Obama is unable to say the words “single-payer health care.”
Some of you reading this are saying, “Yeah? So? What’s that, anyway … single-payer health care?” Well, simply put, its a health care system very similar to the Canadian system. It’s pretty much the same as HR 676, sponsored by John Conyers in Congress and it’s a lot like like the new bill (S.703) put forward by Senator Bernie Sanders. Basically, its new and improved Medicare for all.
Imagine there’s no HMO-style delivery system sitting right smack in the middle of your health care dollar, siphoning off 25-35% of your premium! The savings would be intense, as you might imagine. Imagine also that doctors are able to just treat you without ever having to wonder what level of care your insurance company will allow them to employ. Imagine that there are no forms to fill out and that you can go anywhere you like to seek treatment without any co-pays.
What’s the trick? No trick. I went to school in Canada and have ex-pat relatives who live there and the Canadian system is absolutely amazing. I could relate personal anecdotes all day about how terrible the American health care system can be and how great the Canadian system can be by comparison but, for the moment, lets just stick to the objective part of the equation.
It costs Canadians about $5200 per person for their single-payer health care system and this is about $2700 less per person than we will spend this year, per capita, in the United States. This means that we already spend more than enough to cover everybody. That’s the dirty little secret of corporate health care propaganda. It would actually be cheaper to cover everybody. Canadians also live a full year longer than we do. That’s another dirty little secret. You can do the math.
If, as the Rush Limbaugh crowd would attest, our new president is such a “socialist”, I have to wonder why he is not trumpeting this (seemingly, Communist) conspiracy that would make us all healthy while saving us money? Why are Democratic apologists falling all over each other trying to explain to us about “political feasibility” and achieving “the possible”.
“After all”, they say, “the guy’s only been in office for a few months. Give him a break. He’s got to work on these things one small step at a time.” He is currently advocating a forced HMO plan that would be no more effective or affordable than asking Dow Chemical to grow our food and his party is telling us he has a plan.
You’d think that this guy who just land-slided the election on a campaign of hope and change would be a far better strategist than these apologists are claiming. He just told his supporters that we are in desperate economic straits and that he would need to print several trillion dollars and give it out to people (mostly to people other than those who are actually hurting) and … everyone is actually buying it! They say, “Well, he’s got to do something, right?” Congress debates for about fourteen minutes and then says, “Okay, Barack. We trust you. You got to do what you got to do.”
We all know that Obama is riding a very short wave. It will end soon and now is probably the only time during his first four years that he might be able to approach congress with something this important and actually expect to get it passed. Even so, he’s pulling a Hillary Clinton on us instead and everyone seems to be buying it!
If Obama was really a socially-conscious guy, he would go on TV tomorrow and he would say, “Almost 20,000 Americans are dying every year because they lack access to health care and I can’t stand it anymore! Not on my watch! It’s a crisis and I’m going to fix it. I have a plan and it will save us money and it will also cover everyone. Similar models are being used in dozens of other countries around the world and it would simply be stupid not to follow their lead just because the HMO lobbies tell us we have to.”
But, he’s not going to do this and I don’t actually blame him. I blame you, the Obama voter. It’s your fault. You voted for him and you did so in a safe state where it made no difference at all. I told you he didn’t have a progressive bone in his body and you said, “That’s okay, Matt. We’ll hold his feet to the fire. Look at the movement! Look at all the young people! Look at all the excitement Obama generates.”
I’ll believe the “feet to the fire” rhetoric works when I see some evidence of it. Go ahead and pressure him like you all said you would. Please prove me wrong! I would really, honestly, love for you to do so. Please do so! Every day that you wait, about 50 more Americans will die. That’s more than six 9/11’s every year and you could prevent them all by simply making good on your campaign promise.
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
That's My Girl! (An Essay On the Two-Party System by My Daughter)
The Two-Party System in the United States
There are many things about the United States government that are easily criticized; the healthcare system, war, and taxation are all very good examples of controversial issues in political society today. Although each of these topics exemplifies what is wrong with the government, the two-party system is the apex of a failing political machine. This machine is corrupt and misleading and has made the American people ignorant. The two-party Democrat and Republican system is wrong because it is destructive to the democratic ideals that the United States was built on and neglects the welfare of the citizens. The two-party system employs candidates who are driven primarily by special interest groups and lobbyists, smothers all possibilities for other parties in the voting process, and will eventually lead to a dictatorship-like one party system, all of which will demolish democracy in the U.S.
The primary negative characteristic of the two-party arrangement is that it has evolved into a system that exists solely to support special interest groups and lobbyists who do not hold the welfare of the people in high regard. The Republican and Democrat Parties are well-known for choosing big business and oil companies over the American people in congressional history. The Bush administration repeatedly turned down proposals to tax the oil companies during a time of petroleum prosperity, while Bill Clinton sold out to the healthcare industry multiple times at the expense of the American people during the nineties. No t to say that a candidate running for office should not have certain motives and groups of interest that they support; the real issue is whether or not they are going to support the groups that employ the best standards for American success and well-being. Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobil are not the types of businesses that support these ideals but are very popular throughout the two-party Congress. The two parties nominate candidates who are unconcerned with serving the people; unless, of course, those people are signing the checks every month to ensure that their corporate stocks are strong.
Barack Obama, presidential hopeful for the 2008 campaign, has reportedly received large campaign funds and endorsements from major insurance companies who recently faced a cataclysmic economic crash that had the country in a panic. Coincidentally, Obama voted for a federally funded corporate bailout of these companies. Giving billions of dollars to agencies that already receive ludicrous tax breaks and federal monetary support would seem a little insane to the average human. After recognizing that Obama was funded by these companies, it makes perfect sense that he would bail them out. One might ask why a company that already receives special federal treatment deserves a bailout when there are several other important issues that need funding. Major corporations do not deserve the money and the American people do not deserve this type of mistreatment. These decisions are being made by chosen officials from one of the two parties and the relationships that those officials have with big business and major corporations. However, it is the American people who elect these officials into office and therefore are contributing to the country's demise.
The second damaging characteristic of the two-party system is that the Democrat and Republican parties have monopolized the voting process and make it impossible for other parties/candidates with a wider range of views to have a stand in the elections. Many Americans believe that either a Democrat or Republican will win the presidency or seat in the Senate regardless of any other party's candidates. If one does not believe in either of the two candidates, he or she is practically forced to withdraw from voting because there simply is no other option. In reality, this is not true and there are several other parties in addition to the two previously stated that are trying to make themselves known in society today. The U.S. was built on democratic ideals that give the power to the people in a free electoral system. One can infer that a free electoral system would allow for the voters to be fully exposed to all options made available to them in every single election. Anything that compromises this privilege to the citizens of the United States is violating the constitutional values that used to make this country so respectable.
Why is it that Ralph Nader, candidate for President from the Independent Party, has been denied entry several times into the political debates despite the fact that he is on the voting ballots in forty-five states? The Republican and Democrat parties do not want the citizens knowing that they have other options in addition to the salt and pepper standards that have been handed to them. A little paprika would not hurt anyone and is almost guaranteed to make the citizens happy (remember Perot?). If the American people were even aware that they could actually vote for someone who held the same values as they do, they would be shocked at how the principles of democracy have been sacrificed for corruption. This lack of knowledge just further empowers the damaging capabilities of the two-party system.
Finally if one of the two parties becomes weaker than the other, there is the potential for the American government becoming one-party dominant. This is essentially the same thing that happened when the Democrat and Republican parties overthrew the other parties over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The parties competing against the Republican and Democrats were not resorting to lobbyists or strong business corporations for monetary support and campaigning purposes and eventually lost the power to run in the elections. If the United States becomes a one-party dominant system, the country will have finally reached the zenith of governmental corruption. Congress, if it even exists anymore at that point, will most likely attempt to distract the citizens by holding elections between two candidates from the same party. Doing so would be completely ineffective and pointless, but if the American people can fall for this two-party system, then Congress can definitely divert the citizen's attention for a few more years. It is only a matter of time before one of the two parties surpasses the other in strength, money and ultimately, power.
Some might argue that the two-party system works because it is stable and predictable. Besides the fact that this statement is completely false and a product of the brainwashing mechanisms used by the current administration, predictability is not something the American people need. When the citizens become less ignorant and realize that they have been swindled into thinking that they are being fairly represented, there will no longer be any 'stability'. If the kind of stability these adversaries are talking about is the kind that is built upon lies and half-truths, then the elected dictatorship that exists now is more stable than anything before. In order to achieve stability, the people of the United States need to have their blindfolds removed and given the chance to explore other possibilities for the future of their country before the wobbly foundation they are standing on crumbles.
It is apparent that the system today is flawed beyond comprehension and is corrupt in several different ways. Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'Republicrat' regime today is that it is functioning at the expense of the hard-working people of the United States and is plainly doing them an injustice by not offering them what was promised: Democracy. The citizens do not realize that they could have more options that would provide for a strong government with ideals based on popular opinion instead of one-sided and selfish principles. The United States needs to lose two-party politics and open the door to the possibility of an elected president that is actually wanted by the people. Once this democracy has been restored, the country will flourish, the people will finally be satisfied, and the nation can move forward in a positive direction as one unit. The country simply cannot handle another president that was elected because the voter felt limited in their selection and made the decision based on the lesser of two evils.
There are many things about the United States government that are easily criticized; the healthcare system, war, and taxation are all very good examples of controversial issues in political society today. Although each of these topics exemplifies what is wrong with the government, the two-party system is the apex of a failing political machine. This machine is corrupt and misleading and has made the American people ignorant. The two-party Democrat and Republican system is wrong because it is destructive to the democratic ideals that the United States was built on and neglects the welfare of the citizens. The two-party system employs candidates who are driven primarily by special interest groups and lobbyists, smothers all possibilities for other parties in the voting process, and will eventually lead to a dictatorship-like one party system, all of which will demolish democracy in the U.S.
The primary negative characteristic of the two-party arrangement is that it has evolved into a system that exists solely to support special interest groups and lobbyists who do not hold the welfare of the people in high regard. The Republican and Democrat Parties are well-known for choosing big business and oil companies over the American people in congressional history. The Bush administration repeatedly turned down proposals to tax the oil companies during a time of petroleum prosperity, while Bill Clinton sold out to the healthcare industry multiple times at the expense of the American people during the nineties. No t to say that a candidate running for office should not have certain motives and groups of interest that they support; the real issue is whether or not they are going to support the groups that employ the best standards for American success and well-being. Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobil are not the types of businesses that support these ideals but are very popular throughout the two-party Congress. The two parties nominate candidates who are unconcerned with serving the people; unless, of course, those people are signing the checks every month to ensure that their corporate stocks are strong.
Barack Obama, presidential hopeful for the 2008 campaign, has reportedly received large campaign funds and endorsements from major insurance companies who recently faced a cataclysmic economic crash that had the country in a panic. Coincidentally, Obama voted for a federally funded corporate bailout of these companies. Giving billions of dollars to agencies that already receive ludicrous tax breaks and federal monetary support would seem a little insane to the average human. After recognizing that Obama was funded by these companies, it makes perfect sense that he would bail them out. One might ask why a company that already receives special federal treatment deserves a bailout when there are several other important issues that need funding. Major corporations do not deserve the money and the American people do not deserve this type of mistreatment. These decisions are being made by chosen officials from one of the two parties and the relationships that those officials have with big business and major corporations. However, it is the American people who elect these officials into office and therefore are contributing to the country's demise.
The second damaging characteristic of the two-party system is that the Democrat and Republican parties have monopolized the voting process and make it impossible for other parties/candidates with a wider range of views to have a stand in the elections. Many Americans believe that either a Democrat or Republican will win the presidency or seat in the Senate regardless of any other party's candidates. If one does not believe in either of the two candidates, he or she is practically forced to withdraw from voting because there simply is no other option. In reality, this is not true and there are several other parties in addition to the two previously stated that are trying to make themselves known in society today. The U.S. was built on democratic ideals that give the power to the people in a free electoral system. One can infer that a free electoral system would allow for the voters to be fully exposed to all options made available to them in every single election. Anything that compromises this privilege to the citizens of the United States is violating the constitutional values that used to make this country so respectable.
Why is it that Ralph Nader, candidate for President from the Independent Party, has been denied entry several times into the political debates despite the fact that he is on the voting ballots in forty-five states? The Republican and Democrat parties do not want the citizens knowing that they have other options in addition to the salt and pepper standards that have been handed to them. A little paprika would not hurt anyone and is almost guaranteed to make the citizens happy (remember Perot?). If the American people were even aware that they could actually vote for someone who held the same values as they do, they would be shocked at how the principles of democracy have been sacrificed for corruption. This lack of knowledge just further empowers the damaging capabilities of the two-party system.
Finally if one of the two parties becomes weaker than the other, there is the potential for the American government becoming one-party dominant. This is essentially the same thing that happened when the Democrat and Republican parties overthrew the other parties over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The parties competing against the Republican and Democrats were not resorting to lobbyists or strong business corporations for monetary support and campaigning purposes and eventually lost the power to run in the elections. If the United States becomes a one-party dominant system, the country will have finally reached the zenith of governmental corruption. Congress, if it even exists anymore at that point, will most likely attempt to distract the citizens by holding elections between two candidates from the same party. Doing so would be completely ineffective and pointless, but if the American people can fall for this two-party system, then Congress can definitely divert the citizen's attention for a few more years. It is only a matter of time before one of the two parties surpasses the other in strength, money and ultimately, power.
Some might argue that the two-party system works because it is stable and predictable. Besides the fact that this statement is completely false and a product of the brainwashing mechanisms used by the current administration, predictability is not something the American people need. When the citizens become less ignorant and realize that they have been swindled into thinking that they are being fairly represented, there will no longer be any 'stability'. If the kind of stability these adversaries are talking about is the kind that is built upon lies and half-truths, then the elected dictatorship that exists now is more stable than anything before. In order to achieve stability, the people of the United States need to have their blindfolds removed and given the chance to explore other possibilities for the future of their country before the wobbly foundation they are standing on crumbles.
It is apparent that the system today is flawed beyond comprehension and is corrupt in several different ways. Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'Republicrat' regime today is that it is functioning at the expense of the hard-working people of the United States and is plainly doing them an injustice by not offering them what was promised: Democracy. The citizens do not realize that they could have more options that would provide for a strong government with ideals based on popular opinion instead of one-sided and selfish principles. The United States needs to lose two-party politics and open the door to the possibility of an elected president that is actually wanted by the people. Once this democracy has been restored, the country will flourish, the people will finally be satisfied, and the nation can move forward in a positive direction as one unit. The country simply cannot handle another president that was elected because the voter felt limited in their selection and made the decision based on the lesser of two evils.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
My Speech at Single-Payer Health Care Rally in Albany
My name is Matt Funiciello. I am a small business owner here in the state of NY. I own a wholesale bread bakery in Moreau, N.Y. and we employ about 40 people. As wheat prices have tripled, we have had to struggle to find new ways to make ends meet. We had been purchasing terrible overpriced HMO insurance for those of our workers who chose to participate and we had been paying approximately 50% of the premiums.
Several months ago, we were forced to cancel our participation in said plan leaving our workers to find coverage elsewhere or do without. Some are lucky enough to have a spouse whose employer is better able to cover these expenses. Some are simply going without and some are trying to buy insurance on their own and now paying more because they are buying insurance as individuals and are not able to benefit from group purchasing.
I would just think of this as a hard time, a time we'll all eventually pass through but I find it very hard to do that. You see, I grew up in Canada and have lived under the care of a real health care system so I find it very hard to watch my children, my friends and my workers struggle on without something so vital as adequate and affordable access to doctors and health care. Being fully aware that greed and waste are what make their suffering possible is a terrible cross to bear.
Senator Charles Schumer said the other day, "Healthcare, I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan."
Schumer is not the first elected official to question our readiness for national health care. He and many others seem unable to comprehend the simple math that allows those of in small business to understand what they cannot.
Lets play the Single-Payer/Small Business Math Game for just a second ...
We are currently spending $7,129 dollars per person to cover 257,000,000 Americans badly.
This costs about $1.832 trillion dollars a year.
Now, over 30 other industrialized nations have universal health care and it costs them all about half of that amount per capita with universal coverage.
Lets take off our politician's hats for a moment and put on our Small Business Owner's hats instead.
$1.832 trillion dollars divided by 304,000,000 Americans equals $6027 dollars per person.
So, for all of you non-politicians out there who are able to do simple math, we just took the current amount actually being spent on health care in this country and divided it by the number of people who actually live here and ... the result? We see that everyone in this country could be covered for the exact same amount being spent today if we were just able to lower our per capita
costs from $7129 to $6027 per person, a difference of just over $1,100 dollars.
costs from $7129 to $6027 per person, a difference of just over $1,100 dollars.
Well, is that possible? Could we do it? Lets keep our small business owner's hats on for just another minute and speak plainly about this dilemma. Where can we find and save this $1100 dollars per person that would allow us to cover everyone?
I bet many of you non-politicians already know the answer. We currently suffer under a system that allows for profit and administrative costs that run as high as 35%! If we could bring those costs down, that would be great, because together they amount to almost $2500 dollars per year per person! I remind you ... we only needed to save $1100 to achieve the desired result, full coverage for all!
Now, if Canadians and 35 other industrialized countries can all have health care for half of what we spend and live a year longer, why can't we? Its sure as heck not because of a lack of money being thrown at this problem.
And, if Medicare can run effectively with only a 2-3% administrative costs, why can't the private sector? I thought it was more efficient to privatize things? Apparently, its not and we need to do that other thing business does well, centralize and negotiate pricing.
Its time for our elected officials to stop telling us lies. We already spend far more than any other country does for universal care. It is time for single payer health care now! It is also time to withhold your votes from any politician who refuses to step up to the plate and hit this ball out of the park. We're virtually lobbing it to you. If you can't hit it, then lets have someone else step up to the plate who can!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Crash of the Democratic Party
A Great Piece From the Progressive Review
THE CRASH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY Sam Smith
If the latest Washington Post poll proves accurate, the Democratic Party as a serious alternative to the GOP is finished. It is not just that a perennially dissembling and once almost prosecuted candidate came in miles ahead of Barrack Obama and John Edwards. The real tragedy is to be found in the reasons respondents gave for their support.
For example, Democrats favored Hillary Clinton to deal with health care by a two to one margin over Obama and Edwards combined - an absurd judgment given her previous health care legislation that was laughably incompetent and confusing as she attempted to conceal its gifts to the insurance industry. There are only two possible explanations for such a masochistic choice: deep denial or deep ignorance and they probably both play a role.
57% of Democrats said HR Clinton has the best chance of being elected even though current polling has all three front runners coming out about the same. For example, the heavily pro-Clinton Washington Post headlined her 8 point lead over Giuliani without mentioning that Edwards had scored a 9 point lead in another recent poll.
Further, Clinton's supposed electability is based on the assumption that the GOP will not mention all the dirty laundry in HRC's past - including matters now hidden in Justice Department files. The Republican strategy - which the media has given great aid and comfort - is to keep quiet until the Democrats are irretrievably in the Clinton trap. In fact, some on the right are already having a hard time hiding their enthusiasm: Matt Drudge featured Clinton's wipe out lead in the Post poll with big type and red ink and George Bush is even sending her advice on how to handle Iraq.
By 52% to 39% Clinton beats both Obama and Edwards as the one best able to deal with Iraq, even though she is clearly the one with the worst record of doing so this far.
By the same margin, she is the one who Democrats think best represent the core values of the party. This may be tragically true in contemporary terms, but before her husband took office the party had dramatically different - and better - values.
The only First Lady ever to face possible criminal indictment even farcically leads the others as the one best able to deal with corruption in Washington.
And worst of all, not only is she considered more inspiring than Obama and Edwards but she is considered more trustworthy.
This is a party that doesn't need a candidate; it desperately needs a therapist.
If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination it will be the end of the modern Democratic Party - the period of both its greatness and its popularity. Her husband began the serious dismantling of the party - particularly its commitment to social democracy - and produced for it the greatest loss of elected offices under an incumbent president since Grover Cleveland.
Hilary Clinton will complete the job. If she wins the nomination there will no longer be a real Democratic Party; it will be reduced a subculture of de facto Republicans who support abortion and affirmative action.
Just look at those round her: there isn't one major figure directly involved in her campaign who represents the spirit or the substance of a decent and progressive Democratic Party. It is a cadre of cynical manipulators and fund raisers with dubious pals.
This incredible destruction of the party took place in less than two decades, in part thanks to a number of factors beyond the Clintons:
- The rise of the delusional myths of neo-robber baron capitalism that, among other things, taught voters to choose between competing political CEOs rather than among real issues.
- The trivialization of politics by television and other media in which the future of our nation and our planet was reduced to just another game show or daytime serial.
- A sycophantic Washington press corps that brazenly boosted those politicians with whom it felt socially and culturally most compatible. The media has repeatedly covered up for the Clinton, most recently by failing to inform its audience of HRC's sordid past.
- The stunningly incompetent handling of Congress by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
- The underlying force driving many Democrats in office: fear. Fear of the Christian right, fear of seeming weak, fear of Karl Rove and so forth. By their words they try desperately to seem not afraid, but by these same actions they confirm the critics' view that they are cowards.
But the Clintons played a major part as well, primarily because they have been the preeminent political con artists of modern times.
The Clintons belong to a long American tradition of snake oil salesmen, road gamblers and fake evangelical prophets. The thing these all had in common: those they purported to help or deal fairly with invariably came out the short end. With card sharks or door to door hustlers, the culture suffered but did not shake. But the Clinton as the first of the disreputable breed to actually run the country.
Bill Clinton at least came by his skill naturally. When Bill Clinton is 7, his family moved from Hope, Arkansas, to the long-time mob resort of Hot Springs, AR. Here Al Capone was said to have had permanent rights to suite 443 of the Arlington Hotel. Clinton's stepfather was a gun-brandishing alcoholic who lost his Buick franchise through mismanagement and his own pilfering. His mother was a heavy gambler with mob ties. According to FBI and local police officials, his Uncle Raymond -- to whom young Bill turned for wisdom and support -- was a colorful car dealer, slot machine owner and gambling operator, who thrived (except when his house was firebombed) on the fault line of criminality.
The media forgot to tell you this, but knowing it helps one understand why Bill Clinton is such a better con artist than his wife and why Hillary Clinton constantly gets caught in petty dishonesties, cheap machinations and artificial cackles. It wasn't natural; she had to learn the trade from Bill.
Now, one could go on for 500 more pages on this topic but here's the problem: hardly any of those Democrats who think HR Clinton is the most honest of the major candidates would absorb the information and alter their opinion because the Democratic Party has transformed itself from a political organization into a sort of EST for political junkies.
So it looks like it may be over. Yes, an unanticipated scandal could still emerge. The good people of Iowa and New Hampshire could take the Democratic Party back. HR Clinton might move from embarrassing cackles to indefensible contortions.
But if nothing major happens, you can say good bye to the modern Democratic Party the day that HR Clinton is nominated. You will then be faced not with a choice, but a threat - not unlike one from the capo who tells you: stick with us and your friends and family will be safer and we won't take as much from you as the other mob. This isn't politics; it's thuggery. And that's what our politics have become
If the latest Washington Post poll proves accurate, the Democratic Party as a serious alternative to the GOP is finished. It is not just that a perennially dissembling and once almost prosecuted candidate came in miles ahead of Barrack Obama and John Edwards. The real tragedy is to be found in the reasons respondents gave for their support.
For example, Democrats favored Hillary Clinton to deal with health care by a two to one margin over Obama and Edwards combined - an absurd judgment given her previous health care legislation that was laughably incompetent and confusing as she attempted to conceal its gifts to the insurance industry. There are only two possible explanations for such a masochistic choice: deep denial or deep ignorance and they probably both play a role.
57% of Democrats said HR Clinton has the best chance of being elected even though current polling has all three front runners coming out about the same. For example, the heavily pro-Clinton Washington Post headlined her 8 point lead over Giuliani without mentioning that Edwards had scored a 9 point lead in another recent poll.
Further, Clinton's supposed electability is based on the assumption that the GOP will not mention all the dirty laundry in HRC's past - including matters now hidden in Justice Department files. The Republican strategy - which the media has given great aid and comfort - is to keep quiet until the Democrats are irretrievably in the Clinton trap. In fact, some on the right are already having a hard time hiding their enthusiasm: Matt Drudge featured Clinton's wipe out lead in the Post poll with big type and red ink and George Bush is even sending her advice on how to handle Iraq.
By 52% to 39% Clinton beats both Obama and Edwards as the one best able to deal with Iraq, even though she is clearly the one with the worst record of doing so this far.
By the same margin, she is the one who Democrats think best represent the core values of the party. This may be tragically true in contemporary terms, but before her husband took office the party had dramatically different - and better - values.
The only First Lady ever to face possible criminal indictment even farcically leads the others as the one best able to deal with corruption in Washington.
And worst of all, not only is she considered more inspiring than Obama and Edwards but she is considered more trustworthy.
This is a party that doesn't need a candidate; it desperately needs a therapist.
If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination it will be the end of the modern Democratic Party - the period of both its greatness and its popularity. Her husband began the serious dismantling of the party - particularly its commitment to social democracy - and produced for it the greatest loss of elected offices under an incumbent president since Grover Cleveland.
Hilary Clinton will complete the job. If she wins the nomination there will no longer be a real Democratic Party; it will be reduced a subculture of de facto Republicans who support abortion and affirmative action.
Just look at those round her: there isn't one major figure directly involved in her campaign who represents the spirit or the substance of a decent and progressive Democratic Party. It is a cadre of cynical manipulators and fund raisers with dubious pals.
This incredible destruction of the party took place in less than two decades, in part thanks to a number of factors beyond the Clintons:
- The rise of the delusional myths of neo-robber baron capitalism that, among other things, taught voters to choose between competing political CEOs rather than among real issues.
- The trivialization of politics by television and other media in which the future of our nation and our planet was reduced to just another game show or daytime serial.
- A sycophantic Washington press corps that brazenly boosted those politicians with whom it felt socially and culturally most compatible. The media has repeatedly covered up for the Clinton, most recently by failing to inform its audience of HRC's sordid past.
- The stunningly incompetent handling of Congress by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
- The underlying force driving many Democrats in office: fear. Fear of the Christian right, fear of seeming weak, fear of Karl Rove and so forth. By their words they try desperately to seem not afraid, but by these same actions they confirm the critics' view that they are cowards.
But the Clintons played a major part as well, primarily because they have been the preeminent political con artists of modern times.
The Clintons belong to a long American tradition of snake oil salesmen, road gamblers and fake evangelical prophets. The thing these all had in common: those they purported to help or deal fairly with invariably came out the short end. With card sharks or door to door hustlers, the culture suffered but did not shake. But the Clinton as the first of the disreputable breed to actually run the country.
Bill Clinton at least came by his skill naturally. When Bill Clinton is 7, his family moved from Hope, Arkansas, to the long-time mob resort of Hot Springs, AR. Here Al Capone was said to have had permanent rights to suite 443 of the Arlington Hotel. Clinton's stepfather was a gun-brandishing alcoholic who lost his Buick franchise through mismanagement and his own pilfering. His mother was a heavy gambler with mob ties. According to FBI and local police officials, his Uncle Raymond -- to whom young Bill turned for wisdom and support -- was a colorful car dealer, slot machine owner and gambling operator, who thrived (except when his house was firebombed) on the fault line of criminality.
The media forgot to tell you this, but knowing it helps one understand why Bill Clinton is such a better con artist than his wife and why Hillary Clinton constantly gets caught in petty dishonesties, cheap machinations and artificial cackles. It wasn't natural; she had to learn the trade from Bill.
Now, one could go on for 500 more pages on this topic but here's the problem: hardly any of those Democrats who think HR Clinton is the most honest of the major candidates would absorb the information and alter their opinion because the Democratic Party has transformed itself from a political organization into a sort of EST for political junkies.
So it looks like it may be over. Yes, an unanticipated scandal could still emerge. The good people of Iowa and New Hampshire could take the Democratic Party back. HR Clinton might move from embarrassing cackles to indefensible contortions.
But if nothing major happens, you can say good bye to the modern Democratic Party the day that HR Clinton is nominated. You will then be faced not with a choice, but a threat - not unlike one from the capo who tells you: stick with us and your friends and family will be safer and we won't take as much from you as the other mob. This isn't politics; it's thuggery. And that's what our politics have become
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Making Nice With the Fascist Scum
I grew up in Canada but spent summers down here. My parents were both peace activist during Vietnam (my father is also a veteran). I would say that I grew up with Democratic ideals. As such, I voted for Clinton in 1992 as my first national vote stateside. I saw the "NAFTA/Health Care/Bomb Iraq Shell Game", saw the light and have voted for Nader and Greens and independents ever since. Why? Because I read and I have basic analytical skills.
While I recognize that most Americans don't read and that many are seriously challenged when it comes to matters that require critical thinking, I fail to see any benefit in having people active within our party who aren't really third party and who don't really understand what we're trying to do. These confused people who enter in and out of the Green Party periphery don't understand why we're here and I don't see the point in having them around. Are they useful and productive?
We really have to fight to change things. A few extra sheeple who've been recruited but who "never really drank the koolaid" are just a hindrance. they should never be viewed as an asset. When a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or an independent realizes that joining the Green party is the only answer, thats GREAT! That person will stick with it because they arrived at this conclusion on their own and are smart enough to understand the underlying necessity in what it is we are trying to do.
Democrats, by virtue of their party registration alone, are not smart enough to understand this basic premise. As such, you can't expect these "recruits" you're worried about to be loyal and you can't expect them to do things that make sense from a third party perspective. They don;t have one. They're Democrats! I see no benefit in gaining warm bodies, Hillary, if the minds that come with them are brainwashed and malfunctioning.
As long as there are Republicans, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex will rein and we will have war for profit. As long as there are Democrats, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex will rein and we will have war for profit. We can't be nice to Dems by exaggerating their importance to us. Instead, be compassionate and peaceful to those amongst them (as I am). Help them doubt their party leadership by telling them the truth and plying them with good books and Green thoughts.
BUT, also be honest with them that we feel there party is EQUALLY responsible for Iraq, no health care, poverty, corporate control and all the rest of the world's ills. My "making nice" simply involves telling Dems that while they may not personally be fascists, their PARTY sure as hell is!
Friday, July 6, 2007
The Michael Moore Film Few Will See
I recently returned from Ontario where my mother had a Cochlear implant done compliments of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). The latest figures from the National Association of the Deaf state that these implants cost from $40,000 to $60,000 dollars in a U.S. hospital including follow up and diagnostic (Wikipedia says $45,000 to $75,000).
How much did my mother's implant cost her ...... ?
If you've seen the new Michael Moore film, "Sicko", you already know the answer. Not a single dime. In fact, my mother was going to complain about the $30 she had to pay for two prescriptions as she left the hospital but I stopped her.
The movie along with the surgery showed me was what the sad truth really is. My Canadian mother's taxes cover her health benefits, almost entirely, as there is very little that is not covered by the provincial health plan in any Canadian province. My mother lost all her hearing in her right ear in December of last year and, six months later, she has been diagnosed, treated, given surgery and is expected to be fully recovered in a few weeks. Thats about par with the waiting period in the U.S. for those who can afford the operation.
She paid a smaller percentage of her pay last year federally and provincially than I ever have since returning to the U.S. almost 20 years ago. I pay about 30% of my salary in taxes and she pays about the same.
I know how this is possible and its the one thing that I wish Moore's film would have focused on, why can't WE have great health care, too? How can we PAY for it?
We need to start by voting for people who will cut Pentagon spending by small amounts. Ben Cohen has pointed out that if we just stripped the FAT (15%) from the Pentagon budget, we could fully fund education, give health care to all uninsured children and repair social security. If taking that 7.5 cents per tax dollar collected away from the military industrial complex would result in so much good, what would happen if we took away 15 cents or 30 cents???
Free health care for all, no starvation or homelessness, alternative energy research and production, free college for all, a living wage for all .......
Moore's film is great! Its shows the average American how flawed and corrupt our system is (I have a feeling we all already know that). But then, it gets truly powerful as it shows Joe Moviegoer the Utopian (by comparison) systems in France and Britain and Canada and Cuba. When put side by side with our immoral, greedy, evil, murderous system of health "care", eyes are opened that hopefully will stay that way. Go see it. The fact that "Sicko" is not getting the kind of press that "F911" got should show us that Moore is hitting a home run and TV's "silent" partners don't like it one bit.
How much did my mother's implant cost her ...... ?
If you've seen the new Michael Moore film, "Sicko", you already know the answer. Not a single dime. In fact, my mother was going to complain about the $30 she had to pay for two prescriptions as she left the hospital but I stopped her.
The movie along with the surgery showed me was what the sad truth really is. My Canadian mother's taxes cover her health benefits, almost entirely, as there is very little that is not covered by the provincial health plan in any Canadian province. My mother lost all her hearing in her right ear in December of last year and, six months later, she has been diagnosed, treated, given surgery and is expected to be fully recovered in a few weeks. Thats about par with the waiting period in the U.S. for those who can afford the operation.
She paid a smaller percentage of her pay last year federally and provincially than I ever have since returning to the U.S. almost 20 years ago. I pay about 30% of my salary in taxes and she pays about the same.
I know how this is possible and its the one thing that I wish Moore's film would have focused on, why can't WE have great health care, too? How can we PAY for it?
We need to start by voting for people who will cut Pentagon spending by small amounts. Ben Cohen has pointed out that if we just stripped the FAT (15%) from the Pentagon budget, we could fully fund education, give health care to all uninsured children and repair social security. If taking that 7.5 cents per tax dollar collected away from the military industrial complex would result in so much good, what would happen if we took away 15 cents or 30 cents???
Free health care for all, no starvation or homelessness, alternative energy research and production, free college for all, a living wage for all .......
Moore's film is great! Its shows the average American how flawed and corrupt our system is (I have a feeling we all already know that). But then, it gets truly powerful as it shows Joe Moviegoer the Utopian (by comparison) systems in France and Britain and Canada and Cuba. When put side by side with our immoral, greedy, evil, murderous system of health "care", eyes are opened that hopefully will stay that way. Go see it. The fact that "Sicko" is not getting the kind of press that "F911" got should show us that Moore is hitting a home run and TV's "silent" partners don't like it one bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
