Yup, they sure don’t care about us, KDelphi.

This article started out, “Yes, this is the year Congress will finally give every American access to health insurance.”

Well we don’t want health insurance, we want medical care when we need it and health insurance does NOT ensure that we get medical care when necessary.

But they’re not going to “give” us anything. We pay for everything, always, including those bums’ salaries. The only question is whether they’ll ALLOW us, their serfs, to pay less with single-payer and to actually have access to medical care, or they’ll FORCE us to pay more so as to further enrich their insurance company cronies, thus denying us medical care any time the insurance companies decide to increase their profits by denying more claims.

I’d bet anything that we don’t get single payer.

Think about it. When the Democrats took impeachment off the table, what could people do? Vote for the Republicans we wanted to impeach? Vote for third party candidates who, even if they won, would have no power in Congress? So people voted for the Democrats who were protecting the Republicans from impeachment and who had voted for everything that we wanted to impeach the Republicans for. And when the Democrats took power, they continued the Republican agenda, expanded the wars, increased the bailouts, and will continue to cut social programs.

In Haiti, when popular candidates who wanted to represent the people were taken off the ballot, the people simply didn’t vote. Given a choice of candidates who wouldn’t represent them, all but 3% stayed home on election day. When are Americans going to wise up?

Mark—shame on Democrats! I DVRd it and watched it this afternoon…if anyone has any doubt whose side they are on….

I recieved this email, after calling Sens Baucus and Kerry today, to tell them that I didnt think 20-60,000 people dying was any funnier than arresting people who were exercising freeom of speech…we must have struck a nerve…

HealthJustice
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HealthJustice Action Alert

Baucus’ Incredible Arrogance Makes Me Angry
5/5/09
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Dear (deleted), Today Mad Max Baucus showed us what he means when he says ‘single payer is off the table.’  When single payer advocates politely asked for a seat at the table, where 15 insurance flunkies were waiting to testify to his Senate committee, Sen. Baucus sneered at them and told them they would get more police.  That gave all of Baucus’ fellow insurance flunkies (and all the other clowns in the hearing room) a big laugh.  Then Baucus hypocritically told the audience how much he respected single payer, as the police were arresting eight people who just wanted to present a point of view.  I am angry about this arrogant abuse of power.  If you are angry, now is your chance to tell Baucus.  Call 800-578-4171, choose option 1, and connect to his office.  if no one answers, it probably is because Baucus is too chicken to even listen to the angry messages.
Alternatively, call each one of his offices in Montana.  Here are the phone numbers: Billings
(406) 657-6790; Bozeman (406) 586-6104; Butte (406) 782-8700; Great Falls   (406) 761-1574,  (406) 452-1117 (TDD); Helena   (406) 449-5480; Kalispell (406) 756-1150;Missoula (406) 329-3123;  Washington D.C.  (202) 224-2651(Office),(202) 224-9412 (Fax)




Contact Information
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.1payer.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Forward email
 

HealthJustice | 57 W. 200 South, Suite 101 | Salt Lake City | UT | 84101

The Democrats are just begging to lose their majority—like it does us any good…

I keep telling people that the White House and Congress are NOT our representatives, they are the representatives of the big corporations and that it is stupid of us to vote for them because they won’t listen to us. Look at my post just below and see what they did to doctors who want to treat patients instead of making insurance companies richer.

Fortunes are being spent to deny us the health care we want, including the pittances paid to professional propaganda bloggers to disrupt discussions like this. And Congress is using law enforcement to prevent people from pressuring them to even consider what we want. The Democratic majority Congress and the Democratic White House have taken what we want “off the table,” the same way they did with impeachment and bailouts.

Isn’t it time we kicked over that table and took our country back? Stop voting for these pigs—they are NOT our representatives and we have no way to hold them accountable.

On the web: http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1984

Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
___________________________________________________

    PM Tuesday, May 5, 2009

    Doctors Arrested at Senate “Roundtable” on Healthcare

Doctors and other advocates of a national single-payer health system—also known as improved Medicare for All—directly confronted senators at a Senate Finance Committee “roundtable” on health reform today. Videos are available here http://www.singlepayeraction.org and C-SPAN coverage is at: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/05-6 .

One by one, single-payer advocates in the audience stood up and asked why single-payer experts were being excluded from the proceedings. They each spoke out in turn until they were removed from the committee hearing room by Capitol police, at which point another person would speak up. Eight were arrested.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has stated on multiple occasions that single payer is “off the table” of health reform. As advocates spoke up today, he joked that he needed more police.

Today’s roundtable, the second of three, consisted of 15 witnesses with no single-payer advocates among them. By contrast, several witnesses have direct ties to the for-profit, private health insurance industry.

Among the single-payer advocates who spoke up at the hearing, several have been released from custody this afternoon and are now available for interviews:

MARGARET FLOWERS, MD, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), http://www.md.pnhp.org, http://www.pnhp.org
  Flowers, who is co-chair of the Maryland chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program (a national organization of 16,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance), said today: “Health insurance administrators are practicing medicine without a medical license. The result is the suffering and death of thousands of patients for the sake of private profit.”
  After Flowers and others where removed from the hearing room, Baucus stated that he “deeply respected” their views while “orderly process” was needed. Flowers said: “We tried the orderly process, we contacted the senators, and they excluded us. The first person who spoke up noted that there were doctors who could testify—and they arrested him.”

RUSSELL MOKHIBER, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), http://www.singlepayeraction.org
  Founder of Single Payer Action, Mokhiber said today: “It’s a pretty spectacular display of raw political power. The health insurance industry demands that not one of the 15 people who testified today shall be a single-payer advocate. And the industry gets what it wants. It’s time for the American people to storm the gates and demand— put single payer on the table.”

KATIE ROBBINS, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), http://www.healthcare-now.org
  Assistant national coordinator of Healthcare-NOW, a grassroots advocacy organization in support of single-payer national health care with a network of activists in 42 states, said today: “The current discussion on health reform is political theater at its best. Our elected officials are hosting these events to go through the motions of what developing effective national health policy should look like. There is a big difference between getting health policy experts in the room and the witnesses here today who would profit the most from reform. That difference means our hard-earned dollars will go to further insurance industry profits, not to guarantee health care to the American people.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

There’s a very intersting discussion about health care here:

http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/everybody_knows_is_not_a_credible_source_on_canadian_health_care

The trolls trot out all the old canards, but informed citizens respond with facts.

Mark—I’ve wondered , since I was a teen, if there is something un-American about me…I just am totally immune to that stuff…I never did “fall in love’ with rock stars or movie stars…I was never going to go out with them. I prefer to invest my emtotions in someone who could possibly care about me.

I am not trying to say that i am “wiser” or ever was (I am pretty sure that I am not)—I just dont seem to be able—-even when it would be soothing—to invest emotions in another good looking guy in a suit. I’ve never gone out with those kind of people (even when I could have) and, always liked more salt of the earth people who tell me the truth—not what i want to hear.

I heard people say that such and such a person wasnt “charismatic” enough to win—well, maybe charisma is the problen…I like charming people like everyone else.(for one evening) But I dont believe a fricking word they say!!

...if someone tries to charm me, I want to know what it is that they want—its always something..lol

Yeah, Moore does seem to be kindve a sap…

Yup, Moore was dumb to back Obama, but the rest of his movies are pretty good. Let’s see how long it takes him to admit that he made a mistake. He’s not really stupid—maybe Obama waved at him.

Did I tell you that story? The head of an activist coalition in my city went with some other folks to protest a $2,500-a-plate fundraising breakfast for Obama during the Presidential campaign. He came back looking like a star-struck teenager who’d met a rock idol, grinning stupidly and telling everyone that Obama had waved at him.

That’s all it takes to turn a peace activist into a fervent supporter of a genocidal maniac. A wave, a smile, or a wink from somebody in power, and they’re lost. Plus, Obama knows the right things to say. He tells everybody exactly what they want to hear. He does exactly the opposite of what they want, but he tells them what they want to hear. So maybe he told Michael Moore that he was going to fix our broken health care system and Moore forgot all about Obama getting campaign donations from the big corporations and thought that he really meant it.

Moore’s basically your typical soft-hearted sucker, and he probably wanted to be fooled, wanted to believe, wanted hope and change. Once he realizes that Obama is just another corporate shill, maybe he’ll try to get his self-respect back. Or maybe he really sold out. People have accused him of being a left gatekeeper before, because he’s been pretty silent about election fraud and 9/11 truth. It could be true. Or he just may not fully understand that we don’t live in a democracy and that it is impossible to change anything by working within our totally corrupt bureaucracy.

Mark E. Smith—I agree with most of what you are saying, and, the movie “Sicko” was very honest, BUT—

I have a problem with Michael Moore. WHY, when he promised not to back any candidate who was not in favor of an EU style health care reform, did he decide to back Obama and do “Slacker Uprising”?? I think it is all about Michael Moore now, and, he just wanted to be popular.

If young people consider Pres. Obama to be a “revolution” we are in deep sh*t…no, I dont think that people wil be able to make our govt change to socialized medicine, even though about 71% are certain that they want it. Grassley, Baucus, and, even, sadly ,Kennedy area all backing insurance industry based programs. As long as it is for-profit, I am not going to get this front tooth root canalled,(sp?) that i am too vain go have pulled…I can probably con my Medicaid dr into giving me more antibiotics, so I wont die like that 10 yr old boy…it is absurd that we even have to talk like this…for those against a socialized program? I will cost you more in the long run. It is a human right, and, I just wil not give up. Some are very young or old or too disabled to speak for themselves and will just die.

I am against the US military strategy, entirely, but, more US citizens die in this country every year from a lack of decent medical care than die in the illegal “wars”. (Not foreign civilians—we wil prob never know how many of those there were)

By Mark E. Smith, April 16 at 3:43 pm

Well, it isn’t the first time I have felt that the government of our country, my state and my county has made me and others the butt of sick jokes that are not really that funny, and it sure won’t be the last.

Samosamo, there’s one scene in Sicko where it shows the price tags—exactly how much it cost the industry to buy each legislator. Just shows a group of Congressmembers and pops the dollar amount up over each one’s head.

The film even plays the segment of a Nixon tape that recorded him and a crony starting the HMO racket.

As Moore visits each country with socialized medicine, including England, France, and Canada, he asks the people there how much they pay for medical care, and they always laugh at him because they have free medical care. So Moore, never afraid to laugh at himself, then puts together a shot of all those people laughing at him at once.

The world is laughing at us, Samosamo—we’re the butt of what can punningly be called a very sick joke.

By Mark E. Smith, April 16 at 1:57 am

Not to confuse the point more than it has been, not everything I say is sarcasm. What was in that original comment was all sarcasm. Sarcasm from disgust of the operations of this country. Sad to admit that while I was employed and sharing the cost of medical/doctor care, I took it in stride as a ‘real benefit’ from my employer(a big bank). I have never been happy with the medical field, the pharma field and most especially the insurance companies, which I look at them as just another money laundrying house disguised as a protector of human comfort.

As long as socialize medical has been around in other countries, I have always thought it congressional corporate propaganda to keep saying to the people of america that those systems don’t work and are not near as efficient as our ‘privatize’ medical field which is just another way of making people pay way more for something than it is worth, if one can get it.

I have my doubts that the congressional corporate machine will allow socialized medicine in this country and by no means does that mean we should not try to socialize it. But that big hurtle towards socialization will be those lobbyists that will buy their way into what they want. Lobbyists, not much is more detrimental to this country than their buying their way into any and everything, in reality bribery.

When I started on this path of keeping informed, one of the first things I ran across was a link to ‘Orwell Rolls in His Grave’. I eventually got the dvd and was astounded by what I saw and what is the total wreck that the MSM of this country is in and it made me sick. It also enlightened me to the extreme importance of what a well informed public is and really means.

I am sure sicko will do the same, though what you have said about those in the industry testifying about denying health care peaked my curiosity and I will watch it sometime. But ‘orwell rolls in his grave’ and ‘sicko’ are hard evidence that the war against the people is real and here; and I take it very personal from those criminal’s actions.

Samosamo, if everything you say is sarcasm, then I apologize.

If you really did watch Sicko and you favor socialized medicine because you know that the British have free health care and even the poorest of them have a longer life expectancy than the richest Americans, I apologize for not recognizing the sarcasm.

If you really favor socialized medicine instead of profit-based insurance coverage, and were just being sarcastic, then I apologize for not recognizing it.

If you understand that, as health insurance industry people testified before Congress and state clearly in the film, the insurance companies are in business to DENY medical care, because that’s how they maximize profits, and you want insurance coverage eliminated so that those trillions of dollars can go directly to medical care, then I apologize for not understanding that you were just being sarcastic.

If you know that many people who worked hard all their lives and had excellent health coverage are now homeless because when they needed medical care the deductibles and co-pays (when they were fortunate enough not to be denied outright by the insurance companies) ate up their savings and forced them to lose their homes and declare bankruptcy, and you want people who work hard and play by the rules to have medical care when they need it, not health coverage that may turn our to be useless or ruinous, then I apologize.

If you understand that the reason that the exact same medications cost ten cents in Cuba, ten dollars in England, and a hundred dollars here, because the insurance companies have to get their cut and the pharmaceutical companies have to make their profits, and nobody cares how many Americans die as a result, then I apologize.

Because medical care is a matter of life and death, I’m not sure it is the proper place for sarcasm and jokes. We’re not number one when it comes to medical care, we’re number thirty-seven. Thanks to socialized medicine, the National Health Service that they’ve had since 1948, the British are healthier than Americans in every way measurable. They live longer, have less infant mortality, less cancer, less heart disease, less diabetes, etc., and they are an equally developed country with pollution, unhealthy diets, and everything else that we have.

By Mark E. Smith, April 11 at 12:20 am #
***
I don’t understand why you won’t watch the film, unless you are being paid to try to defend this boondoggle giveaway to the insurance companies.
***
Probably because if you read my original comment then you did not understand my original comment that really had nothing to do with reality. Once again, sarcasm.

I was just googling around and found this blog from 2007:

http://students.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/Cvpt/commentary#comment-gGLcMt

The true believers still can’t admit they were wrong.

If they stopped putting money in that broken vending machine, the company would stop making a profit and would either fix it or remove it. As long as people keep believing that the broken machine will magically work for them, they’ll keep voting.

Check this out, KDelphi:

http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1970

Isn’t it a shame that we don’t have a voice in how our tax money is spent?

And a worse shame that people keep voting to let rich people make decisions that the rest of us don’t want?

I’d compare our electoral system to a broken vending machine. Some people had a habit of putting money in that machine and buying whatever they selected. Then the machine broke and when people put their money in, they either got something they didn’t select, or they got nothing at all. But it had become such a habit that very few people could stop putting money in the machine, even when they knew it was broken. They keep calling the vending company, but the company is making a huge profit on that machine, even more so now that they don’t have to give people what they want and can even give people nothing at all. So they keep talking about fixing it, but they never do.

If the 90% of Americans who oppose the bailouts just stop voting, it is done.

How to make people understand that the bailouts they opposed were possible only because they voted in a presidential election where both major party candidates (the only ones with any chance of winning) were pro-bailout? That I don’t know.

About half of us have figured it out. I live in a senior building. When I mentioned not voting to my upstairs neighbor, she just laughed and said that she hasn’t voted in decades. The only poll that ever asked U.S. nonvoters why they didn’t vote, found that most said it was because nobody on the ballot represented their interests.

I would assume that the other half, the half that continues to vote against their own best interests, no matter how much “education” their parents bought them, would represent the bottom half of the I.Q. bell curve and may not be capable of figuring anything out. They actually believe that people who won’t vote against their own best interests are apathetic, and that they themselves, by voting against their own best interests, are not apathetic. In a sense, they’re not. They’re masochistic and care deeply about doing themselves as much harm as possible.

Mark—Yes, but how would you get people organized to act in concert? It would have to be something that a majority did to do any good. Something has to frightens USAns to get them to “act” (or not act!). I dont know why that is. But , most are still pretty comfortable…what do you think of wsws??

Could it be the uS’s religiosity? (They think that they will be happy when they die?)

KDelphi, I messed up again. I posted two comments below, but the second one should be read first. Sorry again.

The only way a government can demonstrate its legitimacy is by holding election to show the consent of the governed. Since 90% of us oppose the bailouts, all we have to do is forget about the political parties and simply refuse to vote until the bailouts are stopped and we are allowed to vote directly on where our money goes.

You won’t find 90% of Americans agreed on anything else, so that’s what we have to come together on, the area where we are all in agreement.

The bailouts must stop. We want our trillions back. Let the banksters and fraudsters apply for regular welfare if they need it and quality—we’ve had enough of corporate welfare. They’re entitled to subsistance, not to millions and billions and trillions.

We only have ONE supreme power over our government. We can refuse to consent by simply not voting. If we vote, no matter who or what we vote for, they can claim that they have the consent of the governed. If we stop voting, they have no further claim.

It doesn’t matter if the next election is just a local election for dogcatcher and there is a proposition on the ballot to make jaywalking a capital crime subject to the death penalty. Don’t let them terrify you into voting. Stay home. Tell all your friends to stay home. Tell you family to stay home. Explain that in order to take our government back, we have to stop delegating our power until we are allowed to vote directly on budgets, taxes, wars, and everything else of importance.

There is simply no way that we could do a worse job than our government is doing. 90% of us are opposed to the bailouts, so we’d immediately have trillions of dollars to use for health care, education, and whatever we needed.

When the local election has only 10% of the vote and they try to install the dogcatcher and make jaywalking a capital crime on that basis, they’ll have no legitimacy. Nobody will admire them, come to their meetings, ask them for favors, etc. They’ll be shown up for the miserable frauds that they are. And when people shun them, they’ll leave town. Then you hold a town hall meeting with everyone in town who is eligible to vote invited, and allow the citizenry to vote for who will be dogcatcher and whether or not jaywalking should be a capital crime.

If enough towns and cities do that, then when the state election comes along, it is easy to do the same thing. And by the time the next Presidential election comes along, the candidates will have only the votes of the 10% of the country that approves of what they’ve been doing. Remember, Congress only had a 10% approval rating before the election, and both candidates were Members of Congress.

What we’re doing now is allowing people with half our brains and a thousand times as much money, to make our decisions for us. Small wonder their decisions always make things worse instead of better. A recent study showed that government officials knew LESS about current affairs, history, politics, and geography than the average citizen. They are NOT better qualified to govern than we are.

(Oops, this comment is a continuation of the one below, I think, and that one is not continued below, it is continued here.)

There are many problems with our electoral system, KDelphi, including the Constitutional ban on voting directly for President and Vice-President, the Constitutional ban on directly removing federal officials from office, gerrymandered districts, secret vote counts, mass-media controlled exit polls, and much much more. When you vote for a party that, under our current winner-take-all system, not only cannot win, but cannot even get any representation, you are authorizing and legitimizing the duopoly that can and will win every time.

Even if you only vote in local elections, you are validating a corrupt system and delegating your power to people you cannot hold accountable.

Remember power to the people? As long as we keep delegating (giving away) our power by voting, we won’t have it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either we stop voting and retain our power, or we keep giving it away.

As for organizing you won’t find any party, not even the major ones that have 90% of the American public behind them. Yet 90% of us oppose the bailouts. If we just forgot about political parties and stopped voting to let other people loot our national treasury, we could regain control of our economy.

Boycotting multinational corporations isn’t very effective because they have other markets. But boycotting elections can be totally effective because the U.S. government only has one electoral market, the U.S. voting public. If we stop voting to give them power over us, they will have no more (legitimate) power over us. Yes, they will try to use force, but illegitimate force is a lot easier to defeat than legitimate force. Trying to move a government you just voted to give total discretion to, is a waste of time and energy. Stop voting to give them total discretion, and they can no longer claim the consent of the governed. From then on, anything they do is obviously WITHOUT the consent of the governed, and everyone in the world will know it.

After the successful election boycott of the Apartheid regime in South African, neither the United States nor any other country could continue to support them with the excuse of supporting a democratically elected government with the consent of the governed. When only 10% of the people voted, it was clear that the Apartheid regime did NOT have the consent of the governed and was NOT a legitimate government.

(continued below)

You are preaching to the choir, Mark Smith. All the things you are doing are very commendable, and, I agree with them all. But, do you really think that just not voting and not buying cell phones is going to bring down the industry? I dont have a choice about a car—-but I have a very old one. As I have told you, I do not have a typical American lifestyle—it is certainly not middle class. I am trying to return to work, part time, but, you know very well that living on SSI afford you no frills. I protested the “war”(s), and am enraged that we are escalating in Afghanistan, I know many who were drafted into wars, and fought and killed. We all pay the price.

I did not vote for the system, I did vote to try to replace Mike Turner. (didnt work) I am a Socialist. I think that you would find your actions alot more effective if you worked within some type of collective effort. Individually we can only do so much. There are some things I would like to see happen right now. Single payer heatlh care is one of them. The plan that Sen. BaucASS has come up with is terrible. It will gain the insurance industry huge profits and make things worse for those not covered by private plans. I am strictly anti-war.

The Intl Committee of the Fourth National is for a Trotsky type permanent revolution of the working classes. http://www.wsws.org/

I agree with them on most things. Until we cut the military budget, any type of social program is doomed to fail, as it will cost too much.As long as lobbyists are buying up DC, they dont much care what we, as citizens do. (We are citizens, not consumers, I would like to remind DC) We can have Empire or a decent standard of living for most Ameticans—not both.

I am not a Democrat. I am CERTAINLY not a GOP. I have voted Dem and Independent and Socialist, I have voted Green.

Since we live in a Capitalist country, most of the peoples’ problems can be traced to money—-too much of it within the system. Term limits and public financing are getting nowhere. And it is not just US money—we encourage (force) capitalism everywhere. It doesnt work. It only creates welalh for the few.

The lifestyle most Americans live is unsustainable, both in inequality and for the planet. If mankind is to survive, capitalism cannot continue. That is what I think. I am open to many ideas. But , continuing the same, is NOT an option for me. It shouldnt be for anyone with a conscience.

If you lose friends because you disagree with them, I know it is a cliche’, but, ..who cares? I’ve been angry as hell at people and disagreed—-most of my friends are Dems. But, I think if they would look at what they really believe in, they would have to admit that they just think that it is the lesser of two evils…

Here is Part 1 of the Foundations of the Socialist Equality Party. It is socialistic and democratic (small d) by nature. Let me know what you think…?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/prin-s25.shtml

Part 2:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/pri2-s26.shtml

Well, here’s the kicker, KDelphi, and where I’ve lost a good many friends.

You list a lot of worthy things we need. Then you write, “Until then, I would be for term limits, public financing of elections, banning of paid lobbyists, and mandatory voting, on a day set aside as a holiday,.. We need to empower and expand labor unions and de-globalize (not just for the sake of uS workers) I would for limits on income. I am also for a living wage. I am for more progressive taxation.”

Well, we don’t have any of those things either yet, so you can’t settle for what we don’t have.

What we do have, the status quo or the system as it is today, is the reality we live in.

Authorizing an unaccountable President and Congress to keep that status quo going as long as they can, if possible, is one thing. About 50% of us did that by voting for them.

But what about if you personally had to kill Iraqi babies for the big oil companies so you could put gas in your car, kill Afghan babies to prop up the military-industrial complex so people in your community will have jobs, kill African babies to get the coltan in your cell phone, etc. Authorizing others to kill babies in your name is easy. But if you had to personally kill those babies do you think your lifestyle is worth it?

If you’re like me, you don’t want to support the military-industrial complex, don’t own a car, refuse to own a cell phone, and didn’t vote to authorize anyone to kill babies in your name.

There is very little in the status quo that I want to support. But I wonder how many of the 50% that voted really thought they were voting for change and don’t support the status quo any more than I do?

Suppose I was walking to the store, got distracted,  and found that I’d walked three blocks past where I’d wanted to go. Can I change directions if I keep on walking, or do I have to stop, turn around, and go back?

This country is going in the wrong direction. The first thing we have to do if we want to change course is stop. Stop voting. Stop everything we possibly can that supports the status quo and keeps us going in the wrong direction.

If you claim you want change, but keep voting for the status quo, which is what every vote really is no matter who or what you vote for or against, then you are defeating your own purpose. I can say, “Whoa! I’ve gone past the store. I want to turn around and go back,” but if I keep right on walking in the wrong direction, it doesn’t matter what I say, I’m still getting farther and farther away from where I want to go.

I don’t like corporate rule so I try to avoid buying brand names and processed foods with wasteful packaging at big stores, and instead buy locally-grown produce. I don’t like corporate-owned media so I don’t watch TV. I don’t like the bailouts, so I closed my little checking account at a big bank and opened an account with a small, locally-owned bank that never made risky investments. Until I can have the changes that I want, I’ll do everything in my power not to support the status quo.

I’m not calling for a Constitutional Convention. Under the present system it might not help and could even make things worse. I want a citizen-owned, transparent, direct participatory democracy. I know what I want and I won’t settle for anything less, particularly if it involves killing a lot of innocent babies to keep it going. If we stop delegating our power, then we can vote directly for what we really want. After that we can vote directly (not state representatives, but all citizens eligible to vote) in honest elections for a Constitution that ensures we can keep it.

If you vote within the system, you are voting for the system. If you wish to withdraw your consent from the system, you have to stop voting for it or else you are defeating yourself before you start. Venezuelans vote directly for President and vote directly on their Constitution. Why can’t we?

Mark E Smith—I agree that the duopoly must go. I also agree with proportional rep., which every civilized coutnry on earth has. I would go so far as to call for a Constitutional Convention (as you said)—the makeup of the ‘country” was so different when it was drawn up as to make alot of it obsolete, in my mind. (It was written by rich white Anglos, to keep them in power—Pres. Obama is a blip on their radar, to satisy a portion of the population, and, I am not talking about Af Ams, or , at least not them solely—he, and, most Dems, including Clinton, are to satisfy neo-liberals and, hence, the working classes and poor that they pretend to care about)The Electoral College is just outright ridiculous. The Imperial presidency is out of hand, and, I dont know why a politically elected president is head of state and Commander in Chief.

We need to pull our military bases out of most of the world and cut the military budget by at least 2/3. (we need to replace our oil based economy—we could start with alot of good public transport)The majority of people in the places we occupy, do NOT want us there.We are there , mostly, to open new mkts for corporations and to defend capoitalism, which is not necessary, and is even antithetical to democracy. I would be for a Socialist Democracy, maybe like the ones in Scandanavia.

Until then, I would be for term limits, public financing of elections, banning of paid lobbyists, and mandatory voting, on a day set aside as a holiday,.. We need to empower and expand labor unions and de-globalize (not just for the sake of uS workers) I would for limits on income. I am also for a living wage. I am for more progressive taxation.

All the necesssities of life are human rights. People did not ask to be born. THE WTO, IMF and UN do not work as they are set up today.

The Capitalists have convinced peopel that we need capitalism to be “free”, and, that democracy is not possible wihout it. They have a good reason for that. The Capts of INdustry (ie Masters of the Universe) have shown by their actions of late (esp Wall st, but not exclusively) that they have no care for or loyalty to their own people, just their own class. (nor the people of the planet)Class is the unspoken issue in the uS. Our unregulated capitalism is unsustainable and only holds out hopes for most of the population that will never be achieved. Many are convinced that this is true, but think that there wil be “pie in the sky when you die”.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Hmmmm….so if they can brainwash everyone into thinking that not voting is immoral, then they can give us an election where the only candidates with a chance of winning are both committed to wars of aggression based on lies (otherwise known as genocide or crimes against humanity), and people will vote for crimes against humanity because they think not voting is immoral?

Like the old song said, “It’s a very strange world we live in….”

There are several third parties with good agendas, but we don’t have proportional representation in the U.S. In countries with a more democratic system of government, if a party gets 5% or 10% of the vote, the get 5% or 10% of the seats in the legislative body. Here is it winner take all, so parties that don’t sell out to corporate interests that will enable them to buy ads on primetime TV, can’t compete in the election campaigns. And the two major parties won’t allow them into the debates.

There is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution was written so as to ensure that the popular vote wouldn’t be the final say in who took office and that the people couldn’t directly remove anyone in the federal government from office. But the political parties took it even further and ensured that the people couldn’t even choose who the federal candidates would be. A lot of people tried in the ‘08 primaries and the superdelegates wiped the floor with them.

We need to eliminate political parties, vote directly on issues of importance, and write ourselves a new Constitution that is democratic in nature, ensures that the people have power over government by allowing for accountability. If we had honest, transparent, verifiable elections, where the popular vote was the final say, we could accomplish all this by voting. But we don’t, so our only chance is to refuse to vote until we are allowed to vote in honest elections, and to vote directly on laws, wars, budgets, and everything else of importance, instead of continuing to let the corporations tell the political parties which candidates they find acceptable and will fund.

Mark E. Smith—I am still mulling over your website essay—I WILL read it and comment, after I think a bit…I havent forgotten! I am just having a hell of a weekend (the lost weekend…). Maybe it is the strong, inbred USAn tendency to think that if you dont vote , it is immoral or something…lol

Here is a good article at Intl Socialist (world socialist web site) about “A Health Care Plan for Big Business” (which is what Pres. Obamas. plan is)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/pers-m13.shtml

They have many good anti-capitalist articles there. There is a meeting in Ann Arbor on April 25th, and, listing of others there.

“At the same time, the Obama administration has declared its intention to drive down costs for the major government-funded entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

A genuine solution to the crisis of health care must begin from the necessity of eliminating the stranglehold of the profit motive over this most basic social need. Every year, tens of thousands of people in the US and tens of millions internationally die due to entirely preventable health problems. The enormous advances in technology and medicine developed over the past several decades are prevented from being made available to all people by the capitalist system.

The program of the Socialist Equality Party is for the transformation of the hospital chains, drug manufacturers and insurance companies into democratically controlled public utilities, to create a health care system that operates on the basis of human need, not private profit. Quality health care must be available to everyone as a basic right.”

Joseph Kishore

Everyone who supports Obama’s health care reform plan to extend medical insurance to the uninsured, should read this recent article:

Ruined by Health Care: My Family Learned that Even with Insurance We Weren’t Safe from Financial Ruin

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/135939/ruined_by_health_care:_my_family_learned_that_even_with_insurance_we_weren’t_safe_from_financial_ruin/?page=entire

If that link doesn’t work, try this one:

http://tinyurl.com/d29ee5

Kate Michelman is a political consultant and her husband is a retired university professor who was fully ensured.

Extending coverage to the uninsured is not going to help them if they need medical care.

Expanding coverage for the insured is not going to help them if they need medical care.

The only thing that will help those who need medical care is a single-payer socialized medicine national health care plan that eliminates the need to have and the cost of having insurance, and uses those billions of dollars to provide medical care instead of insurance.

The United States is in the midst of a fiscal crisis, brought to us by those who insisted that they were experts and knew what they were doing. They didn’t and they don’t. There is no need to look for money to fund medical care for all Americans when we can simply eliminate the need for insurance coverage and provide medical care instead. The insurance companies won’t go out of business-there are still insurance companies operating successfully in France, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Norway, New Zealand, Holland, and every other developed country in the world that has a national health care plan. But they do not have the power to deny health care to anyone. All they can do is sell insurance to those who want it. Those who don’t want it can still get medical care.

Samosamo, you wrote, “This is a nation of crooks and thieves and it will not be fixed any time soon IF EVER AT ALL BECAUSE MONEY IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY OVER EVERYTHING!!!!”

That’s why we have to start putting people first, instead of corporations.

We have to provide medical care directly instead of paying corporations to provide insurance coverage that might or might not help people when they seriously need medical care.

You’re the one supporting insurance coverage, even to the point of writing, “The big fight will be telling those that oppose this healthcare or insurance to STFU and sit down or just kick them in the crotch with steel toed boots.”

Yet you say, “That [Medicare] is public money, so YOU need to straighten out the administration and insurance companies and those doctors that just happen to slip an extra $1000.00 or $5,000.00 here and there on the claims to get their piece of the pie.”

If people like you supported socialized medicine instead of supporting insurance corporations, that sort of graft couldn’t happen. Doctors would be salaried, the way they are in France, and there would be no additional expense to fatten the insurance companies.

I understand why you don’t want to discuss things any more, and why you are angry, because you keep contradicting yourself and your arguments are illogical. You support insurance coverage because you once had it and it worked for you, and you don’t care how many other people died needlessly because they happened to have the wrong insurance company or the wrong insurance plan.

Doctors have to earn a living and because of the education they need and the work that they do, they deserve to earn a comfortable living, as they do in France. But neither patients nor doctors, nor taxpayers should have to support insurance company executives who make million dollar bonuses if they can deny more medical care to more of the people they insure, because the corporate shareholders reward them for maximizing profits.

It is the insurance companies that make money the number one priority over everything. And the only way that can be fixed is if people like you stop supporting insurance companies and threatening to stomp on anyone who doesn’t.

I’m grateful for the conversation, though, because it is important that people see how irrational the supporters of insurance coverage are. We are all human and we are all subject to human frailties. The strongest, healthiest people in the world can be felled by flesh-eating bacteria or a ruptured appendix. That’s why medical care is necessary. If insurance coverage could treat a disease or operate on a patient, it would be worthwhile. But it can’t. It might pay doctors to do it, but in order to maximize profits, it might not. It’s a gamble. It isn’t nice to gamble with people’s lives just so corporations can make more money.

We need medical care for all who need it, not insurance coverage that might help some but will always deny others so that it can maximize profits.

By Mark E. Smith, April 11 at 12:20 am

You’re the impossible one. Where does medicare and medicaid money come from? That is public money, so YOU need to straighten out the administration and insurance companies and those doctors that just happen to slip an extra $1000.00 or $5,000.00 here and there on the claims to get their piece of the pie. This is a nation of crooks and thieves and it will not be fixed any time soon IF EVER AT ALL BECAUSE MONEY IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY OVER EVERYTHING!!!!

Your total lack of recognizing what I said in my original comment that you attacked in the guise of an expert dismisses any more comment on this as MY SARCASM WAS TOTALLY MADE UP, FICTIOUS, NOT REAL, did nothing but piss your old ass off. And you continual attacking me from you misunderstanding precludes any more conversation. I just be damn, because you have NOT READ and understood what I wrote.
GOOD BYE to what could have been some interesting discourse.

Okay, then, Samosamo, call it medical care instead of health care. But first you have to tell the Obama administration and Congress to stop calling it health care reform if they are referring to medical care.

I have Medicare and I rarely go to doctors. I am in charge of my own health care also, and I usually rely heavily on juicing and/or herbal remedies when I’m ill, as well as my best attempts at a healthy lifestyle to stay healthy. I also have a living will and do not want anything that would prolong my life if I was terminal.

But in spite of the fact that you have had medical problems (a kidney stone) and foresee that it is possible that you might have medical problems in the future, you don’t want access to medical care, just to insurance coverage.

I don’t want public money paying for cosmetic or elective surgery or viagra either. I only want people who have a serious medical problem to get the care that they need.

Insurance coverage is not medical care.

Insurance coverage does not gurarantee medical care.

Insurance companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits, which can only be done by denying medical care whenever possible.

Insurance companies should not be paid out of federal tax money.

Tax money should pay for medical care directly, and the profit-driven insurance company middlemen who stand between the insured and their doctor should be eliminated.

I don’t understand why you won’t watch the film, unless you are being paid to try to defend this boondoggle giveaway to the insurance companies.

You say you want medical care if you should seriously need it. Insurance coverage might or might not provide medical care when you needed it most. A national medical care plan would, even if it was called a national health care plan.

Because you were very lucky with your medical coverage when you had it, you seem to think that everyone else would be equally lucky, and that you would be just as lucky in the future. The film you have your mind closed to proves you wrong, which is probably why you’re afraid to watch it.

Access to medical care for those who seriously need it should not depend on an insurance company’s earnings for that quarter, or the need of an employee of an insurance company to deny a certain number of patients in order to keep their job.

Watching the film would bring you back to reality, but if you prefer to live in a dream world, that is your right.

By Mark E. Smith, April 10 at 9:38 pm

As a 60 year old young punk to a 69 year old old codger, I will say my medical care experiences while I worked and had ‘health’ insurance was adequate for my health. I even had some surgery to take care of relatively minor issues. Now that I am severed, I don’t have insurance and most probably will have to wait to get on medicare or whatever so if some serious injury came up I could get medical care. Now according to you that is an almost impossible to rely on these days. Another thing, there is a difference in medical care and health care. My experience puts ME in charge of my health care, eating right, exercising and whatever else is entailed by a person’s own ability to maintain proper health for their own self. My interpretation of your idea of this whole thing is that people should be given health care when I think you should be calling it medical care when one is injured or has an event that requires medical treatment. I even want to be able to get that. But if I become terminal, I want no extraordinary treatment to keep me supporting medical treatment that will end in death no matter what, just treatment to ease pain and/or discomfort.
If on this you part company then go your own way and I’ll go mine. I like it being in charge of my own health and if and when it gets so bad, I have NO intention of giving what little money I have to a doctor except for pain and discomfort IF it comes to that. You and everybody else can worry about getting medical care all you want, so do so. But no matter the problems, the individual should be in charge of maintaining their own health as it is not hard and it is a basic part of life if people weren’t scared into thinking that a doctor has to ‘prescribe’ health to a person. The whole medical profession along with the media revel in the glory of dictating what is ‘healthy’ for a person’s life when it is something really easy, easier than having to require medical attention that could be avoided by proper personal care of one’s on health.
And you still don’t get my scarcasm with this “So we’re still not on the same page. You want insurance companies to get paid out of tax deductions…” and I won’t be on the same page with that line of thought. No, I didn’t and I won’t watch the movie. And what is sad, IF you could recognize the scarcasm in my original comment that started this tirade: we WERE pretty much on the same page.
I just had to go back and read my comment of
***By samosamo, April 10 at 5:46 pm*** and I am still shaking my head of why you ‘just didn’t get it’ unless you didn’t read past that word payroll deduction.

Samosamo, now I’m the one who is confused. I’m sixty-nine years old myself and I agree that health care is essential.

Then you say, “But I want to know that coverage and insurance is there, and affordable.”

That’s where we part company. I don’t care if there is any coverage or insurance. If there’s a national health care plan, nobody will need any because everyone will be entitled to health care.

Coverage and insurance sometimes provide access to health care and sometimes don’t. A national health care plan provides health care for everyone, insured or not.

Did you watch the film I linked? Many Americans have health insurance and health coverage, but can’t get health care.

Health insurance is not health care.

Health coverage is not health care.

What we need is health care, not coverage or insurance.

What good is having health insurance and health coverage if you’re dying and can’t get the health care that you need in order to survive?

I used to volunteer in a district Congressional office of former Congressman Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA), now mayor of Oakland. He introduced a national health care plan (or tried—usually it never got out of committee) into Congress every single year of his 24-year tenure. One of my neighbors used to make fun of me for working for the “Communist” Congressman. Then her health insurance premiums doubled and she came crying to me to ask me if the Congressman’s office could help her.

Coverage and insurance may be affordable when you first get them, but may be unaffordable later on. Coverage may not cover the particular treatment that you personally happen to need. Insurance companies have the same fiduciary obligation to their stockholders to maximize profits that all other corporations have under U.S. business law, and that means that they have to deny benefits as much as they possibly can in order to maximize profits. Otherwise they could go to jail. That’s their legal obligation to their stockholders even if doing so kills people unnecessarily. It is a cost of doing business and often they can determine that it is cheaper to let somebody die and have their legal department defend them against any lawsuits, than to actually pay for treatments.

So we’re still not on the same page. You want insurance companies to get paid out of tax deductions even though the laws they operate under require that they deny health care whenever doing so can maximize profits to their shareholders. I don’t want corporations to get any more corporate welfare. I want a national health care plan that eliminates the profit-driven insurance middlemen and pays directly for health care for everyone.

By Mark E. Smith, April 10 at 6:18 pm #
“”“Samosamo, we do desperately need a national health care plan, as we’re the only “developed” country in the world without one.”“”
*****************************************
Uh, now I am confused. Your reply to me appears to make me believe you took that yarn hook, line and sinker. Pure sarcasm is what it was. I was hesitant in creating ‘C-spin’ hoping it would slip by you, but it appears that I deceived you into really believing it.
I was severed by my job one year and 3 months ago, thus losing my health insurance and some other benefits. It is shameful that those wise and benevolent pricks called republicans are still demanding milton friedman’s disasterous criminal agenda of the ‘unfettered PRIVATE free market’ system that has just about destroyed every country that was forced to go from public to private market ownership for the greedy need of just a few ‘elite’ assholes that everybody everywhere has just about accepted and has let them get away with it.
My own health is the MOST important thing to me bar nothing else. I believe it because how can you help others or even function if you are in constant need of medical help? Unfortunately far too many people do need that care and the state should be paying for it. Medicare and Medicaid are there and both help but far too many ‘pat my back, I’ll pat yours’ agreements with doctors, hospitals and the insurance companies have turned into one the most crooked swindling flimflam schemes imaginable brought to you by those clever financial ‘artists’ in both fields. I want nothing less than that shit stopped.
But I want to know that coverage and insurance is there, and affordable. I know how to keep my health in top shape and I use doctors a lot less than other people but I am 60 years old and I want to know that if I passed another kidney stone, I would not have to give what little money I have to live on to some greedy doctor or hospital or an insurance company telling me what I can or can’t have. I will make that decision. The big fight will be telling those that oppose this healthcare or insurance to STFU and sit down or just kick them in the crotch with steel toed boots.

Samosamo, we do desperately need a national health care plan, as we’re the only “developed” country in the world without one.

But is this a national health care plan or just an extension of health insurance coverage?

Having health insurance does not ensure health CARE. The insurance company decides what it will and won’t pay for, and who will and won’t get the care they need.

A national health insurance plan primarily benefits the insurance companies. A national health care plan, like they have in Canada, England, France, and many other countries, sometimes called a single-payer plan because the government collects taxes and pays for health care, primarily benefits the citizens of a country who need or may eventually need health care.

If many members of Congress support it, this must be a national health insurance plan, not a national health care plan, because members of Congress are subject to pressures from the insurance companies.

Think of it as the difference between a guarantee and a warranty. A guarantee might say that if you are unsatisfied with a product for any reason, you can return it and get your money back, no questions asked. A warranty, on the other hand, might say that if the product is still under warranty, if you haven’t tried to fix it yourself, if you didn’t mishandle it by exposing it to heat, dampness, or unauthorized use, and if you still have the proof of purchase and the original packaging, you can return it to the manufacturer for repairs for only a small fee.

Similarly, a national health care plan says that if you need health care, you can get it. A national health insurance coverage plan says that if the doctor or hospital you go to accepts that insurance, your treatment happens to be covered, and you can afford a co-payment, you might be able to get health care.

Watch Michael Moore’s film Sicko:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1816/1/

He starts out by letting Americans who HAVE health insurance explain why they can’t get health care.

Health insurance is not health care.

A national health insurance plan is not a national health care plan.

A health insurance plan benefits the insurance companies.

A health care plan benefits people who need health care.

I just saw on C-spin where congress has debated and drafted a bill that will go to the floor for vote next week. It is a bill that under the federal withholding portion of payroll taxes will hold 4 or 5% of gross pay for health care. It should appear as HCE on the pay deductions slip. It was not lost on our electorate, you know, the people we elect to represent us in washington, that a universal health care plan IS what this country needs and deparately. Ergo the HCE deduction, where the taxpayers pay for the healthcare of the ‘elite’. All the representatives are voting for it, and it is sure to pass. Those electorate say their phones are ringing off the hook and their email is filling up with the positive feedback of those so desparately needy ‘elite’ that will assure them of a healthy life.
It will provide also for those hopelessly terminal ill ‘elite’ to remain hooked to life support, allow the ‘mature’ females to receive cosmetic surgery so those saggy tits won’t need a bra and the males can have the largest penises around and they can have the same nose as michael jackson. A special rider in the bill will provide unlimited supplies of viagra.

Thank you! It is also Rachel Corrie’s birthday—she would have been 30…but, I will be happy for today!

Very kind…

HAPPIEST BIRTHDAY, KDELPHI!

Wishing you a joyous day, a healthy year, and a life of freedom, consciousness, and constructive communication.

Enjoy!

I will get back to you on that, ok? Its my birthday, and, I am getting ready to Party! I cant afford it, but, someone else is buying! lol…seriously< i will read and get back….thanks

KDelphi, before I tell you what I think, how about you telling me what you think about “The Fable of Lanova Messiah.” It may answer your questions.

Mrk—Good points again. My “reps” dont rep anyone around here AT ALL! They have gerryrigged the district, like a letter “U”, to include a couple rich ass suburbs, to prevent an urban rep.

I am checking out the webiste/ Sen Sanders is and Independent, as well as a Socialist (Which is what I consider myserlf to be). I heard , while Bush was in office, that vermont might secede from the Union, but, Sanders seems to “support Pres. Obama”, at least in words.

He has filed several prospectives that would be in total disagreement with Obama, such as single payer heatlh care (except, he wants to relegate it to the states—-like Conyers better—HR 676), and, opposition to several of Obama’s economic team nominees (gag me forever).But, he has no support, and, nothing ever comes of it.

What do you make of that?

KDelphi, at the rate things are going with our economy, if only poor people didn’t vote, it would most certainly be noticed because that will soon be almost everyone except for the wealthy elite.

I’m not a fan of third parties any more, although I used to be a Green. The concept of trying to reform the system from within is absurd. If I want to fight organized crime, would I join the Mafia?

I’m not opposed to voting. I think voting in New England style Town Hall Meetings where the citizens get to vote directly on laws, budgets, and issues of importance, is the ideal system. I’m only opposed to voting for representatives to do our voting for us on issues, and then only in a system like ours where we cannot directly and nonviolently remove them immediately from office if they fail to represent the majority of their constituents.

For example, when Congressman John Olver was presented with a petition signed by 80% of his constituents asking him to support the impeachment of Bush, he said, “Spare me! I’m fully aware that the overwhelming majority of my constituents support impeachment. I will not.” In what sense of the word could you call a person like that a “representative?”
He may have been representing Bush, or Pelosi, but he was NOT representing the people who voted for him. And he knew that since our Constitution says that only Congress itself can remove a sitting Member of Congress, his Constituents had no choice but to allow him to serve out the rest of his term and then hope that the next election wouldn’t be rigged to prevent them from electing else—somebody else who also couldn’t be held accountable.

Here’s something that might help put things in perspective:

The Fable of Lanova Messiah
http://noinnovember.ning.com/forum/topics/2142198:Topic:778

If you go to the main page there, you’ll find a couple of other good essays about our form of government and why we shouldn’t vote.

Did you ever notice that Vermont, which has Town Hall Meetings, has an independent Member of Congress? They don’t need political parties because they get to vote directly on issues of importance to them at a local level, and they have somebody who will represent THEM, even if he is totally powerless, in Congress, not a member of a political party that represents its own interests instead of the interests of its voters. We need to stop voting for unaccountable representatives and for profit-motivated political parties, and revive the old American tradition of direct participatory democracy. We need to stop voting for candidates and refuse to vote until we can vote directly on issues instead of letting rich people do the REAL voting for us. They’ll always represent themselves and they’ll never represent us.

Mark E Smith—You are right. But, if only poor people didnt vote, do you really think that they would notice and/or care? Theyknow that we cant give campaign contributions and have no influence over Labor.

Neither party represents the poor, and, I have been saying it for a long time. They wont even use the WORD! We’re all “aspiring middle class”! There is no true poverty in the US, right? Sure…There is a Poor Peoples Party (http://poorpeoplesparty.org/news/welcome-to-the-poor-peoples-partyorg/)

but it doesnt seem very active. Do you know of others?

KDelphi, it isn’t “because they think that we aren’t educated and don’t vote,” is because they KNOW that we aren’t educated (after all they’re the ones who use tax money for the military instead of for education) and that half of us still DO vote, that is, half of us are content to let THEM make our decisions for us, no matter how horrible those decisions may be.

And until we wise up, stop voting, and refuse to delegate our decision-making power to people who don’t have our best interests at heart, they will continue to screw us.

You know how many millions of Americans are unemployed, under-employed, homeless, on food stamps, or living below the poverty line? You see anybody in Congress or the White House who has ever been unemployed, under-employed, homeless, on food stamps, or lived below the poverty line? The burden falls on the poorest because we aren’t represented, and we can’t gain representation by voting because even if we run for office, they outspend us, they control the mass media, they program the unverifiable voting machines, they appoint the Supreme Court justices, and they always win—even when they lose the “elections,” as in 2000 and 2004, they win. And in 2008 they had it set up so that whoever won, only the rich would be represented.

As long as they can trick half of us into voting, into delegating our power to rich people who won’t represent us, they can claim to be democratically elected and do whatever they want because we have no way to hold them accountable. As one former elections official put it, ‘once we vote, our job is over,’ and from then on the decisions are made by government officials beholden to the rich. We’ve traded our inalienable right to a voice in government, for the self-defeating right to vote for people who don’t have to represent us and cannot be forced to represent us.

Most Americans want single-payer health care. If we were allowed to vote on it, we’d have it. Instead we get to vote for our choice of candidates who are, if they have any chance of getting campaign donations from the insurance industries, opposed to single-payer. Obama won’t even allow it to be mentioned in his nationwide “public” forums on health care reform. Millions of people voted for him, placed their hope in him, and now he won’t even let them talk about what they want in his “public” forums.

Mark E. Smith—Wow. That is so immoral. Maybe only California? This is what I live on, and, the assets are already so low as to guarantee you cant get ahead one penny. You have to remain permanently very impoverished. (You are allowed to work part time for 3 mos. before they cut it off, along with the Medicaid, which is what I am going to try—-its called Path to Independence or something like that—thats Ohio, and I’m moving so, who knows?)In any case, I didnt know that state govts could mess with SSI, and, if they increase anything at the cost to people on SSI or Medicaid, it is highly immoral.

This is unacceptable. They should make the rich pay for the mess theyve caused. I dont even know what to say. I almost am afraid to read what is being “done” to “help” people not on private health care and in poverty every day…remember when they “helped out in Hurricane Katrina”?? (right….basterds) Well, Ohio’s own Mike Turner proposed a $3.50 co-pay on Medicaid Rx!! “to offset the help that NO got”!! First of all , they didnt GET help,. second of all, why should Med recipients in OHIO pay for it!!When are they going to make the RICh pay for something!!

So many refused to pay it, that they dropped it, but, initiated a horrible HMO (Care Source—-believe me, they DONT “care”!)It wasnt the $3.50—although , on $600 a mo. that is something!). It was the idea that they take from the poor and then, dont give to the poor, and it is so screwed up. But, most didnt even know about it—or care__because they think that we arent educated and dont vbote. They took my PERS pension to put me on Medicaid and I had to “spend down” what assets I had.

Stop the war on the poor!!!

Okay, KDelphi, I found a link:

http://californiasocialsecuritylawyerblog.com/2009/02/23/californias-2009-budget-reduces-ssi-cost-of-living-adjustment/

Those are maximums they’re talking about—most people don’t get that much SSI.

So they haven’t actually made a cut, per se, they’ve just taken back the January cost of living increase. But for the people I’ve spoken with, the loss for the year will be more than the stimulus, so the stimulus works out to be a benefit for those not on SSI, who would be at least slightly and in some cases greatly better off to begin with, and a net loss for those on SSI, who are, due to the requirements to qualify for SSI, low income people with extremely limited assets.

KDelphi, I live in a senior building in California and several residents have had notices of cuts to their SSI benefits.

I’d been hearing about some states where the governors didn’t want to accept the stimulus, and now I’m starting to wonder if they simply didn’t want to be forced into making cuts in social services, public transportation, and SSI benefits the way California has.

I could be all wrong, but maybe this is somewhat analogous to the IMF and World Bank, where they loan countries money only on the condition that they eliminate their social safety nets and force millions of their citizens into dire and hopeless poverty. This is internal rather than external, but it sure looks to me like the same kind of deal.

Mark E. Smith—where did you read that they would cut SSI benefits? Gawd!

If you have a link—-thanks!

I don’t think people mind paying for health care for everyone. What people don’t like is paying insurance companies for useless “health coverage” that isn’t there when you really need health care.

And I was right about Obama cutting Social Security to pay for the boondoggle to fatten the bloated and useless insurance companies. He cut funding to the states, my state cut SSI benefits to compensate, so those on SSI who get a $250 stimulus but lose $37 a month in benefits will come out $46 short on the deal by the end of the year. The elderly and disabled who get SSI are below the poverty level.

All Obama does is take from the poor and give to the rich, just like Bush, only worse. The Bush stimulus was $300 and Social Security and SSI benefits were frozen or didn’t increase as much as the cost of living warranted, but weren’t cut. Okay, $46 isn’t much, but it is a cut, not a stimulus. You can’t take $296, give back $250, and call it a stimulus.

The cuts to the poor will help pay for the stimulus for those who are better off and who won’t suffer any decrease in income.

It will be the same with Obama’s health “reform.” Sort of like Clinton’s welfare “reform,” which threw single mothers off welfare and insisted they work when their kids needed them, jobs were being outsourced, and wages were decreasing. With single payer off the table, Social Security and Medicare will be cut to pay for “coverage” for the uninsured, but if they get sick they still won’t be able to get health care and only the insurance companies will benefit.

Obama won’t let people talk about health care, just health coverage. He allows talk about “access,” because many people with coverage can’t find a doctor or dentist who will accept their insurance, but even if they get access and a doctor or dentist will see them, it doesn’t mean that their insurance coverage will pay for their health care. They’ll get prescriptions they can’t afford to fill and recommended surgery that isn’t covered by their insurance plans. That’s “access.” What is needed is HEALTH CARE, not health access or health coverage.

And Obama and the Democratic Congress still don’t want to normalize relations with Cuba and stop the embargo because Cuba has the audacity to provide free health care for all its citizens. Dirty, filthy commies, caring more about people than about money. How dare they save lives instead of making profits? Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill those stinking pinko socialist freaks for showing mercy towards the poor instead of grovelling to the rich. Nuke ‘em if they refuse to just let poor people suffer and die the way rich capitalists do. They’re subversive, bad for business, and threaten corporate profits. Terrorists is what they are—saving lives instead of killing people. Shame on them!

tropicgirl—Youre right. People like this think that they will never get sick.They should remember that they are only temporarily able-bodied.

Three people got sick in my family, and, it took all we had saved up. Its gone. For good. If one gets very sick, I guess we’ll just die. These policies (nor Medicaid) covers major surgery or chronic illnesses.

I pay property taxes, but, I’ve never had a kid in this school system or any uS school sysmte, (I do it happily and vote for every levy, I might add). I pay for a war I despise.(not happy about that!) If people cant chip in and help others who are sick or diabled or old (you wil be one day Celi) then we are not a “people”, but a collection of “consumers” as they like to call us.

Celia-

You’re an idiot paying for a policy which is most likely worthless to you should you ever really be sick. The type of policy you have most likely is a sham policy that covers nothing. Look into it further, use YOUR brain.

If you have $1000 in your pocket why even get a policy at all? You can afford office visits and an emergency room visit all on your own. Since you can go to Walmart and such, why bother with a policy, following your reasoning.

You didn’t happen to mention what your deductibles are because you probably never had a major medical expense so you would never know. If you had one minor operation, with this policy, you would be in debt. That’s how those policies go. And does it cover anything more than dental cleanings? Doubt it. An infected tooth could cost you over your $1000 stash and so would lots of other dental work.

And Walmart only covers a very limited amount of drugs. Those for kids and asthma and a few other things, thats it. And its only their choice of drugs, which may not be good for your personal condition. Only a doctor can make those choices, not Walmart.

Unfortunately, when you get a little more mature you will have the unpleasant opportunity to see your parents, or other loved-ones get sicker or even die, with lack decent insurance, or god-forbid, yourself. You just haven’t been around long enough, or paying enough attention, to have any wisdom. Life will teach you the hard way, sad to say.

This plan will make access to GOOD coverage worse for the people that need it the most.

It will be hugely expensive, some will still compalain, (although some will be happy, as per above—lucky you, who gives a rat’s ass about anyone else, with chronic condition, jthat cant get your coverage, eh? right…), and, when it goes bankrupt, like Mass is doing, the GOP will say, “see it cant work”, and we will be set bac k 20 years.

Why do people who are doing well under this system, always fail to think about those who are not? Its the pre-existing conditions clause, dummy.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. All civilized countries already have universal care. If the duopoly is so stupid that they cant figure it out (so beholden to the most profitable corps in the uS), bring in a French or Canadian or Scandanavian—-Scandanavians have the highest standard of care in the world.

Dumb Dems

This is just a scam to allow Obama to eliminate Social Security.

Since he won’t take a dime from the “defense” budget, the corporations, or the wealthy elite, this boon to the insurance companies will be funded by the poorest of the poor, the below poverty line elderly whose only income is Social Security and SSI.

Don’t forget that to extend pay insurance companies to extend coverage (not care, just coverage) to more children (SCHIP) the Democratic President and Democratic Congress pass the single most regressive tax in U.S. history, a greater than two thousand percent increase in the federal tax on cigarette rolling tobacco. Not cigarettes, which are sometimes purchased by working, middle, or even upper class Americans, but rolling tobacco which is purchased only by the poorest of the poor.

And this while knowing that carcinogenic hydrocarbon particulates from automobile emissions case ten times higher rates of all kinds of cancer including lung cancer in areas with heavy vehicle traffic than in areas with few vehicles, regardless of whether people smoke or don’t smoke, and that vehicle emissions in cities pump the equivalent of between one and three packs of cigarettes a day into the small, vulnerable, developing lungs of little children.

Trillions to fight wars for the oil companies, billions to bail out auto makers, and now cutting the last safety net we have left, Social Security, to benefit the insurance companies. How do I know that Obama intends to destroy Social Security? Because he won’t fund his program by taxing the corporations, the military-industrial complex, or the rich, and there’s no other segment of the poor from which he can get the money.

Not only are insurance companies major major contributors to the financial disaster the american taxpayer is financing for rewarding those ‘best and brightest’ the whole thing of wall street, banks and insurance companies are nothing less than money laundrying businesses that have hardly done an honest days work in years, decades or ‘if ever’. We buy a policy, we pump money into the ponzi, they distribute the money, we make a claim, they pay a depreciated value and our premiums jump. Great trick, but those crooked lobbyists have gamed the system to exclude these money changers from any accountability and then a few get the money and the taxpayer and middle class lose.
And our electorate, always above and beyond reproach, rig money laundrying legislation to make believe we are doing a bank(g) up job of fighting terrorism with the damn scheme. And congress sleeps.

Blackspeare—YOu seem to contradict yourself. If insurace cos. were going to work, they would be working now.

We could save about $300 billion a year, if we just got rid of them. They need to go into a line of work that doesnt profit from other; misery and death, and so do war time contractos. Not much diff i see.

Death—the Number one ‘Merkin industry.

This Healthcare plan will clearly divide the advocates for the working classes from the Insurance lobbiests.
It should tell us a lot about this administration and where their loyalty really lies.
If they insist that we all buy insurance from private companies they will be throwing us to the lion pits.

The only thing good about having a myriad of insurance companies administer a national health plan is that it will keep “corruption’ to a minimum.  While Medicare is rife with corruption because UHC is just a clearing house and passes through all claims, insurance companies, in a for profit operation, will quite carefully review all claims.  In other words it takes a crook to find a crook!

Bottom line is we canot afford capitalism anymore.  Sorry free market jerks.

Don’t ever confuse health insurance with medical care——they are two entirely different things!!!

I had a Part 2, but I dont know where it ended up—-maybe it will show here. I had links. Sorry about typos in Part 1. I had corrected them, but, forgot to change them in cut and paste.

Thanks for link . lester.

Part 2 Sorry about typos in Part 1. I had corrected them, but, when my browser crashed, the cut and paste came out with the uncorrected one. You’ll get the idea…

The Health Reform Dialogue was endorsed by America;s Health Insurance Plans, Am. Hos Assoc., AMA, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Business Roundtable, Families USA, Fed of Am Hospitals, Natl Federatioa of Independetn Business, Pharmaceutical Reasearch and Manufacutrers of Ama and the US Chamber of Commerce!!@ Now, tell me whqat the hell these for-profit industrties have to do with providing care (not “insurqacne) for those in true need?

“Among other things, the report is silent on whether health reform should include the creation of a new, government-run health benefit, whether individuals should be required to obtain insurance or employers required to provider it, or on how to pay for reforms on the scale proposed by President Obama, which could cost upward of $1 trillion.

Prior to the completion of the report, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) exited the coalition because it is committed to the creation of a new public healthcare program. In addition, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) declined to sign the report.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/health-report-ignores-contentious-issues-2009-03-27.html

The emphasiss of the report, is on “suggestions”, “improvements”, “affordable”, Marketplace”, “tax credits”, and, of course, “strengthening wellness and prevention”, with few suggestions as to how.

I will post a link to the report they came up with, as soon as I can get my browser to stop crashing, when I enable add-ons. Read the report. See what tyou think then. If you think it looks good, you must be very lucky, heatlhy or have very good insurance, or alot of money. Remember that you are only temporarily able-bodied.

I am sorry about the typos in the first post. I tried to divide it up and, somehow, it printed the uncorrected version….

http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:6c3wsmlfpKkJ:www.aha.org/aha/content/2009/pdf/09healthreformdialogue.pdf+Health+Reform+Dialogue+report&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Here is what PNHP think of it:“Stakeholders Agree to Block Reform”  http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/march/stakeholders_agree_.php

Here is what Calif Nurses think of it:http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=57759 and http://seachange.wbumpus.com/node/16847

Cripes is right.  Everyone sign up now at:  http://www.singlepayeraction.org

“Yes, this is the year Congress will finally give every American access to health insurance.” What bullshit!! WE NEED A CONSENSUS THAT HEALTH CARE (not “insuracnce”) IS a basic uman right!! We are citizens and , when ill, patients , not “consumers”!

Dionne—have you even seen the proposals?? Gawd! We might be better off it they did nothing!

..(including business) is frustrated with the status quo. And it has little to do with the details that policy wonks are necessarily hashing over. What matters is that members of Congress have quietly been preparing the ground for reform since Democrats took over two years ago. What also matters is that the competing interest groups seem more inclined to get what they can out of reform than to stop the enterprise altogether…”

To the contrary, the “details” matter very much! It will end up like Medicare Part D, which is a giant gift to the pharmaceutical indsutry, which is killing Medicare. If it ends up costing too much, and, not covering the middle class like Mass. plan, the GOP will kill it in no time.

If Sen Kennedy thinks that heatlh care is a sacrad cause, he should back the HR 676, by Conyers and Kucinich or Sanders plan, which would give everyone coverage—not as good as what he gets, mind you, but better than we have now. Hey, whatever happened to “you’ll be offered the same care that Congress gets”?? When I used to hear people cheer when Sen. Obama said that, I had to laugh out loud…

Baucus has made a complete ass of himself. He says stuff like “We need a completely American plan—you know, go west young man” What bulllshit is THAT??  The Physicians for a Natl Heatlh Plan, and Calif Nurses are not ipressed at all! Neither is Pgrogerssive Dems of Am., move on , org, or any other truly progressive/liberal group.Of course, Harry Ried says that these people are “not helpful”—-who do you want running your health care—bureaucrats from the insurance industry or doctors and nurses?

“... the plan will include a mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance, quelling opposition from the insurance companies. They hope that having a bigger market will compensate them for whatever they might lose from regulatory changes…”

WHY do we care about this?? WHY must we compensate them for their obscenee profits? They let people die every day, so that their stock options will go up 1/4 of a point!

Pres. Obama and the Dems decided to let the death insurance industry write this a long time ago. It will fail for most people that really need it, if it passes at all. From what I’ve seen of it, It will hurt more than help.

Part 1

Cripes is right.  We are screwed again.  Everyone sign up now at:  http://www.singlepayeraction.org

“finally give every American access to health insurance”

Hey E.J., who told you THIS was the mandate? This is not the mandate. The mandate is to cover everyone. BIG difference.

Plans like the Massachusetts plan are a failure. A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE.

So is the “Cover Florida” plan which gives cheap policies that have such high deductibles ($2000 - $5000) that they are unaffordable. Sure, they are accessible, if you have money and are not sick. Everyone has access now.

You CAN’T CONTINUE TO PROFIT FROM HEALTH CARE AND OFFER IT TO EVERYONE. IT SIMPLY WON’T WORK. The profit MUST come out.

Medicare is the only thing that works on this scale, in this country. Its accessible to the poor and those without money and it doesn’t differentiate treatment. If you work in a doctors office then you know it works.

Here are the questions one should ask:

1) Does it cost over $100 per month? If so, no good.

2) Is there a deductible? If so, no one will be able to use it and its no good.

3) Does it differentiate between patients PRECONDITIONS OR CONDITIONS, FOR ANY REASON? Then its no good. Most of the new plans’ deductibles are so high its ridiculous. NO one has $1000 in the bank to throw at doctors.

4) Does it give doctors a CHOICE in treating their patients? If it controls the doctor by any means, its no good.

5) Does it cover alternative medicine? Many old people cannot have surgery and cannot take one more drug or their systems will shut down. These patients need acupuncture, physical therapy and chiropractic WHICH DOES NO HARM.

6) And, finally, does it cover dental care, including “major work”? If it just covers cleanings and all other work is just discounted, it is no good. Crowns, fillings, surgery and these things are the life-saving things in dental care that everyone needs. (Yes, life-saving in many cases. People and children die of tooth infections).

As far as I can tell, OBAMAS INSURANCE PLAN IS A FRAUD, LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE BAILOUT/BUDGET AND WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL, BUT YOU WILL BE PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY, EVEN THOUGH IT WILL NOT HELP YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR PARENTS AT ALL.

Yes, I’m a cynic. I’ll admit it. My observation, is that nothing will be done in Washington, unless someone makes lots of money on what ever they decide to do.

And it won’t be the people.

Medical care in the USA, is in it’s death throws, and if nothing is done, it will die anyway. This is the only reason why, health care reform has a chance now, the end is near and the know it.

But at this point, it’s a little like trying to reform the Nazi party, in Germany in 1933.

Those institutions, that have the most to benefit, are going to make sure they continue to benefit, That their incompetence, greed, larceny, lies and coruption will continue.

In the end, the corporations will get their wish, turning health care into another prison for the people, just like everything else they do.

By voice of truth, April 6 at 10:53 am #

Every American ALREADY has full and complete access to health insurance.  That is an incontrovertible fact.
**********************************************
You have a blazing talent for observation of the obvious. Where is the job for the income to pay for this highly overpriced ‘commodity’ from those ‘far too important to fail’ insurers?

I can see danger ahead, at least in the near term, with company sponsored health insurance.  With mandated and available national health insurance those firms on the edge will drop their plans and the vast unwashed will be force to chose a plan from a myriad of insurance companies.  And if you thought Medicare D was a puzzlement——you ain’t seen nothing yet.  A single payer plan is really the only way to go to benefit the most——that’s why Medicare itself works fairly decently.

Every American ALREADY has full and complete access to health insurance.  That is an incontrovertible fact.

What a bunch of cheerleading tripe.  Forcing everyone to hand their hard earned dollars to a bunch of Insurance/Finace rackeeters who make money by denying care is flat immoral.  Obama knows it’s immoral.  This is what Obama said back in June of 2003, before he was elected even to the US Senate.

    STATE SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent—14 percent—of its gross national product on healthcare, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.

Now that he’s become a flunky for the Financial sector he’s not allowed to voice his own mind on subjects, especially private health insurance (owned by his Wall Street handlers).