Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Health Reform Waterloo
The Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats are finally hitting the inevitable wall that was bound to confront them because of the president's congenital inability to be a bold leader, and because of the party's toxic decades-old decision to betray its working class New Deal base in favor of wholesale corporate whoredom.
The wall is health care reform, which both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party had hoped would be the ticket for them to ride to victory in the 2010 Congressional elections and the 2012 presidential election.
But you cannot achieve the twin goals of reducing health care costs and providing access to health care to 50 million uninsured people, while leaving the profit centers of the current system--doctors, hospitals and the health insurance industry--in charge and in a position to continue to reap profits.
Watching President Obama address the American Medical Association was a cringe-inducing experience as he assured the assembled doctors he was not going to expand Medicare payments "broadly" to cover all patients, or end the current "piece-work reimbursement" system that has so enriched physicians, or as he told them that savings would "not come off your backs." It was particularly cringe-inducing when he told the AMA that he knew that making money was not why its members were in the profession, saying, "That is not why you became doctors. That is not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That is not what brings you back to a patient's bedside to check in or makes you call a loved one to say it'll be fine. You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers--and that's what our health care system should let you be."
Oh please. I know there are plenty of wonderful doctors who are dedicated to their patients and to patient care. But I also know plenty of doctors who have told me how half their classmates in medical school were mainly in it for the money, and that study halls and cafeterias of American med schools echo with the conversations about what can be made working in particular specialties. Not to mention the corrupt and insidious profit-sharing arrangements doctors enter into with labs, CAT-Scan and MRI test centers, pharmaceutical companies and other businesses, to earn profits by sending patients for unnecessary tests and treatments.
One can only imagine what he would be saying to insurance industry executives about his "reform" plans.
Because Obama and Congressional Democrats are unwilling to cut themselves off from the lucrative campaign-funding bonanza that is the health care industry, they cannot address seriously either the cost or the access crisis that plagues health care in the US, and that makes health care in this country cost 20 percent of GDP--twice what it costs in any other modern nation on a per capita or GDP basis, and that still leaves one in six Americans without ready access to even routine health care.
The answer to this crisis is obvious: a single-payer "socialized" system, in which you still have private doctors, and private or publicly run hospitals, but where the government sets the payment rates for treatment, and provides all compensation to health care providers.
If Democrats in Congress were serious about health care reform, they would immediately order the Congressional Budget Office to conduct a cost study of instituting such a program--a study that would include an estimate of the savings to individuals and employers if health care costs were lifted entirely off their backs (because obviously it would require considerable new government revenue to fund a single-payer program, but that's only half the equation--the other half, the savings, is simply ignored by critics and doomsayers on the right and in the health care industry). Instead, Obama and the Democratic Congress are studiously avoiding even allowing any mention of the single-payer option. (A New York Times report today on the various health care plans working their way through Congress, and coming out of the White House, completely blacked out any mention of a single-payer bill in the House authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which the House leadership has prevented from even getting a token hearing.)
Obama's unwillingness to lead on this issue will doom his health care plan. There is obviously no way Congress is going to shake off its corrupt leech-like attachment to corporate sponsors and their cash-spreading lobbyists, but had the new president wanted to make a historic mark and cruise to victory in 2012, he could have, like President Lyndon Johnson before him in his campaign for Medicare in 1965, put himself solidly behind a single-payer plan and made the case that it could cut America's collective health bill in half while opening the door to every American.
Instead, he's likely to end up with worse than nothing--that is with even more uninsured Americans come 2012, and with health care costs moving up as a share of GDP--and could well find himself out of a job. The policy that his handlers, like White House Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel, had conceived of as Obama's ticket to re-election, health care reform, could well prove instead to be his Waterloo.
That is if his adoption of a policy of expanded war in Afghanistan--another example of a failure to lead--doesn't prove to be this president's bigger policy disaster.
- Posted in
123 Comments so far
Show AllDave Lindorff is exactly right about the results of this absurd excursion into fantasy land by Congress and this President.
If he had been honest about Single Payer and simply proposed it, the push would have been supurb behind him. We may still have lost, but it wouldn't have been the "Waterloo" this will be.
Though the Republicans are correct in saying that there are not 40-50 million without health care (uninsured does not mean you are without health care) there are still a good 15-20 million Americans with out health care except from emergency rooms.....the most expensive kind of health care.
The arrogance being displayed by this Congress and the failure of this President to lead rather than make speeches is the very gift the Republicans were hoping for.
Without health care is shorthand for without effective care.
People who have to get their care in emergency rooms are without effective care. Read Ray McGovern's account (In OpEdNews) have how having a routine physical, paid for under his CIA-retiree health plan, led to discovery of a 99%-blocked coronary artery, which was asymptomatic, but which could have killed him anyday.
I knew a woman who had a heart condition, but was too poor to get health insurance, but too well-off to qualify for medicaid. She knew she had the condition, but couldn't afford the routine physicals she needed, or any medication. She was just waiting to die by preventable heart attack. There are millions of such people in America. Sure, when she has a heart attack, if she's lucky enough to be around someone who calls 911, and if the ambulance gets to her rural house fast enough, she will get hospital care, and might survive until the next time, but that hardly qualifies as access to health care.
Ditto all the kids in America who don't see doctors or dentists because their parents can't afford office visits. They grow up with rotten teeth, bad vision, childhood diabetes, and myriad other preventable ailments, in what is one of the great scandals of America.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Henry8, ER care is not health care. They slap on a bandaid and tell you to see a doctor which won't happen because you would have seen a doctor in the first place if you had money.
But I agree, it is very expensive.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
looking at the way the obama admin treats GM and the 30 million residents of the bankrupt state of california, what did you expect? almost 10% of the country is about to lose access to SCHIP/Medicaid/etc., and the obama admin shrugs.
"Obama's unwillingness to lead on this issue will doom his health care plan. There is obviously no way Congress is going to shake off its corrupt leech-like attachment to corporate sponsors and their cash-spreading lobbyists, but had the new president wanted to make a historic mark and cruise to victory in 2012, he could have, like President Lyndon Johnson before him in his campaign for Medicare in 1965, put himself solidly behind a single-payer plan and made the case that it could cut America's collective health bill in half while opening the door to every American."
So the author recognizes the problem and demonstrates the measures why a single payer system will never emerge in the current political climate of corporate sponsorship of the U.S Congress and ownership of the presidency. Then why did he vote for Obama and advocate for him before the election?
I can't believe these folks who are still banging their heads against the wall about Lindorff voting for Obama.
There are a lot of head bangers about these days.
There are a lot of head bangers about these days.
Too many of us to count. Eight years of George Wanker Bush made millions of people scared and desperate, not simply ordinarily fed up. In that terrible atmosphere, it was easy, very easy, for people like us to fool ourselves into believing what now turns out to be Obysmal's monumental lies and BS. Okay. Obysmal is now like Kitty Genovese, the New York woman assaulted and murdered on the street while people watched and did nothing. When world and national events corner Obysmal and he cries out for electoral help in 2012, someone like me will roll over and go back to sleep. In the morning, I'll go to the polls and write in my bulldog for President of the United States.
I'm about 12 years ahead of you, only I wrote in Pee-Wee Herman.
Peewee Herman was so fun to watch. Perhaps even he would be better than any of our current crop of pols in Washington. When I read your comment, I felt tickled and had quite a laugh until I nearly wet myself. ;-)
"Then why did he vote for Obama and advocate for him before the election?"
He has had a history of calling voting for 3rd parties a "waste of votes". He would often argue that voting 3rd party does nothing to build a mass movement. Unlike most people here on this forum who are regretting their votes for Obama and are open to giving new parties a chance, I don't know if DL will do so by 2012 even at the rate Obama and Congress are getting worse by the days. It will be interesting to see what he says by then.
For all you sucka Obama voters - after FISA, you have no cover.
You're the problem, not the Limbaugh supporters.
If you got that easily fooled once, you'll be fooled enough of the time again.
While I share some of your anger, at this point we need to build a strong and united support for Ralph Nader or whoever runs in his place by 2012 and we had better do this sooner than later. I voted for Nader too and was absolutely devastated that Nader's vote was further marginalized last year even when it was crystal clear that there was not a dime's difference between the Republicans and Democrats from that Wall $treet bailout package. However, I'm starting to realize that it is better that we see to it that those who are regretting their vote for Obama or Mccain not make the same mistake again. Sorry if I sound different but I'm just scared of letting emotions possibly ruin my health. I too want to live to help and heal. Let's not be too negative. Some people can be fooled forever but not everyone has to be that way. We're just going to have to keep trying through trial and error in life.
Good for you Jennifer. Believe me I won't vote for Obama again.
Always feel free to vote with your heart and mind on the issues. Nobody can take away your heart or mind. Never let the corporate media mislead you with the "winner according to the polls" mentality. Good luck. :)
So true, anyone who did even the slightest bit of research about Obama, could have seen what he was really about. Then again most people who voted from him put emotion over reason.
As we have seen in the first 100 days, a vote for Obama was a wasted vote.
The difference is that my vote for McKinney was a protest against fantasy voting.
Therefore, it was not a wasted vote. Protest voting sends a message; whereas, voting for hope is infantile.
I don't want to have this discussion, which is pretty good and on point, devolve into another pointless sideline over this question of third parties and Dave Lindorff again, but I guess I have to because of the obsessive aptly described "headbanging" by smug people who continue to want to offer up their third-party vote in November as evidence that they are somehow "smarter" and "more principled" than the rest of us.
A few questions and commments:
1. How much better off are we because of their "smart" and "principled" decision to vote for McKinney or Nader or whomever?
2. How would they be feeling today, if McCain and Palin had been elected, and we had today, already, probably bombed Iran, or let Israel do it?
3. How, exactly, does voting third party create a third party? It has not happened in over a century, and it is not how parties are created. If those same allegedly smart and principled people were devoting their lives to helping to forge radical unions, organize neighborhoods, organize mass protests in Washington and elsewhere, etc., then maybe we could get somewhere, but most are just going about their business and then voting third party every two or four years. Big whoop.
4. Yes I voted for, and urged people to vote for Obama, because I saw real fascism in a McCain/Palin presidency. I don't think I was wrong about that. There are people who like to say blithly and naively that Obama's admiinistration is fascist, but these are people who haven't seen real fascism. I have, having lived for almost two years in China, and reported on it by going in and out from Hong Kong for five years. America under Obama is not fascist, or anything approaching fascist. Get real.
5. By the way, I think there is a repugnant quality to the critique of those--mostly white--critics of those who voted for Obama, who after all are also dissing the over 90 percent of African Americans who voted in unprecedented numbers for him, as did an extraordinary number of other racial minorities. Are we really ready to say they were wrong to do so? I'm not ready to say that. Say what you want, for example, about Judge Sotomayor being no William O. Douglas or Thurgood Marshall; from the point of view of minorities, she is a far cry better appointment than any candidate appointed to the bench by any president since Lyndon Johnson.
6. I supported Obama's election not naively hoping he'd be a leftist, but hoping that seeing the crises he faced, that he would opt to act as Franklin Roosevelt, another right/centrist elected in a crisis, did. It was a vain hope, perhaps, but not one that was without any basis. Nonetheless, I have no regrets, because I think bad as this administration is, a McCain/Palin administration would have been far worse and far more dangerous, particularly given McCain's perilous state of health. (Talk to me again if McCain doesn't make it through this four-year term.) I should add that I also spent a year living in Germany back in 1965, when memories of the Hitler era were still vivid, and so my understanding of fascism, and of the danger of splitting votes in opposition may be different from those who have just lived in the US.
6. If I saw a third party movement that had solid support among working Americans, and a progressive program, and that had a chance of winning even 15 percent of the vote, I'd be an ardent supporter. I don't see any such thing, and certainly didn't see any such thing last fall.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Mr. Lindorff, your callous response shows that you care nothing about the issue. How are we supposed to take what you write seriously? Carla was just saying she'd be interested in seeing what you'd have to say after Obama's done making a complete mess of himself and the party and there you go giving a totally rude and reckless response.
"1. How much better off are we because of their "smart" and "principled" decision to vote for McKinney or Nader or whomever?"
You wouldn't know because you pushed for others to make the wrong decision. If either of them had won, we would all have been a hell of a lot better off.
"2. How would they be feeling today, if McCain and Palin had been elected, and we had today, already, probably bombed Iran, or let Israel do it?"
Looking at how Obama is bullying his own Congress into more war spending which would make even Dubya blush, I would say we're beginning to get even worse than what Mccain/Palin would have given, not that I support those creeps.
On #3, you know nothing about 3rd parties because you'd never give them a chance. Carla asked you a simple question and your answer is obviously "Shut up and vote for Obama even if he turns out to be worse than even Dubya."
"4. Yes I voted for, and urged people to vote for Obama, because I saw real fascism in a McCain/Palin presidency."
And what about the same fascism that's existing in Obama/Biden's current presidency? Oops, he's Democrat so it's not fascism ? We'll see who wins in 2012 when more people are fed up with Obama out-rightwinging the GOP by then. You can hang on to Obama while the rest of us look outside the two faces of the same corporate fascist party.
"By the way, I think there is a repugnant quality to the critique of those--mostly white--critics of those who voted for Obama, who after all are also dissing the over 90 percent of African Americans who voted in unprecedented numbers for him, as did an extraordinary number of other racial minorities."
Don't know about Carla but even some of the Afros out in St Louis City, MO are getting more fed up for wasting their votes on Obama and getting betrayed. But I guess that doesn't matter to you because you're just a filthy rich writer. Just you wait until 2010 and 2012 when more African Americans get fed up and retaliate by staying home on election day or even voting 3rd party in disgust.
"6. I supported Obama's election not naively hoping he'd be a leftist, but hoping that seeing the crises he faced, that he would opt to act as Franklin Roosevelt, another right/centrist elected in a crisis, did. It was a vain hope, perhaps, but not one that was without any basis. Nonetheless, I have no regrets, because I think bad as this administration is, a McCain/Palin administration would have been far worse and far more dangerous, particularly given McCain's perilous state of health."
So, is he turning out to be an FDR ? Hell no. He's turning out to be a total Raygunite but you're rich so it's ok with you ! At the rate Obama's getting worse, if I were FORCED to choose between Obama and Palin by 2012 with no 3rd parties on the ballot, I'd choose Palin unless Obama can prove us wrong in the next 3 years.
"6. If I saw a third party movement that had solid support among working Americans, and a progressive program, and that had a chance of winning even 15 percent of the vote, I'd be an ardent supporter. I don't see any such thing, and certainly didn't see any such thing last fall."
Apparently, you'd much rather allow the corporate media to decide for you but hey, you're filthy rich and do your crocodile tear writing. Just play go-along get-along will you? No wonder the progressives and liberals are shackled but hey what do you care?
Jennifer B.
Your rebuttal to Mr. Lindorff was intelligently and persuasively well stated. What people like Dave Lindorff will probably never acknowledge is the truth of what Congressman Kucinich had observed and which certainly pertains to Barack Obama and that is that if one votes for the lesser of two evils one still ends up with an evil no matter how slick and eloquent the rhetoric may be. Thankfully the vast majority of people on Common Dreams have not been conned by the charade of Barack Obama [as the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan see through his facade, as they have no doubt that Obama is anything but an antiwar president]. Perhaps the citizens of those countries [as well as thinking Americans] can relate to the lines in the classic Western One-Eyed Jacks since seeing Obama as president may be reminiscent to them [if they could have seen the film] of the lines in Marlon Brando's movie when Brando's character Rio tells Karl Malden's character Dad Longworth:
"You're like a one-eyed jack. But I see the other side of your face."
Hi Erroll,
Thanks. I don't want to get too angry especially since I fear that this could raise my blood pressure and that my heart is more delicate than I'm already fearing. However, I realize that there are plenty others on this forum who are regretting their votes for Obama and am getting a better picture of what made them vote. Yesterday, I went with one of my friends to one of the African American neighborhoods in St Louis City where she lived at and when we discussed politics, it became even more clear as to what in Obama's campaigning seduced them that I happened to be immune to and this reminded me of what Thomas More (and I miss him dearly), BeforKids, Ted Markow, and plenty others went through when they had to make that choice. Those people I forgive with all my heart, not because they're saying that they'll just vote 3rd party next time but because I see them getting a better grasp of the issue. This author, on the other hand, while he understands the issue keeps expecting the same sellouts to do something different this time around. This is where I believe most of us see where he is getting it all wrong.
I voted for Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney and would never vote for a Wall St. stooge, chicken hawk, war supporting sellout Democrat.
1. How much better off are we because of their "smart" and "principled" decision to vote for McKinney or Nader or whomever?
-Okay, the same can be asked of you, especially seeing as you have written many a good article against the war. How are we better off, from an antiwar perspective, having voted for Obama, especially in regards to his escalation in Afghanistan?
2. How would they be feeling today, if McCain and Palin had been elected,
-their war policies are similar and you don't know if Obama will bomb Iran
3. How, exactly, does voting third party create a third party?
-The Democratic/Republican Party are really the one party of Big Business & War Inc. We should be advocating voting "third" party in order to create a second party.
4. Yes I voted for, and urged people to vote for Obama...
-what fascinates me is that you write a scathing article denouncing the sellout Democrats and Obama and then do an about face and defend your vote for them
5. ...who after all are also dissing the over 90 percent of African Americans who voted in unprecedented numbers for him...
-what has/is Obama doing for African Americans?
6. I supported Obama's election not naively hoping...
-seems you are naive based on your past big hopes and now your disappointment
7. If I saw a third party movement...
-self-fulfilling prophesy: We don't vote third party because they can't win, they can't win because we don't vote for them...good Dave.
Dave,
I share some of your opinions and your stance, however, I think you do yourself a disservice by wading into side waters.
Who voted for whom and what may have happened is all speculation, so it's really wasted effort. I've given up on those kind of posts because minds are hardened and will not be changed - on either side of the equation.
Having said that, I wonder what we are to do in less than four years when the same people who brung us here are up for re-election. I wonder how many times people have to be sucker-punched before they change course. Mostly, I wonder why the freaking hell we wait four years to do anything. And I mean personally - each one of us - you, me, and all the others reading and posting here. Obviously, what we have done up to this point has been woefully ineffective. Will blogging have an impact? Will writing to our mis-representatives have an impact? Will writing opinion pieces and letters to editors have an impact?
People support third parties because they are desperate for real change. Yet, the system is rigged against both third parties and real change. So, what are we to do?
"People support third parties because they are desperate for real change. Yet, the system is rigged against both third parties and real change. So, what are we to do?"
That is a good question. I often say vote with your heart and mind on the issues. Never allow the corporate media to distract you with the "winner" thing. I realize that it is easier said than done. Hopefully, while I keep up with reading lessons on happiness and healing, I just might be able to find a way to successfully help others snap out of the "winner according to the polls" mentality and hopefully help them spread the word. It looks like a long shot but I'm willing to give a go at it. We all want to be truly proud of who we vote for and not be remorseful about our votes or for that matter finding ourselves having to do more work to get the pols to listen to us even when we gave them the chance to lead.
"I often say vote with your heart and mind on the issues."
Usually, when it comes to politics, my heart and my mind are at odds. The last time I voted with my heart, we got George Bush.
Sigh, I understand. Hang tight though. I'm still reading through the books and will hopefully see what I can find to help you overcome that fear. Thanks for the heads up. :)
Thanks, Jennifer, but my vote for Obama was not out of fear, it was a calculated risk. And, the risk paid off - Obama won. He's not the progressive many of us hoped for, but he has one distinct advantage - he is not John McCain.
You've read enough of my posts to know that I'm not a rabid Obama follower or even a Democrat. I've been a pretty progressive guy for many years, and was once a Green. I believe in the Green Party platform. However, the machine is still there, still chewing people up, still killing dreams, still spewing detritus over the landscape. People have been hanging their hats on a "third party" for a long time with nothing to show for it. And all the while, the machine says, "Bring it on!" We need to do something else.
In your readings, I hope you find something that shows you how much power you have as an individual. Perhaps you can show the rest of us that power. If one thing has been proven to me, it's that when people withdraw and become complacent, the machine fills up the void. When people become engaged and noisy and demand justice and respect, then things really change.
I do vote on the issues no doubt. As for the Green Party, I agree that they have a lot of repair work to do but I think they're making some headway in some states though I think that they'll be the party to fear once they can make a breakthrough in states such as say MO and WI.
I'm still working on overcoming that left-out feeling in life despite being courageous to be myself which I think is preventing me from realizing my full power to help and heal. I realize that the feeling must be removed to overcome that lingering unhappiness. I am for both hitting it at the ballot box and trying to contact my congress people even if some people here say that the game is fixed already. You and BeForKids remind me of my parents although they're still conservative but not as much as back in 2004.
I know you're not a blind follower even if some mistake you to be that. You have my heart. :)
An unpractical dreamer is someone dis-empowered by his own irrelevance. It is characterized by excuses. Lindorf's rebuttals offer one mental crutch after another. He decries that third party voting is impotent only to acknowledge his own impotence for voting for Obama by offering an obfuscation, that (my paraphrase) Obama would mimic the presidency of FDR. What category of non-sense pays homage to one's imagination as a trigger for action? We all knew going in that Obama's record tilted to pragmatism and corporate interests. Dream if you must, Dave, but please don't push it off as realism.
Thomas Paine noted in the earliest days of our democracy, "But such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty appearing." This proclaims that truth only wants to show up; it does not wish to overwhelm or rule us. Lindorf ought to allow, "the irresistible nature of truth" to make its appearence right now.
Moreover, if you don't want to have this discussion why are you participating in it? Maybe some male empowerment workshop is the right medicine. Serving up a slice of emasculated male syndrome will keep you begging alms the rest of your life.
Dave: Why don't you get behind Instant Runoff voting? It's the only way I can see to break the duopoly.
>>Aiming for "painless" fixes is in effect just another way of submitting to it.<<
There is no painless way to acquire freedom. It always takes blood in the streets and many deaths and imprisonments of freedom fighters. Our freedoms have been severely limited over the last couple decades but especially over the last 8 years.
Voting is simply not going to regain "god given" freedoms stolen by our federal government. You mention IRV, military budget cuts, single payer, and accountability. One more big item would be TERM LIMITS, but we'll never have that either because as you accurately stated, none of these can be passed by the current ONE PARTY system which will not do anything that would decrease its power.
Those who have done the most damage to our country, and not all are elected politicians, have the most to fear from an awakened populace. So far, denial and apathy, and FEAR have kept the populace in check. But government actions become more outrageous every day. People may begin to wake up. But probably not.
You voted for FDR and you got Herbert Hoover.
The health care issue has been fought over for at least seventy years. Slavery existed in the US for 160 years, from colonial times until 1862. After that it took 100 more years to overcome apartheid. The health care situation is still in the pre emancipation proclamtion stage. Courage! Have faith! There will be available, affordable , health care someday for your great grandchildren. Fight on!
That's too long to wait! I should have free health care in my lifetime, and so should my children and grandchildren, not just my great-grandchildren.
That's it! I'm moving to Canada. Where's JoannaFromCanada? I'm going to ask her to marry me and we can have Canadian babies together!
Extraordinarily lucid and on point, Mr. Lindorff. Should be read by every member of Congress.
David Lindorff - That opening paragraph was the most accurate and succinct I've ever read on any topic. It's not what I want to hear. But I tire of putting my hands over my ears while screeching in protest. Thanks Dave.
Pat Thurston
What I don't like about Obama is we KNEW Bush was a corporate stooge. He didn't falsify anything, he said it proudly. The problem isn't that Obama is a pro-corporation cheerleader. The problem is that he represents himself as a break from the established (corporate) order. He represents 'change'. NOwhere is the duplicity of the modern DNC better illustrated than in this healthcare debate.
I think I'd prefer the GOP back in power. At least I could honestly hate them, rather than the furtive 'hatred mixed with self-loathing' I'm feeling now.
Here here!
I've always said that it is unclear that Obama is better than McCain.
Vote third party.
The Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats are finally hitting the inevitable wall that was bound to confront them because of the president's congenital inability to be a bold leader, and because of the party's toxic decades-old decision to betray its working class New Deal base in favor of wholesale corporate whoredom.
Many thanks for this, Mr. Lindorff. It made my Sunday. Borax Obysmal, yet another jackass politician about to overwhelmed by his own corruption.
Obama is a strong leader. What he's doing is positioning himself to take as much power away from the people he sees as the opposition.
The people he sees as the opposition are the ones who got him elected.
Now we are on the same page!
But it's more than that. I also, perhaps against all logic and experience, admit that I expect something good of an Obama presidency.
Call me naive, but based upon my own life experience, I keep thinking that a guy who has worked as a community organizer, a Harvard Law School grad (and even law journal editor!) who could have named his price at a Wall Street law firm, but who chose instead to be a political and community activist, a guy who has relatives who live in humble surroundings in Kenya, and who spent some of his childhood actually living in a Third World Asian nation, not to mention a guy who has surely felt the sting of being called a nigger, has to bring something new to the White House. Certainly no other president in the history of the country has come to the office with such a background.
Sure Obama is no leftist candidate. But if he were, he wouldn't be heading for an election victory. He wouldn't even be the Democratic nominee. He'd be, at best, where Dennis Kucinich is--holding a seat in Congress where his every progressive effort would be stymied or mocked by the House leadership. - Dave Lindorff Oct. 15, 2008
-okay Dave, you are naive
Is Kucinich even promoting single payer anymore? Have they ALL whored themselves out?
As far as I know, yes he does. Headlining his website he quotes Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Chicago Archdiocese:
"Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity and there is an obligation for society to ensure that every person be able to realize this right."
Speaking of naivete, This is probably a terribly naive question, but have any activist organizations - the several single-payer healthcare groups, peace groups like code pink, the anti-MTR groups in West Virginia or others, contacted the White House and requested or attempted to request, a meeting with the President? Surely corporate lobby groups get such meetings with the president or at least his chief of staff.
Maybe the president only be getting the corporate side of the issues because the peoples side is organizing invisible rallys and CD actions, but not bothering to call the White House to at least attempt to schedule meeting?
Yes, Democrats working feverishly on health care reform "face increasingly noisy protests from those on the left who complain that a national program like those in Europe has been excluded from the debate," The Washington Post reports.
The answer to this question is yes. The single payer advocate organizations asked to be part of the discussion when the White House was developing its plans, and were rebuffed, and not invited to participate.
In the Senate, they were left out of Sen. Baucus' hearings on the Senate's health care reform plans, and when they came anyway and tried to raise the issue from the audience in the commitee room, he had them all arrested.
Your democracy at work.
In the House, Rep. John Conyers has bravely tried to keep the Single-payer idea alive with a bill calling for it, but he has been prevented from having it get even a hearing.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
sierra7
The best word description of our government by the author is...."Whoredom"
Very simply put: You can't have "Guns and Butter?" Remember that phrase????
We have military/industrial/Wall St Complex that is sucking the life out of our economy. We have corporate elites, so intertwined with each other that the cloak of control is almost invisible, but there nonetheless.
Like health care, our concerns with the activities of Wall Street are puny compared with the power of the money in the system to promote more war.......Weapons: use them or lose them. Period.
Until we as citizens can crush the military/industrial complex and further invalidate it's influence on our nation we will not ever, ever become a truly progressive one.
And, a morally progressive nation must include single-payer health care system. Nothing less will do. Nothing.
Everything else is plain, "BULL#$%^!!
Make no mistake, this administration is going to "modify" (reform, what a word; ugh!) present systems and move on to further destroying our economy with more "reforms" which will go nowhere....
Until the citizens of this country get their heads out of their collective A$%^ we will continue to go downhill and deteriorate. Possibly this economic situation will wake people up to the fact that "something" is seriously wrong with our system.
While our major media continues to further the lines of fear of other countries, and we do not turn off away from that sort of propaganda we will not be able to counter the elitist view that, "....happiness comes out of the doors of a Wal-Mart...!"
Our national government is fed by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and until we can come up with a better way of politicizing we again will continue to go downhill.....
Wake up people!
When you all decide to "opt-out" of the mainstream you will truly become "free."
(I'm a registered non-partisan voter)
I WONDER
I wonder at all the diverse comments, ideas, personalities that come out here on CD.
I wonder if it is from a particular segment of the population, old, young, school of hard knocks, college or just blasé’ ordinary people with a desire and a yen for a fair life for all and not just for themselves?
I wonder at the amount of times that we sign petitions, call our political representatives, write letters to them and to an editor of the MSM trying to get them to do what is right for the majority of people.
I wonder if it makes any difference? Don’t think so.
I wonder what would be critical mass for them to pay attention to the people instead of the money?
I wonder if there are enough CD’ers to start something, anything without money because we cannot compete in that race.
I wonder if the will is there as much as the intelligence that is shown here daily?
I wonder if it would be better to do just as Jesus said in Luke 21 that all these wars, rumors of wars, turmoil’s and all the ugly things that are going on these days; he said don’t sweat it because it is written in the big book of life and it will happen so don’t worry.
I wonder about the time and a half times and the Maya time of the end: 2012 and the Hopi prophecies and other Native American ones also.
I wonder if loving God with all your heart and soul and everyone else as much as yourself would be enough to do while on this planet as in the end each one of us will answer for ourselves.
Tony 6/20/2009
Good things to wonder, Tony, and I share most of them.
"I wonder at the amount of times that we sign petitions, call our political representatives, write letters to them and to an editor of the MSM trying to get them to do what is right for the majority of people.
I wonder if it makes any difference? Don’t think so."
I wonder about that too. While I don't think that it changes things overnight, a steady reminder of what we want is important. However, this is just the beginning. We're going to need to follow up with demands, both in print and out in the streets. We need to get messy with this.
"I wonder what would be critical mass for them to pay attention to the people instead of the money?"
Good question. Dunno. I do know that a critical mass isn't even the majority, just a strong and vocal minority to lead. The others will follow. That's the way it always is.
"I wonder if there are enough CD’ers to start something, anything without money because we cannot compete in that race."
Unfortunately, no. Common Dreams is not geared to allowing people to organize. It's geared to allowing people to vent and share views and bitch. It is impossible under this structure to organize. Inform others of events, yes, but not organize.
"I wonder if the will is there as much as the intelligence that is shown here daily?"
Apparently not. Unfortunately, things will have to get worse before our will gets better.
The rest of your questions I'll leave to the religious.
Just my inconsequential thoughts.
Thanks for the comments Ted and you may of noticed that my post is all over CD this day because I wanted some input but it seems there is not that much interest.Dont do religion and haven't been to a church in 40 years but do read a chapter of the Bible every day and as I've gotten older read only the prophets and psalms;it helps me think.Thanks again.Tony