EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Single Payer Solution for Obama
"If anyone...has a better approach that will bring down
premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for
seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."
-- President Obama, State of the Union
January 27, 2010
An open letter in response to President Obama's State of the Union request for a better approach to health care reform:
Dear President Obama,
During your State of the Union address, you explained why you are fighting for health care reform, expressed frustration at the lack of success, and invited others to suggest a better approach.
I'm taking you up on that invitation and offer a bold suggestion:
Take a look at our Minnesota Health Plan -- a proposal that covers everyone, saves money, and creates a logical health care system to replace the dysfunctional non-system which currently exists. It is a proposal that would provide health care to everyone, not merely health insurance for many. Our MN Health Plan (mnhealthplan.org) could be readily adapted as a nation-wide plan. It would meet each of the five requirements you mentioned in your State of the Union request:
Bring Down Premiums. Most Americans would see a big reduction in premiums because the plan would be significantly cheaper than our current health care non-system. Because the premiums for the MHP would be based on ability to pay, everyone's premiums would be affordable. Some would pay more, but overall, costs would go down. Most people would save money, while getting the care they need and deserve. The total costs for the plan would be less than we now are paying for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and taxes for medical programs.
Bring Down the Deficit. By keeping people healthier and by delivering quality health care efficiently, it would save hundreds of billions of dollars for the federal government, and even more for states. For example, by covering chemical dependency treatment and providing comprehensive mental health services, it would cut crime and human service costs (such as out-of-home placement of children), some of the biggest and fastest growing expenses facing state and local governments.
Cover the Uninsured. It would cover the uninsured and the under-insured. In fact it would cover everyone -- 100% of the public.
Strengthen Medicare for Seniors (and everyone else). It would cover prescription drugs -- with no "doughnut hole." It would cover long term care, in-home care, dental, eye care, physical therapy, and medical supplies -- it would cover all medical needs. And, they would have their choice of doctor, hospital, clinic, dentist -- complete freedom to choose their medical providers.
Stop Insurance Company Abuses. There would be no "pre-existing conditions" to worry about, no underwriting, no denials of coverage, no "out of network" problems. I like to use the analogy of police and fire protection. When you return home to find a burglary in process and call 911, the police dispatcher does not ask if you qualify. They do not ask if you have police insurance. They do not ask whether your policy covers home burglary. They don't ask if you have pre-existing conditions that would disqualify you. They don't waste time and money having you fill out forms so your insurance company can be billed. The police response does not depend on your insurance status. Everyone is treated equally. It's the American way. It is time to treat health care the same way.
As a 23 year member of the Minnesota Senate, let me comment briefly on the politics of this proposal:
The MHP is a single payer proposal. You have acknowledged that single payer is the only way to cover everyone. Seven years ago you said that single payer health care is "what I'd like to see. But... we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." Now that we have taken back the White House and the Congress, it is time to act.
I recognize, as you do, that you do not have the votes to pass truly universal health care at this time. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries contribute so much to members of Congress -- they control the debate -- so health care for everyone isn't even on the table.
This, however, is your opportunity for leadership. If you propose and fight for health care for all, as FDR did with Social Security in 1935, the voters would respond. If you don't win this year, ask the American people to elect candidates who will stand with you. Make it the issue of the campaign: Health Care for All vs. Health Insurance for Some. Instead of losing Democratic members of Congress this year -- as Massachusetts illustrates -- you would gain votes and could actually pass the bill next year.
Dr. Martin Luther King stated, "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."
Almost a half century later, we still have not addressed the injustice in health care that Dr. King described as the most inhumane. Ignoring this injustice is immoral and it is economically unsustainable. People are hurting, some are literally dying, businesses are folding, and it is crushing our national economy.
Please, restore the Hope that you raised in all of us, bring back the inspiration that made the American people so excited by your inauguration. I urge you to step back, reconsider, introduce a health care plan that is truly universal, and fight for it.
Justice requires no less.
Respectfully,
John Marty
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
93 Comments so far
Show AllYour ideas make way too much sense. They will never pass muster in a Corporatist (Democrat/Republican) Congress. Sorry.
After Obama snubs Marty, activists need to help him get elected Governor of Minnesota. If he can implement single-payer in Minnesota, it may take root in other states, just as Canadian single-payer started in the province of Saskatchewan during the 60s and eventually spread throughout Canada.
Marty may be to US single-payer what Tommy Douglas is to Canadian single-payer.
O Canada. I'll vote for that. Cheers...
Apart from the fact that the President doesn't respond to "open letters" (not openly, anyway) or anything else he doesn't want to read like a sign carried by doctors saying Medicare for All outside the hotel where he was jousting with Republican critics, this letter is an excellent piece of rhetoric in the health care debate. I especially like the analogy to police officers not having to determine your "qualification" for their response to a burglary; you need a police service, you get a police service, no questions asked. (Even whether you are an "illegal alien.")
The author went a little softer on Obama than I would have gone when he suggested that Obama could get the single payer that he (said) he wants if only he could overcome the money influence of insurance and pharmaceutical firms on members of Congress. Of course he would have to overcome as well the copious funding of his own presidential campaign by the these same corporate forces. He would have to look his gift-horse in the mouth and face the prospect of his getting his arm (campaign contributions) bit off by the horse's teeth. We can beg and beg the President to do this, but we are never going to be effective until we learn to run political campaigns on a populist base that pulls the teeth from that horse of corporate power.
There's no reason in the world, outside of the Congress' refusal to consider the welfare of the American people, that this shouldn't be a model for National Healthcare!!!
Will it happen???? Never!!!! It's time to boot a lot of members out of Congress - they certainly don't represent the will of the American people! In fact, they refuse to!!!
FrankS: save one boot for POTUS.
Great idea. Minnesota shows the way.
Never happen. Insurance companies and Big Pharma had too deep a hold upon Congress and this craven President.
But good ammunition for those who dare to claim reform IS possible. Here is a real-life example of an all-American solution.
Gary
“I think there are a lot of good ideas there. I think, again, progress has been impeded by the polarization of the issue. And we need to look at some short-term actions that we could take to improve the system, to start helping people have health care be more affordable and accessible, while working on a longer term solution _ which takes time, it takes consensus, it takes not worrying about who gets the credit.”
-- Martha Rainville
Barak Obama, a state senator with little/no significant accomplishment, then progresses to senator with zero accomplishment, then progresses to president, via corporate-sponsored mass marketing. He, of course, acts as a puppet for the military-industrial-complex.
Imagine this: John Marty, a veteran state senator of considerable accomplishment in the service of the people, runs for president as a candidate of the People's Party. Peace, prosperity and health care for all are primary goals of the campaign.
Strategy is to speak truth to power: the maelstrom of corporate/media attack is nothing more than big busness propoganda. The more they dish out, the more we go door to door, to church, to the park to counteract. We brand them as the privileged bulliies (this is generous!) they are.
We COULD do more than imagine.
iowapink: I LIKE it When do we start?
I'm game!
Door to door it's gonna have to be because the MSM will try to dissemble any grass roots efforts to bring real democracy. They hate it!
Here's a likely scenario: We start mobilizing in the neighborhoods. The empire's MSM retaliates, everything they can do to marginalize us: "Many Americans are simply slamming the door on these left-wing activists. Today our guest is founder of the pro-democracy organization, "Slam the door on Socialism!"
When we meet with Republicans who aren't elite, let's be sure to keep our cool! Sure, many are just as self-defeating as Democrat ditto heads, but our goal is to listen and be inclusive, leave good solid information in their hands.
When you're talking to people, hand out a report - with sources - with these items: #1) Social programs that help Americans. #2) War budget #3) income gap over the years #4) who pays what taxes, over the year #5)Constitutional rights #6) Standard of living in US compared with other countries...........etc.
I think we each start in our neighborhoods. Then we organize support and begin to spread out into our communities.
What we are up against is decades of brainwashing and miseducation. But I think people in general are usually open to new ideas as long as you are respectful and willing to listen to what they think as well. And we have the truth on our side. And it is a visceral truth that most people feel very strongly about. The right to good and affordable health care for all.
I always find that when I go 'politicing' door-to-door I spend more time listening than talking.
Some people will agree with what you say right off. They are the ones that you mught be able to get to a meeting or sign a petition or be a neighborhood leader.
Some people have been disenfranchised so profoundly by the right wing media or faux religion that their ability to take in information is too difficult to retrieve in the short run.
So I always make a list, as I progress through a neighborhood of which people are the most likely supporters. Then I make sure to contact them again, by phone or mail or at the door. There are normally only a very few individuals that I cross off my list. Almost all will listen if you approach them with sincerity.
If you're interested, a great book on community organizing is "Reville nfor Radicals," by Saul Alinsky.
And deliver single-payer as You PROMISED ( when We, the people delivered DEM both houses of Congress and YOUR presidency)! Don't renege, again.
Very well written Senator Marty. I look forward to welcoming you as our next governor of MN. I might even recommend you as Kucinich's running mate in 2012 should we find ourselves having to draft Kucinich to replace Obama in the primaries.
Some people say that Democrats don't support single payer but people like you and Dennis Kucinich prove them wrong. I remember your support for Kucinich in the primaries and I understand your support for Obama in the general election but don't feel bad. You aren't alone. I'm not pleased at all with Obama on what he is doing on health care but we all have a part to play in making our president and congress listen.
Obama may not have the votes to pass single payer but that is because Congress is not getting enough pressure from the progressive voters while the right wingers have successfully forced public option out of the bill and kept single payer from showing up. Even if Obama does not listen to what you write, people should fight for their state provided single payers just like you did for the state of MN. Make statewide single payer a state's rights issue. Canada made it to single payer by passing it on state levels first before a national one could be agreed upon. The US is slowly following suit and we won't give up. It's time to quit complaining that single payer will never come and use states' rights to make it succeed.
-"Some people say that Democrats don't support single payer but people like you and Dennis Kucinich prove them wrong"
Hmmm, if you found a puddle on the ground, would you say that the land was as wet as the sea? How exactly does the marginalized Kucinich "prove" that the Democrats support single-payer? Does their taking it "off the table" prove their support?
-"Obama may not have the votes to pass single payer but that is because Congress is not getting enough pressure from the progressive voters "
Here again, we have someone saying, don't blame Obama and congress, they don't "have the votes". The Dems "only" have a majority in both houses as well as the white house. It is the fault of the progressives? Incredible.
I didn't say that all Democrats support single payer but I am countering the myth that Democrats oppose it in general. The Republicans are united against single payer but not the Democrats who are divided on their support of it. I would gladly campaign for Marty to replace Klobacher and join Al Franken in pushing for single payer. I am a registered independent and I would be glad to see the Green Party knocking out some Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to push Congress and possibly the president to the left.
I know Obama is at fault and I'm not letting him go but he's not alone. The Democrats have a majority but there are the Blue Dog Democrats teaming up with the Republicans to marginalize the progressives. Therefore, he doesn't have the votes.
Wait, you want to take out Klobuchar? NUTS!
-"I didn't say that all Democrats support single payer but I am countering the myth that Democrats oppose it in general. The Republicans are united against single payer but not the Democrats who are divided on their support of it."
Well here is what you wrote, let's let people make up their own minds about what you said:
-"Obama may not have the votes to pass single payer but that is because Congress is not getting enough pressure from the progressive voters while the right wingers have successfully forced public option out of the bill and kept single payer from showing up."
Seems to me that you are conceding that the Democrats, somehow don't have the votes.
Now let's move on to your next post:
-"I didn't say that all Democrats support single payer but I am countering the myth that Democrats oppose it in general. The Republicans are united against single payer but not the Democrats who are divided on their support of it"
-"I know Obama is at fault and I'm not letting him go but he's not alone. The Democrats have a majority but there are the Blue Dog Democrats teaming up with the Republicans to marginalize the progressives. Therefore, he doesn't have the votes."
You are saying "I know Obama is at fault"...."but"...."The Democrats have a majority but"... "there are the Blue Dog Democrats teaming up with the Republicans "..."Therefore"..."he doesn't have the votes"
So You are saying that Obama is at fault, but he is not(progressives not "pressuring him")?
You are saying the Dems have a majority "but" they don't, as you have decided that even though "blue dogs" are Democrats, magically they are also somehow not Dems. So don't blame the Dems for not being themselves Dems? Huh?
and then you are back to, the majority party, the Democrats, somehow "don't have the votes?
I hate to break it to you, but that is not how real democracies work. Vote for a real party, you will get real results. Or stay with "hope and change"tm, it is up to you.
Democracy doesn't end with just voting. No matter who wins, it's up to progressive voters to put pressure on Congress and the White House. The right wingers do it and they win everytime because they put more pressure while there are not enough progressives out there to counter it. In a democracy, everyone participates. Presidential elections occur once every four years. The rest of the time is for us to make them listen while in office. Without public pressure, FDR's New Deal would never have passed.
We'll have to wait and see what the progressive third party is and the candidate in 2012 before I can decide. Third parties are not known until election years. I wouldn't rule out drafting Kucinich for the nominee if it comes to that by then. For now, I am focusing on getting Marty elected to governor of MN and helping elect a few more progressives for state and federal seats in MN.
So "Democracy doesn't end with just voting" but...
"We'll have to wait and see what the progressive third party is and the candidate in 2012 "
Can you reconcile democracy not ending with..."wait and see" what the progressives do?
Wouldn't it make more sense to BE that third (arguably second) party?, more sense than sending letters to Democrats who you know are bought and paid for with bribes that you can not ever hope to match?
You are neglecting the midterm elections and their possible effects. If we elect more progressives, Democrat or Green, to replace the Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans, Congress will be more progressive and Obama might listen and possibly get a second term without facing a primary challenge.
I know that both parties are corrupt but what is the guarantee that third parties won't be corrupt should they make it? It costs money to build and maintain a new party and they will face more obstacles before they can make it. If they want to cut costs and expedite progress, they are likely to compromise along the way. Some third parties such as the Green Party I like for their ideas but others such as the Libertarian and Tea Parties I hate. Third parties are unknown.
I look at pushing the Democratic Party to the left as fixing an appliance as opposed to jumping ship and going third party like replacing the appliance altogether. Unless the public can be convinced that it costs more to repair either party than it is to jump third party, the chances of a third party succeeding are slim to none and even smaller when you consider the historical data on third parties.
-"If we elect more progressives, Democrat or Green, to replace the Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans"
Good luck but if you elect more "progressive Democrats" won't they fold up like a cheap tent like the ones in the congress now?
-"I know that both parties are corrupt but what is the guarantee that third parties won't be corrupt should they make it? It costs money to build and maintain a new party and they will face more obstacles before they can make it."
Now you want a guarantee, it costs money and yes there will be obstacles?...can't argue with that. Maybe you should wait untill the currupt politicians that you have now, change the system, give you a guarantee that your party will win, give you the start-up money and take away the obsticles so you can then support the Greens?
-"Some third parties such as the Green Party I like for their ideas but others such as the Libertarian and Tea Parties I hate. Third parties are unknown."
So you are posting on a progressive site that you like the Greens, but you won't vote for them, because you don't like the "tea parties"?
-"Unless the public can be convinced that it costs more to repair either party than it is to jump third party, the chances of a third party succeeding are slim to none and even smaller when you consider the historical data on third parties."
According to historical data? According to historical data, your country has been run by the same corrupt coalition government for years. So does that mean it must stay that way?
You say "Unless the public can be convinced"...How do you expect "the public" to be convinced? I guess it is hard to convince people that it is time to give another party a chance to rule, if you keep blaming the progressives, who are not in power for whatever the Dems do wrong(they didn't apply enough pressure!)
"Good luck but if you elect more "progressive Democrats" won't they fold up like a cheap tent like the ones in the congress now?"
I don't know. Some will and some won't but there is a better chance that progressive Democrats won't compared to the Blue Dog Democrats.
"Maybe you should wait untill the currupt politicians that you have now, change the system, give you a guarantee that your party will win, give you the start-up money and take away the obsticles so you can then support the Greens?"
That is not what I have in mind. You still aren't answering the question. What is the guarantee that the Greens won't be corrupt? Let me put it another way and I have nothing against the Greens. What is to stop the ruling class from corrupting the Greens when they could corrupt the Democrats and Republicans?
"So you are posting on a progressive site that you like the Greens, but you won't vote for them, because you don't like the "tea parties"?"
You are twisting what I said. I said that some third parties I like and some I don't. The Green Party has great ideas and I would be open to returning to the Green Party that I left in the early 90s when I went to the Democratic Party. They are showing some signs of improvement but it's still too early to tell if they are ready for prime time.
"According to historical data? According to historical data, your country has been run by the same corrupt coalition government for years. So does that mean it must stay that way?"
Change can happen either by moving the Democratic Party to the left or getting a new progressive party in. The former is usually cheaper than the latter. our ancestors were successful in moving the Democratic Party to the left in FDR's time and it can be done again.
"How do you expect "the public" to be convinced? I guess it is hard to convince people that it is time to give another party a chance to rule, if you keep blaming the progressives, who are not in power for whatever the Dems do wrong(they didn't apply enough pressure!)"
Most of us here may be ready for change but that is not reflected in the elections. Third parties are often a great unknown compared to the two major parties. It also doesn't matter if we keep the party or change it. We still have a responsibility of pressuring them into resisting the policies favoring the ruling class.
first of all, before this thread is squeezed off the side of the screen, let me say its been fun exploring this with you.
-"What is the guarantee that the Greens won't be corrupt?"
None. no guarantees. It is possible that another party, taking the place of, say the Republicans, could be just as counterproductive to the average citizen. I know we are not going to agree on the inside/outside the Dems argument for progressives, I'm just trying to bring into relief, contradictions I see in your convictions.
I see you are coming from your own unique history with the Greens, and Dems. For my part, I am looking for signs of compassion/courage/reason in American politics. I would be happy to see it coming from any quarter.
jlocke123, thanks for answering and clarifying. Believe me, I ask myself that question a lot. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the Greens vs Dems. I get a lot of diverse feedback here that I will probably ponder as we approach the midterm and then 2012. I don't see any third party in gear on the presidential level and third party growth is scarce even for midterm elections and that discourages me because I assume that this status means that voting for them is a wasted vote. I hope the Green Party is powered up by 2012 if not this year so that I can cosider voting Green.
Peace
Some of the greatest risks in life are simply not taking them. You will not know if the risk was worth it until you actually take that chance. In case you haven't noticed, the Democratic Party is not only more expensive to repair than trying out a new progressive party but it is totally broken beyond repair. The public is ready for change but they have been hoodwinked into voting for what looked like "change" only to find out that it's more status quo. The responsibilities of regular citizens differs from that of politicians. Politicians have a higher degree of responsibility and they have more power than most of their citizens combined. We can put in our progressive efforts and beg politicians to listen but we the people paid our politicians money in the form of taxes to exercise their responsibilities for the people and not the special interests. You cannot defend irresponsible behavior of the politicians by laying blame on the voters. To do so is the worst form of conservatism and supporting the status quo.
I'll stick to taking my chances fixing the Democratic Party until I am convinced that it is broken beyond repair.
You sound like you won't support John Marty because he is a Dem.
If the Greens won't support him I don't think they will be a force for good Health Care.
Who Is the Green candidate?
--------
Later:
Now I see you would welcome progress from any side.... Good.
Never Mind
Is this question for me? This thread is a little long
-"If the Greens won't support him I don't think they will be a force for good Health Care."
To answer your questions, the best thing I can do is explain how it operates in the democracies I know of, and how non-US, (real) democracy works.
In a real democracy, it is ludicrous to ask if (for example) the Greens will support Marty(a Dem). Obviously if Greens wanted to support another party, they would JOIN that other party, and cease being Dems. This is how it works in real(non US) democracy.
I don't know all the local Green candidates in the US, but I would hazard a guess that they were probably against the illegal Iraq invasion, support civil rights, are in favour of green jobs, don't like torture, want to democratize the first past the post election system, would vote for single payer...am I far off?
Right, and I would only add, if the Greens only support Greens, they won't win any elections.
-"they won't win any elections."
they obviously haven't won any major ones in the US.
As I understand it though. Politics is about bringing people along with you to what you think is the right way to go.
I can see which way the Dems are going:(in no particular order)bank bailouts, torture, "clean" coal, new nuclear weapons, "not so robust" public option...maybe
It seems to me that people who believe in peace, reducing (in the US) rediculous gap between the rich and the poor, enforcing war crimes laws, etc, have a strong case to make to the American people.
The people, parties, movements that support these things, they don't include the Democratic party, obviously. It should be possible to rally people to an entity like the Green party, and make those dreams a reality. How to do it? That is up to Americans obviously. I'm just pointing out that the conventional thinking, what Americans have been using, to choose the same two parties over and over, isn't getting you any "progress"
Yes, It would be nice to believe a 3rd party could win, even locally, but this winner take all system in America has evolved and is culturally entrenched at every level in every city and small town.
If third parties realized that progress can be made within reality and worked with other parties and coalitions to grow the movement for Peace and Justice, I would be more optimistic.
I believe It is harder for the left to organize for many reasons and a big one is because the right knows that in politics when you have to explain things you are losing.
Actually "a 3rd party" doesn't even have to win. I myself rarely vote for a winning party(I'm usually ahead of the curve I guess). I vote for people that make the government do what I want it to do. They can do that in "opposition". Opposition is found in healthy democracies. America's toxic form of "bipartisanship" is at odds with the concept of opposition.
And you can't use "winner take all" as an excuse. There are successful democracies that use first past the post, and don't have the "duopoly" problem you have.
If the electoral college were abolished or reformed where each state does proportional representation like ME and NE, then third parties will have a chance.
thanks for your post. hope you are a minnesota voter. if minnesotans are given a chance to know who john marty is, he could actually win. keep trying to spread the word far and wide... peace.
I live near that Bachmann trash district but Marty has some popularity even there.
Ok. I'm from MN, and I've heard about Mr. Marty. I'll check him out further and even work for him IF I'm convinced that this isn't just another ploy by some phony Progressive.
For the last few years in MN we've tried unsuccessfully to get a law passed that would create a statewide pool of educators to even out our insurance costs. Did it pass? No way. Good luck with your proposal, Mr. Marty.
It takes a lot of efforts to get good legislation passed. Marty needs more support and it is our responsibility as MN voters to make our support loud and clear to give him the encouragement and confidence to succeed.
Well said, Shawn! Kindly remember, people, that MN has been "working with" an obstructionist Governor for 6 years, whose motto is "my way or the highway." It is nigh-unto impossible to get anything accomplished in that atmosphere. John Marty would be a very different kind of Governor - a breath of fresh air, and one our state needs desperately bad!!
Go John Marty... a man that not only will speak truth to power, but also has the political courage to actually do something. I live in southeast MN and am a Marty supporter. My feeling is that once again, the metro areas will have their way and try to elect the one that they think is "most electable"... Hasn't worked in many years. Let's all have the courage of our convictions & vote for the one that truly represents the interests of the people, not lobbyists or corporations.
Full disclosure for all readers and posters who are not from Minnesota. Tonight we have our Precinct Caucuses, complete with straw polls for the gubernatorial candidates. (12 or more Dems are running.)
Consider Mr. Marty's timing on this "Letter to the President." Might this not just be another ploy to bring potential progressive defectors back into the DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) Party fold? Remember, presenting oneself as farther to the Left (or Right) a VERY old trick.
Marty is the real deal - he wrote and has been pushing his health care policy for many years. He is also a supporter/author of the Marriage Equality bill in MN. He is not a fly-by-night candidate by any means - he is calm, steady, progressive, fair-minded, able to work effectively with both sides of the aisle, and true to his beliefs. I have been very conflicted about who to caucus for, having many friends who are running for Governor - but after listening to several DFL debates in the last week, have decided to go with my first choice - John Marty. He truly would make the best Governor for MN.
Bite me! Marty IS a progressive. What the hell do you think his single-payer plan is? An elaborate hoax? You shouldn't make malicious speculations about things you obviously know nothing about!
Besides, the caucuses are not an either-or proposition. Voting for the most progressive Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the caucuses in no way precludes you from supporting an even-more progressive independent candidate (if there is one), or voting for that candidate in the general election.
If you live in Minnesota, you should vote for John Marty TONIGHT, Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 7:000 p.m. You DO NOT have to be a registered Democrat to vote.
For locations:
http://www.dfl.org/
this is one ethical guy. he's not one for ploys or tricks. he's the real deal. what you see is what you get. he doesn't have to hide, pretend, or wonder which group of voters he is talking to. he's been re-elected in his conservative district for many years. the folks don't always agree with him, but they do trust him to do what is best for the people. how would you run against that? so they keep him :)
It's not a "conservative district."
Even in Bachmann's district, he's getting some unexpected support even from the right wing nuts.
Marty represents a metro area district.
i guess shoreview is one district in the metro area... just saying we keep trying to elect the sizzle & not the substance.
Obviously, we have the wrong president. The masters of the universe pulled “the hand is quicker than the eye” on us, and we ended up with a snake in the grass. We better act fast before the masters get the SC plan in the game. Otherwise we will have to wait until China acts for us. Either way the fork tongues are on their way to the dustbin, where they can crawl on their belly like a reptile.
It's a shame that Obama's town halls are 100% staged. Imagine a real town hall where Obama was confronted with a letter like this and asked did you read this letter, Mr. President? You asked for suggestions. What is wrong with this suggestion? Of course, Obama will go into his usual BS about "starting from scratch," but the letter would be out there for all to hear on national television. Nice fantasy, huh?
Marty is right about what would happen in November 2010 if Obama were to listen to him, but it won't happen. Of course, Obama would have to get out there in major bully pulpit style, surrounded by docs and nurses who have been shut out (and arrested) and explain single-payer to the nation, something that he would never be able to bring himself to do.
Fascist thy name is Obama.
I think you need to look up the meaning of "fascism".