankers 'Own' the US Congress
Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: "And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis "own" the U.S. Congress -- according to one of that institution's most powerful members -- demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is.
The ownership of the federal government by banks and other large corporations is effectuated in literally countless ways, none more effective than the endless and increasingly sleazy overlap between government and corporate officials. Here is just one random item this week announcing a couple of standard personnel moves:
Former Barney Frank staffer now top Goldman Sachs lobbyist
Goldman Sachs' new top lobbyist was recently the top staffer to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on the House Financial Services Committee chaired by Frank. Michael Paese, a registered lobbyist for the Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association since he left Frank's committee in September, will join Goldman as director of government affairs, a role held last year by former Tom Daschle intimate, Mark Patterson, now the chief of staff at the Treasury Department. This is not Paese's first swing through the Wall Street-Congress revolving door: he previously worked at JP Morgan and Mercantile Bankshares, and in between served as senior minority counsel at the Financial Services Committee.
So: Paese went from Chairman Frank's office to be the top lobbyist at Goldman, and shortly before that, Goldman dispatched Paese's predecessor, close Tom Daschle associate Mark Patterson, to be Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, himself a protege of former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin and a virtually wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry. That's all part of what Desmond Lachman -- American Enterprise Institute fellow, former chief emerging market strategist at Salomon Smith Barney and top IMF official (no socialist he) -- recently described as "Goldman Sachs's seeming lock on high-level U.S. Treasury jobs."
Meanwhile, the above-linked Huffington Post article which reported on Durbin's comments also notes Sen. Evan Bayh's previously-reported central role on behalf of the bankers in blocking legislation, hated by the banking industry, to allow bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of mortgages so that families can stay in their homes. Bayh is up for re-election in 2010, and here -- according to the indispensable Open Secrets site -- is Bayh's top donor:
Goldman is also the top donor to Bayh over the course of his Congressional career, during which Bayh has received more than $4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors:
In a totally unrelated coincidence -- after the Government, as Matt Taibbi put it, enacted "a bailout program that has now figured three ways to funnel money to Goldman, Sachs"-- this is what happened earlier this month:
Goldman reports $1.8 billion profit
Goldman Sachs reported a much stronger-than-expected first-quarter profit Monday, bouncing back from its worst quarter as a public company. . . .
In reporting its results a day earlier than expected, New York-based Goldman said it earned $1.81 billion, or $3.39 a share, for the quarter ended March 31. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial were looking for a profit of $1.64 a share.
Goldman shares, which have surged more than 70% during the past month, continued rising late Monday, gaining about 4.7% for the day.
Nobody even tries to hide this any longer. The only way they could make it more blatant is if they hung a huge Goldman Sachs logo on the Capitol dome and then branded it onto the foreheads of leading members of Congress and executive branch officials.
Of course, ownership of the government is not confined to Goldman or even to bankers generally; legislation in virtually every area is written by the lobbyists dispatched by the corporations that demand it, and its passage then ensured by "representatives" whose pockets are stuffed with money from those same corporations. Just as one example, as Jane Hamsher reported about Bayh:
Bayh's little "lobbyist problem" is considered by many to be what tanked his Vice Presidential aspirations. His wife Susan earns about $837,000 a year serving on seven corporate boards, among them Wellpoint, a health insurance company for which Bayh helped secure a $24.7 million dollar grant. She's on the board of ETrade, even as Bayh is on the Senate Finance Committee.
Bayh wants people to believe he's a "moderate" who sits in the "center."
Center of K Street, maybe.
Meanwhile, the only citizen protests relating to this mass robbery are driven by anger at the government for treating bankers too harshly and unfairly -- one of the most classic manifestations of what Taibbi, in a separate piece, so aptly calls the "peasant mentality":
After all, the reason the winger crowd can't find a way to be coherently angry right now is because this country has no healthy avenues for genuine populist outrage. It never has. The setup always goes the other way: when the excesses of business interests and their political proteges in Washington leave the regular guy broke and screwed, the response is always for the lower and middle classes to split down the middle and find reasons to get pissed off not at their greedy bosses but at each other. That's why even people like [Glenn] Beck's audience, who I'd wager are mostly lower-income people, can't imagine themselves protesting against the Wall Street barons who in actuality are the ones who fucked them over. . . .
Actual rich people can't ever be the target. It's a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master's carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields. You know you're a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Whatever the master does, you're on board. When you get frisky, he sticks a big cross in the middle of your village, and you spend the rest of your life praying to it with big googly eyes. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger. And that's what we've got now, a lot of misdirected anger searching around for a non-target to mis-punish . . . can't be mad at AIG, can't be mad at Citi or Goldman Sachs. The real villains have to be the anti-AIG protesters! After all, those people earned those bonuses! If ever there was a textbook case of peasant thinking, it's struggling middle-class Americans burned up in defense of taxpayer-funded bonuses to millionaires. It's really weird stuff.
One might think it would be a big news story for the second most-powerful member of the U.S. Senate to baldly state that the Congress is "owned" by the bankers who spawned the financial crisis and continue to dictate the government's actions. But it won't be. The leading members of the media work for the very corporations that benefit most from this process. Establishment journalists are integral and well-rewarded members of the same system and thus cannot and will not see it as inherently corrupt (instead, as Newsweek's Evan Thomas said, their role, as "members of the ruling class," is to "prop up the existing order," "protect traditional institutions" and "safeguard the status quo").
That Congress is fully owned and controlled by a tiny sliver of narrow, oligarchical, deeply corrupted interests is simultaneously so obvious yet so demonized (only Unserious Shrill Fringe radicals, such as the IMF's former chief economist, use that sort of language) that even Durbin's explicit admission will be largely ignored. Even that extreme of a confession (Durbin elaborated on it with Ed Schultz last night) hardly causes a ripple.
* * * * * *
Here's Jane Hamsher, with Rachel Maddow, in February, assessing the motives of people like Evan Bayh and analyzing who owns and controls them (begins at the 3:00 minute mark):
- Posted in
116 Comments so far
Show AllThis is old news, REALLY old news. The only people unaware of the banks owning Congress and the White House are the ones who have been like Rip Van Winkle-sleeping for the past 20 years.
It may be old news but it bears repeating. The more attention directed to the corruption of our elected officials the better.
q
So why do you keep voting for the status quo?
Despite all the completely accurate warnings by CD commenters about Obysmal, I went ahead and voted for him anyway . . . something I am now ashamed of myself for having done. So why did I do it? I've seen too many Frank Capra movies and am still waiting for Mr. Smith to come to Washington. I thought there really was a chance Obysmal would be Mr. Smith. However, I have finally been cured. When the T-Bangers run Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann against Barry in 2012 I will pass on the whole thing.
Oregoncharles
The two-parties take turns, each having their own special strategy. John and Sarah scared the beejesus out of progressives, by design.
Is it possible to organize for something else? Or are we forever tethered to what Noam Chomsky calls a de facto one-party system? Sure, the big money can pull the wool over most everyone's eyes and replicated studies show that 80% of people will favor power and "prestige" over truth and goodness (see Milgram authority studies). We'll never actually win at their game, where a handful of giant corporations have all the power and make all the rules. Still, for our own moral health and integrity, I think it's important to support those whom we know - by their records not their speeches or winning smiles - will work for We The People. This is far better than trashing the reputation of good people because they had the audacity to speak truth to power, challenge power. The least we could do is get behind them with our collective voice, at the ballot box.
My prediction - 80% of those who are now so disappointed in Obama will be back in the fold by 2012. Obama and his handlers will pull it off. But afterwards, like a thief in the night, he'll zip up his pants and be gone, leaving you stunned again. I've seen this happen many, many times and I won't be at all surprised to see it again. It's the concentration of power, stupid.
Of all sad things from tongue or pen, the saddest of these: It might have been.
Go Ralph! (Rather quaint, eh?)
"Is it possible to organize for something else?"
Until we bust up corporate media, not really.
q
With the ability to communicate broadly via the internet now, why do we care about the media anymore? I say keep pushing independents and third party candidates. My only problem is there aren't enough people RUNNING under those flags to vote for. I'm stuck with Dems and Reps and picking the least worst. And to add insult to injury, WA state now has the Top Two Primary, making it unlikely that any independent or third party will ever go to the general election except for presidential office...
Happy I voted for Ralph...
"With the ability to communicate broadly via the internet now, why do we care about the media anymore?"
Usage of the internet, especially for news and information, is hardly universal or even characteristic of a majority of Americans, particularly older Americans. If looking at porn or YouTube could do the trick then you might be correct.
Also, the Rovian right learned years ago to use trolls to mitigate the populist use of the web for political purposes.
q
It is true that a lot of rural areas across the country don't get past a dialup and even dialup is expensive enough for the small bandwidth one gets out of it. I remember my days of using dialup back when I lived with my parents in rural MO. A few months after I moved, they were finally able to switch to dsl but even then a bit too expensive. They eventually took it reluctantly. In some respects though, I do agree that even more than using the Internet, talking to people in person works a lot. I guess that's why I was able to bring out the sweet and soft liberal side of my granduncle in Lubbock back when I last visited him despite his otherwise vicious conservatism.
"With the ability to communicate broadly via the internet now, why do we care about the media anymore?"
Thank you ! :)
"I say keep pushing independents and third party candidates."
I say ditto. Despite living in MO, I never give up on it. I actually vote on the candidate regardless of the party he or she is in since I vote on issues. Interestingly, 9 out of 10 times, when I match my take on the issues with the candidates, I almost always end up 3rd party. I've had a few rare occasions where I'd vote Democrat or even Republican but that's on local and state levels.
"Happy I voted for Ralph..."
Same here especially with the way Obama's scaring the life out of some of us on his handling of the economy and foreign policy. I was utterly disappointed that Nader was pushed into receiving far less support than even in 2000. The electorate would claim to want change but then something or other gets them to vote status quo. Last year's election was so crazy I was in tears the night I helplessly watched our electorate fall for more status quo despite strong disapproval of it. I might have supported the Democrats if Kucinich had been the nominee or even if Obama had been his pre 2005 self.
Me too! I started out with Kucinich, but he dropped out even before my state's primary. So I then went with Gravel. I even followed him to the Libertarian party, but he lost out to that crazy neocon Bob Barr... Luckily, we still had Nader and McKinney left. I just wish the rest of the country would vote their hearts and not lesser of two evils. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that, when I mentioned I originally supported Kucinich, they would say they liked Kucinich but he never had a chance. I have heard this from both liberals AND conservatives. I guarantee if these people had supported Kucinich he would have done FAR better in the primaries.
I think if we had approval voting that would help a lot of things too. It doesn't get as much mention as IRV, but I think it is actually better.
IRV is certainly a long shot. By the way, pleased to meet you. :)
Pleased to meet you too! :-)
At least IRV is cropping up in a few places around the country. They have it in Pierce County here in WA (not my county tho). I still like approval voting better. I've heard IRV can be just as bad for third parties as our current system.
More on approval: http://www.approvalvoting.org/
I could see where IRV would not work for 3rd parties. However, I think that the chances of getting the Republicans and Democrats to actually come clean would be significantly improved to say the least. Approval voting looks interesting. The only caveat I see is that it will be somewhat difficult to determine the voter turnout since one can vote for more than one candidate simultaneously. There might be a chance of getting Democrats and Republicans to approve it although I guess it's a long shot there too. :)
I think that either IRV or approval would beat the pants off plurality! Election reform becomes much less of a long shot when third parties are well organized and running good candidates. The more of a threat to the major parties there is, the more likely they will be to adopt election reform.
IRV and approval are options for elections that are single-seat by necessity (such as U.S. Senate, Governor, Secretary of State, or Mayor). For legislatures, some form of proportional representation would be even better.
The problem with just relying on the internet is...how do you publicize your website and get people to come to it? There are an infinite number of web addresses, and only 6,000 or so TV channels. And of those, not even a dozen widely known to be news channels. It basically almost guarantees them an audience for anyone who wants to see what happened during the day, and in the process they get fed a big steaming pile or bullshit.
The best way to advertise is by spreading flyer. Better yet, if you're driving, a bumper sticker will do and I see them quite a lot these days. All these progressive sites ought to consider selling us bumper stickers to put on our cars so that others can take note. And so what if it brings in rightwingers? I for one will be happy to give them a piece of my mind and who wouldn't? You could also try finding ways to getting the search engine to exposing it more by rank or something like that.
"Despite living in MO,..."
Lisa Simpson: Grandpa, this flag only has 49 stars on it!
Grandpa Simpson: I'll be in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missouri.
hi morty: i was one of the folks ringing the bell about obama being the nwo shill - but i also understand the good intentions of the voters in voting for him
he was a better candidate that mccain - not saying much there
it is sad to see this man who could have done so much turn around and do so little for the working people of the country while at the same time handing over the farm to the bankers who were the ones who screwed the pooch with the whole banking ponzy scheme
you live and learn
folks are just now beginning to get a handle on how corrupt the political system is
too late some might argue but better late than not at all
We shouldn't "pass on the whole thing", but instead vote for a non corporate party or independent candidate. The Dems and the Repubs are owned by the bankers. You know that. Keep on doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is a sign of insanity.
Vote Independent.
And get in the face of your "Representatives". Write them, call them, fax them and show up at their offices. They are supposed to vote for you and they need your instruction on how to vote----so---give it to them!! You gotta pay attenion and put some pressure on your 'Representatives'. They do love the cash from the 'donors" (people who give them bribes) but they still need YOUR VOTE. Past time for you to forget about that little D or R after their names. Little D and little R means they sold their soul long ago.
M O R D E C H A I,
Here's an insightful view of the behind the scenes ( politics = many blood sucking parasites ) reality : Meeting with Thierry Meyssan
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/183233-Meeting-with-Thierry-Meyssan
"Today, there is a relative consensus about the admission of failure of the Bush policy, the overuse of military force, and the nefarious consequences of unilateralism on the relationships with allied countries and the loss of leadership. Since 2006, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, who headed a Congressional committee to assess the strategy in Iraq, have been pushing for a wiser approach. They proposed a withdrawal from Iraq and a reestablishment of cordial relations with the nearby nations (Syria, Iran) which is necessary for the GI's departure not to turn into a rout like in Vietnam. They have dismissed Donald Rumsfeld, and selected a member of their committee to succeed him. But even if they froze the "Great Middle East reshaping policy", they didn't manage to convince George Bush and Dick Cheney to give it up. That is why the Barack Obama break-up was put in place.
…
In such an oligarchic system, there is one single party with two streams: the Republicans and the Democrats. Legally speaking, they are not separate entities. Thus, it is the States and not the so-called Parties that organize the primary elections. Therefore, it is not surprising that Joe Biden and Barack Obama are both old friends of John McCain. Thus, McCain is the head of the international Republican Institute, an organization controlled by the Department of State that is in charge of corrupting the right wing parties all over the world, while Obama works for the National Democrat Institute, headed by Madeleine Albright, who is in charge of corrupting the left wing parties. Obama and Albright both took part in the destabilization of Kenya, during a CIA operation in order to impose one of Obama's cousins as Prime Minister.
All these data show that Obama doesn't come from nowhere. He's an expert in secret operations and subversion. He's been recruited for a very specific task.
If the general objectives of the heteroelite coalition that supports him are the same, the details differ between its various components. This explains the incredible battle around Obama's team nomination and his always ambiguous speeches.
Four factions are fighting:
The Defense faction, led by Brent Scowcroft, Generals opposing Rumsfeld and, of course, Robert Gates who is now the real boss in Washington. …
The Treasury and the Department of Commerce are led by Geithner and Paul Volcker, the Rockefeller protégés. They come from the Pilgrim's Society and have the support of the Group of Thirty, the Peterson Institute and the Trilateral Committee. They're backed by Queen Elizabeth II and want to save both Wall Street and the City. …
In the long term they plan to establish - not a worldwide tax on the right to breathe, it would be obvious - but a worldwide tax on CO2 and a spot market in CO2 emission rights - which is roughly the same while hiding behind an ecological gloss.
The Department of State faction is led by Hillary Clinton, a fundamentalist Christian, and a member of a very secret cult called the Fellowship Foundation (a.k.a "The" Family). This is the Zionist refuge, the ultimate preserve for the endangered neo-con species.
In this context, the Zionists will likely push for the Korbel-Albright-Rice project aiming at transforming the UN into a large impotent forum and creating a competing organization: the Community of Democracies backed by NATO, its armed wing.
The National Security Council is under the influence of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's teacher at Columbia … "
Here's another article of interest : Landmark Russian TV Debate on 9/11
"Thierry Meyssan reports from Moscow that he and other leading international 9/11 truth experts have completed taping a television debate which will be telecast on the first national program of Russian state television this coming Friday, September 12. This no-holds barred, free-wheeling debate, featuring strongly divergent opinions about what really happened on and about September 11, 2001, will be shown in conjunction with the documentary film Zero, produced and directed by Giulietto Chiesa and Franco Fracassi of Telemaco Productions in Rome. Russians are thus about to receive an unprecedented evening of 9/11 truth. "
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/165537-Landmark-Russian-TV-Debate〓snip〓
Paste below, at the end of truncated URL above:
-on-9-11
Here's Thierry Meyssan's web site :
http://www.voltairenet.org/en
Namaste
Cool web sites, thanks.
You voted for Mr. Obama cause you were taking "Hopium (Hope + Opium)." They is still allot of Hopium in the air. Hopium is not my term.
Sorry for you, but we are all paying the price, now.
Go to
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009638 or Here
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008
to see how much money Mr. Obama is taking from the financial community.
Goldman Sachs $1,037,395 $1,037,395
Securities & Investment $15,657,162 $15,657,162
Yeah, well there is knowing....and then there is knowing. Two totally different realities. That second knowing where one is able to fit it all in to a bigger picture is the worthwhile knowing while the first knowing is just useless information. Then there is the third knowing where one acts and experiences the results of that second knowing....and so on.
Hi Leea,
Just to clarify, I take it you mean that it's one thing for one to know but another for how one applies what he or she knows, correct?
Yes that is an aspect.
"This is old news, REALLY old news."
Is it??? When is the last time the number two Senator said that Congress was owned by the banks? Because that's the news that he's writing about.
Its weird how people always want to announce to the world: I ALREADY KNEW THIS! Just because you know something doesnt mean everyone does.
The "Old News" canard. Used by people who want to distract us from solving the problem.
Old news may be well done. Would you argue that all who vote for these purchasable manikins understand this?
Depending on who you talk to, we are living in a second Gilded Age, with the bankster class representing the robberbaron class.
Today's financial industry (which includes insurance companies)have politicians bribed and voters hoodwinked at a level the robber barons of a century ago could only dream of.
The only two presidents who achieved any control over the robber barons were trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt and new dealer Franklin Roosevelt. Obama's economic actions and policies to date have set a trajectory that is further enriching Wall Street at the expense of US taxpayers.
I am not sure that today's situation is that much bigger than that of the robberbaron era. The robberbarons also had politicians in their pockets too, i.e. the ineffectiveness of the ICC. Also William Howard Taft (to a lesser extent) and Woodrow Wilson fought the robberbarons.
In a broader context, I agree with you.
Woodrow Wilson fought the robberbarons? Maybe some of them, but not the biggest robbers of them all - the Rothschilds and the rest of the pig bankers. Woodrow Wilson was the bankers little puppet.... the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 has his signature on it.
After his complete sell-out of America to the bankers he later stated his regret:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson was the only president, before George Wanker Bush, who truly deserved to be called a punk. I detect some Woodrow Wilsonism in Obysmal.
Early in his Presidency he fought some of them, but eventually caved, and made that tacit admission you quote.
So how does a progressive reach the militia men and others with misdirected anger and get them to recognize the Washington-Wall Street Axis of Evil that is swindling them? Through the Internet? Through YouTube, with humor? Sounds like a possibility.
A simple first step.
Companies: corporations, LLC, partnerships, etc. are not people and do not have rights.
It should be illegal for companies to contribute money or favors to politicians or political campaigns.
People, on the other hand, should be able to contribute as much as they please.
So what are you going to do? Keep banging your head against the wall and bitching about it or drop out. I recommend dropping out. Enough.
If drop out includes turn on and tune in, count me in.
Are you going to be there(at the love-in)?
The extent to which the banks hold the USA hostage is akin to when Teddy Roosevelt had to cajole J.P. Morgan himself in 1907 to preserve the banking system after a failed attempt by another corporation at economic sabotage. At the heart of this is the necessity for American politicians to raise money to run for office. As long as that exists, this problem will never go away.
Dick Durbin runs on high fructose corn syrup. it's the only thing his sponsor will let him eat.
But, what's this I see, Barney Frank's name?
But, wait! Barney Frank is in the "Congressional Progressive Caucus"!
nooooo! Not a 'progressive'....
What falls before me if not the sky, perhaps then it is my idle mind? For without the scent of roses in the air, I am left to tend a garden made of only compost and worms.
Where is Obama? I need an uplifting speech. Paint me a harmonious picture of rose pedals and youthful expressions; A1 Front Company, that's all I ask. Tell me "I get it" and am part of the solution, unlike those "others". You know, the cynics, the detractors, the FOX TV ilk he so readily smacks around for effect. I want to be lifted up and placed in a soft bed of platitudes and cliches too....
.
.
.
.
in the meantime, revolving credit lenders dine on a populace's sweat and blood. Nothing is done. More homeowner bankruptcies, artificial markets, more debt, buttressed by platitudes of hope. Yet, is this a sign Congress begins to feed on itself? That would be a change I could believe in. And I'm not talking about more examples of switch hitting, slight of hand playing like Arlen Specter. 2010 could end with the ousting all the pols who hustle the voters. Imagine, a Congress stripped of the corn fed, auto-fed, coal-fed, timber-fed, bank-fed, mil-fed, fatheads. talk about dreaming of a rosy future.
The bankrupcy laws have changed during Clinton reign. No bailouts! Obama voted for this change. At 21-29% interest, everyone should stop making credit card payments.
The big banks will quit owning Congress as soon as more customers switch from the bigger banks doing the crimes to local banks or better yet credit unions. We the people have the power when it comes to gunning down banks who behave badly and screw us to the point of pushing us off the cliff. Let's force these big banks to collapse and then see which members of Congress will remain lame and bail them out. Those who still bail them out by then deserve to be booted out of Congress and replaced.
I totally agree. I really don't understand why anyone is still using a bank for their primary banking needs anymore. Credit unions are a whole lot better.
Here's my plan of attack, if I can get up the guts to do it...
1) Move ALL money, loans, mortgages from banks to credit unions.
2) Move any money in stocks to money markets.
2) Stop purchasing health care insurance.
Let's just start voting with our wallets since this is the only thing these people understand. When they are no longer making any revenue will be the only time we can take away their power. No more money for those lobbyists.
"Stop purchasing health care insurance."
On that one, until we can get single payer, I'm afraid that we're either at the mercy of our employers or purchasing it ourselves.
I switched to a local credit union from a big bank last year and it has been great so far. I believe credit unions are widely available regardless of where one lives. From what I understand, it's rare for one not to be able to qualify for being a member of a credit union. In that worst case scenario, another option would be a small local bank although they're vulnerable to getting bought out by the big ones.
As to why people still stick to banks, I tried to find a single reason why but very few people could convince me. I did come across a rightwing jerk who said that his credit union was somehow mean to him and tried to tell me that banks provide better customer service but he would also be the same one bashing labor unions. My guess is he simply misbehaved.
In my local areas and even on the state level, most pols wouldn't even dare allow any legislation that empowers banks over credit unions to pass. Usually that was the case in Washington too. If so, I think that we the people can make a silent getaway from the banks before the pols go pro-bank and annihilate the credit unions like they did the small family farms.
I know what you mean about the health care insurance... I have mine through my employer. But they just switched us this year to a high-deductible plan and I keep wondering why we bother. Insurance doesn't kick in (other than for annual physicals) until I've paid over $6K out of pocket!!! I might as well not have insurance. Unfortunately, they've got us over a barrel with "pre-existing conditions" and most people are scared to death of being without their death insurance. If you let it lapse then they hit you with that. We really need universal single payer. There's just no excuse not to anymore. The insurance companies are nothing more than thieves and they offer no added value by us purchasing their insurance. Just more overhead, headaches and the chance of not having our treatments covered at all.
You can just not have health insurance, and be careful not to get severely injured and you'll save a lot of money if you never become hospitalized...reportedly many primary care physicians are increasingly willing to just take cash payments for routine checkups and other preventive measures...just ignore the insurance industry. If you are hospitalized, well, they have to treat you until you're stabilized, correct? Then you can negotiate payment later...and with luck it won't approach your former deductible limit.
A lot of doctors get cheated by the insurance industry more than the trial lawyers. Yet, when it comes to telling who's to blame for the rising costs, half the doctors will blame the trial lawyers.
I still feel rather skittish about the idea of not having health insurance. It's like not having auto insurance for one's car. Maybe it is our fear of living without health/auto insurance which gives these insurance companies the power to press our buttons and toy with us.
I haven't had health insurance for a while now, I sure as hell can't afford it on an intern's salary or while I was at college. But similarly I barely make enough to may my current bills so I can't go visit a doctor...but that will change once I get a better (paying) job.
"I still feel rather skittish about the idea of not having health insurance."
I have to agree. When I was 16, I dislocated my elbow playing street hockey. I took the typical teenage male attitude that I was indestructible and went on playing even though I couldn't straighten out my arm. When my father took me to the hospital that night, I will never forget him telling me "This is why we have insurance."