Paul, 80% of American votes, no matter whether they are cast on paper or electronic ballots, are COUNTED by easily hacked and totally unverifiable central tabulating computers, so even if we elected somebody, we’d have no way of knowing that we had.

In one case in 2006, it actually was proven when voters waived their right to the privacy of their votes and signed sworn declarations that they had voted for one particular candidate, that the candidate they’d voted for had gotten the most votes, but Congress, which is the sole judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members according to Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution, refused to look at the evidence, and swore in the other candidate, the one who had been “elected” only by the central tabulators, not by the voters.

I would love to be a car salesman with you for a customer. I could offer you a lemon at an exorbitant price, tell you that was the best you were going to get, and sell you anything.

Lack of medical care can kill. We’re fighting for our lives here. You obviously find it acceptable for Congress, many of whose members were fraudulently elected by rigged central tabulators, to place insurance industry profits above human welfare.

We do not.

Mark—Yes…I dont think that they REALLY “feel our pain” do you…if we continue, as we are, they will. It will be sad, but, maybe that is what it will take for the former middle classes to wake up.

I guess that I must repeat, once again, that the entire civilized world considers health care a human right, Of course, the rest the world wants to prosecute torture, too, so, who knows…I guess many ‘Merkins just dont give a rat’s ass what the rest of the world does…

KDelphi—funny if it wasn’t so sad.

We used to have this debate in election integrity groups about the various Holt bills all the time. The political shills would say, “Okay, our electoral system is broken, corrupt, and unverifiable, and this bill won’t fix it, but it’s the best we can get at this time so we should support it.”

Those who actually cared would say that democracy must not be compromised for political expediency.

So I have to wonder about people who would sacrifice their own health and that of their family, friends, and neighbors, for political expediency. I can picture somebody like that going to the emergency room after a heart attack and being told, “Sorry, we can’t do anything for your heart, but we can give you some bandaids,” responding, “Okay, if that’s the best that I can get, that’s fine with me.”

Paul—Maybe it would be better if we just give up and settle for the best that the corporatios have to offer us…

Paul—You cant just say that stats “arent true”! I provided links, interviews, etc. You are just wrong. Can you not concieve that the stats you are giving (with no links or follow up) MAY have an ulterior motive, such as the one I quoted, where the physician said that they were biased? I have been working on this problem for decades…and opinions HAVE changed. I was treated in several countries in Europe , more than 15 yrs ago, so I know that the system is better. I just cant believe we are having the same arguments, today…

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/april/ed_show_bernie_sand.php

AS I pointed out “sympathy”
(as in “I feel your pain”) is what neo-liberals always give you—and nothing else. If you have real empathy, you will back single payer. The majority of Americans DO want it, in study after study. I guess even statistics lie to those who wish them to. As I have said, I am not just talking about myself. But, upper middle class Democratic neo-liberazls are and have been ever since Clinton. Maybe when theyre not middle class anymore…

If “Obama is the best we can do right now” (how lame), we are screwed…I would be horrible if I backed a candidate, and, that was the best I could say about them.

Paul, a third party would just be adding another snout to the lobbyist trough.

As for some people not having heard “the word” about single-payer, I don’t watch TV so I haven’t run into any of them. But I would assume that multi-trillion dollar medical, pharmaceutical, and health insurance companies can easily afford to pay for the services of many operatives to post to blogs, call in to C-Span and to TV and radio shows, and repeat the old canards that everyone knows are false. With so many jobs outsourced, unemployment as high as it is, and the cost of living still rising, there is no shortaqe of people willing to tell lies for a living.

At a health care reform public meeting sponsored by Obama and the governor of my state, single-payer was not allowed to be mentioned. But I made it my business to speak with many of the people in attendance and without exception ALL of them wanted and preferred single-payer.

Some represented unions, some worked in the health care industry, some were associated with various activist groups, some were with local or county government, and many were just interested citizens who had received the same email invitation that I got, probably for having contacted both the President and the Governor about health care reform. Out of at least a hundred people present, I must have spoken with at least two dozen. All were not only aware of single-payer, but preferred it to any other option. The nurses seemed the most vociferous and those who were parents of young children seemed to be the angriest.

Just my personal observations, but derived from actually talking with other human beings, not watching programmed video-pap.

Oops, sorry for the typo. In my post below it should say 2012, of course, not 1012.

KDelphi, in most successful election boycotts, ten percent of the population still votes. And the governments always insist that they won. But with only ten percent voting, they can’t claim the consent of the governed and become a laughing stock at home and illegitimate in the eyes of the world.

Do you remember towards the end of the last administration when Bush had the lowest approval rating of any President ever, Congress had an even lower approval rating, and polls showed that the Republicans had less than a 20% approval rating among Republican voters and the Democrats had less than a 20% approval rating among Democratic voters?

Well, the people who still approved of Congress, the administration, and their political parties, would still vote, but they would be no more than 10% of the electorate.

I can’t organize it. There is only one man who can organize it and he is doing a great job.

By taking single-payer off the table, President Obama is ensuring that many of his most loyal supporters will die of swine flu.

By appointing the people who created the global fiscal crisis to fix it, President Obama has ensured that many of his biggest donors will be bankrupt when the economy crashes.

By continuing and expanding the wars of aggression, President Obama is ensuring that many of the most staunch supporters of his war crimes will die in combat.

If there is anything at all that I have faith that President Obama will change and has brought hope to, it is the possibility of a massive election boycott in 1012.

I believe that his political agenda will kill off or bankrupt not only most of the people who voted for him, but also most of the people who voted for his opponent, McCain, who had a virtually identical voting record and agenda.

I don’t happen to approve of his agenda, but I have nothing but respect for his organizational skills.

There is nothing I can do to organize an election boycott. I can only advocate and I’ve been banned from MANY sites for doing so. But how many times can a majority of Americans oppose something, find that they are ignored, and continue voting to delegate their power to people who ignore them? I don’t know how many times it will take, but I know that if anyone in the world can manage to do it a sufficient number of times during his term of office, it is President Obama.

Yes he can!

Mark—OK. As I said, I see what you are saying. I just have to digest this awhile.

I dont think that we have “representatives” anymore. I agree that holding them accountable, by showing how illegitimate they are, would work , in theory. But, how you woudl do it with blogging and petitions is unclear to me. It seems to me that, if you dont have money, they just dont care…there have been many elections where most did now show up. The MSM still declares it “won”.

HOw would you go about arranging all this? Even if people said that they would not show up, many still would and woudl screw the pooch!@ lol..

Before the last election, i was on another website I used to go to and, I had heard enough. I could tell that the “change” was just bull (well, as most people who know me know, I never really bought it all, I thought Obama semed too “cool”)... I tried to put out a ‘lets just dont do this” type suggestion—-many responded positively, but, next thing I knew, “we” had all been “disappeared”! (I was later banned from that site)

HOw would you get around the MSM, even on the internet, for the most part? All those petitions we sent in on health care, the Bailout, the war—-no one seems to care in DC..I am just asking..I DO see your point,. I just think it would need to be fleshed out…

thebeerdr—yes, most advanced countries do fine people if they dont vote..if there are only the chioces of Tweedledumb and Tweedledumbass, you know….what I’m saying…

Isn’t it funny that many voters fear that the government might not hold elections and might take their vote away, when the real danger is that government might make voting compulsory and force them to vote when they didn’t want to?

Thanks, Beerdoctor.

In countries with citizen oversight of elections, compulsory voting wouldn’t matter. People could still go to the polls and turn in blank ballots.

In the United States it WOULD matter, because 80% of our votes are counted secretly inside easily hacked central tabulators, so it would be extremely difficult (usually impossible as with the ongoing case from the 2006 election in Pima County, Arizona) to prove that people hadn’t voted for a candidate or issue when there were enough voters to make the number of votes seem plausible.

I doubt if the Democrats and Republicans here would allow compulsory voting because they know that the half of American who don’t vote do not identify with either party.

But I’ve been told by Australians that they did not have to provide a doctor’s excuse for not voting, and that just saying that they hadn’t felt well or had forgotten what day it was, usually sufficed to get their fine waived.

If Australians wanted to boycott an election, it would probably be impossible for their government to collect all the fines—doctors who took part in the boycott would happily write excuses for anyone who wanted one, and an attempt at collecting fines would cost more than it was worth. The attendant publicity alone would make it obvious that their government no longer had the consent of the governed.

re: Mark E. Smith

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/compulsoryvote.htm

KDelphi, I agree completely with everything else that you say. I take issue only with the first two paragraphs.

KDelphi: “...if we just have a popular vote, there will certainly be candidates. Proportional rep is a great idea, but, canada and the uK have it and they are only slightly better off than we are. They have multiple parties, which is essential for proportional rep. In canada, Harper still runs things.”

Right. I wasn’t suggesting that proportional representation would help, just mentioning that we don’t even have that much. What I suggest is direct democracy where we vote on issues, laws, and budgets, not for candidates.

KDelphi: “I think that, what we need, to increase our standard of living, to allow for the majority to survive, to stop the Empire, we need Socialist representation….”

I agree that we need socialism. As for representation, that is only workable AFTER there is a way to hold representatives directly and immediately accountable.

KDelphi: “...if people just “dont vote”, what do you think will happen? (That is neither rhetorical not confrontatational in nature) I have a feeling that you think that folks will be out in the street demanding a voice…I wish I could believe that that would be true.”

I neither hope nor want for people to be out in the streets against a police state that can claim to be democratically elected and to have the consent of the governed. A legitimate government has the sole legitimate use of violence. That would make protesters illegitimate.

The first step is to stop voting. When a sizeable majority (not just a small majority) don’t vote, a government cannot claim the consent of the governed. Then it becomes illegitimate and the opposition to it becomes legitimate. That’s a beginning.

The next step is to publicize far and wide that the government is illegitimate and does not have the consent of the governed. Not to go out and ask them to shoot you, but to stay home and blog, write letters, do everything you can to influence world opinion. Gather petitions to the U.N. and to every free country in the world to stop recognizing an illegitimate government.

(continued)

Without the consent of the governed, demonstrated by the fact that it held elections and people voted, a government has no claim whatsoever to being a legitimate democracy. If it cannot get people to vote, it either admits to being a tyranny, or it has to step down. That’s why even dictators hold elections and send their death squads out to force people to vote. But no U.S. law enforcement agency or military force would willingly go house to house to force unwilling Americans to vote at gunpoint. And if foreign mercenaries were used, it would be known to the world.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people still think that they are voting for representatives rather than for unaccountable tyrants. Suppose you had a business and you hired a business representative to represent your business. What would you do if you learned that the representative you hired had been badmouthing your business and spending their workdays representing your competitor? Wouldn’t you fire that person? Of course you would. You hired them to represent YOU, not to represent your competitors and you would be foolish to pay them to represent your competitors. But what if the law said that you couldn’t fire that person and you had to keep paying them to represent your competitors? Would you still call that person your representative?

Americans do.

The “representatives” themselves know that all they have to do is get out the vote. Once there has been an election, the job of the voters is over. The voters have then delegated their power to the “representative” to make their decisions for them. The people have no more power until the next election, and since 80% of U.S. votes are counted secretly inside easily hacked central tabulators, have no way of knowing if their “representative” is even the person they voted for. And even if they can prove that person was never legitimately elected, the voters have no way to remove them from office. They have to be allowed to serve out their terms unless Congress removes them (something it is very unlikely to do) and the people have to keep paying them no matter what they do.

So back to your business representative. If the law says you can’t force them to represent your business and have to keep paying them even if they represent your competitors, is the answer to try to hire a better representative, or to absolutely refuse to hire a representative until the law allows you to hold them accountable and to stop paying them and fire them the moment they stop representing you?

Not two years later. Not four years later. Not six years later. Not eight years later. Immediately upon learning that they are not doing the job you hired and paid them to do.

(continued)

What if the representative says that they really want to represent you and intend to represent you, but they are under a lot of pressure from your competitors and can’t do so quite yet? Do you keep them on the payroll and not fire them? What if the law says that you have to? Wouldn’t the smart thing to do be to stop hiring representatives until you had a way to hold them accountable?

Suppose you have a big business and you have two hundred representatives. A hundred and eighty of them represent your competitors and only twenty of them actually do the job you hired and paid them to do and represent you. Does that make it okay that you have no way to hold them accountable and cannot fire the 120 who are harming your business at your expense?

The problem is the system. The problem is the lack of accountability. As I’ve said before and will continue to repeat in the hopes that it might start to sink in, to vote for people you cannot hold accountable, is criminally insane. Insane because once you vote for them you have no power over them. Criminally insane if you have delegated to them full power over the national treasury, the military, and your children’s and grandchildren’s futures.

No matter how intelligent, charming, sincere, etc., a candidate may be, it is criminally insane to delegate to them your power by voting for them, if you have no way to hold them accountable. The harm they can do in just a few months in office can easily amount to millions of innocent deaths and trillions of wasted dollars—and that’s the best of them. The worst can take away what few rights you have, commit crimes against humanity in your name, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Oh wait—the best and the worst do all of that. These days the only choices on the ballot are evil and voters have to judge the lesser evil based on appearance, poise, campaign lies, and everything except issues, because the only candidates with any chance of winning will have almost identical positions on the issues. Many people I know voted for Obama because Sarah Palin shoots wolves. Well Obama shoots babies—he authorized unmanned attack drones to go into Pakistan and kill innocent babies. I care about wolves too, but I don’t understand people who care more about wolves than about human babies. Maybe the explanation is that they also care more about wolves than about themselves, their kids, or their country.

Mark -I understand what you are saying, and, I admire your fortitude. That being said, if we just have a popular vote, there will certainly be candidates. Proportional rep is a great idea, but, canada and the uK have it and they are only slightly better off than we are. They have multiple parties, which is essential for proportional rep. In canada, Harper still runs things.

I think that, what we need, to increase our standard of living, to allow for the majority to survive, to stop the Empire, we need Socialist representation…if people just “dont vote”, what do you think will happen? (That is neither rhetorical not confrontatational in nature) I have a feeling that you think that folks will be out in the street demanding a voice…I wish I could believe that that would be true.

The direction this country has headed, since its inception, is unsustainable. I have become more and more convinced that the duopoly will hang onto power at all costs. Most people just dont get it that, two parties is just considered ridiculous in most civilized countries. It is NOT provided for in the Constituion(just in case someone tries to say that)

The MARKET is the problem. If reps can still be bought, nothing will change…that is what I am afraid of…Capitalism, as it is practiced has failed…

From Democratic Socialists o f America, by Marty Luster

“Will we go beyond that and seek new and perhaps untried ways of creating and nurturing an economy and an economic system that fairly and democratically distributes its bounty to all who live here? Will we reject the accepted notion that our health, wellbeing and security will always be subject to cyclical forces beyond our control? Will we turn to a system that holds accountable those who plunder the wealth, which is the fruit of our common labor?”

FORMER ASSEMBLYMAN SAYS
“CAPITALISM HAS FAILED US”

Luster Urges Democrats to Work for a “New America”

In remarks before the Tompkins County Democratic Committee at the group’s annual Spring fundraiser on Friday April 24 former Assemblyman Marty Luster, after summarizing a number of major turning points in the nation’s history and describing the country’s current economic situation, declared ,“Capitalism, as we have known it, has failed us.”

Now, I disagree that Democrats can be convinced to work against the system that has bennefitted them so well…as long as the money is there, nothing will change…but US “democracy” seems to be imbedded within a Capitalist framework…USAns are totally convinced that , having a “free mkt” is essential to democracy…the people who tell them that have very specific reasons for doing so…its all about the money…

Paul—thank you, I guess,but you apparently didnt read my statistics…most people do want single payer. The Congress was deluged with it when they were on break—they just want the money that the industry offers.As long as we have Capitalism (moneyism) it will, even life and death, be all about money…Obama just wants top make it “bubble” again…

Its not just about me—I worked as a MSW for many years…synmpathy will help us all not one iota—charity cant do it either. I dont know what will do it, but, as long as the uS willing to let people die for money, we are not a moral nation, and should stop trying to decide how other people live…we could provide all of the people in this country (and beyond) with all the basics of life, if we just stopped spending it killing people…

Unfortunately, Moore, who made “Sicko”
, promised never to endorse any candidates who didnt support single payer—until the great Obama and “Slacker Uprising”. He sold out for popularity’s sake…its sad.

Its is , unfortunately, all about money, and, most people know it now..people are just so frightened of the GOP that they settle again and again..there are worse things than being dead, you know, and, living below the poverty line in the uS is approaching that…they have the power, they just like to believe the folks that tell them that they dont…they want “choice” (really?? of what?) and to “buy stuff”...that is what they tell us…stuff over people…that is Capitalism for you…

Paul, “Sicko” broke all records for a documentary and is available free online. It isn’t getting the word out that is the problem. The word is out about health care just as it was about the bailouts. 90% of Americans opposed the bailouts. The problem is that those in power couldn’t care less what the public wants. They just put their spin doctors to work and ignore us. If 90% of Americans wanted single-payer, they’d just put their spin doctors to work as they did with the bailouts, and go right ahead with the give-aways to the insurance companies.

As for a third party, that’s a really, really dumb idea. First of all, we don’t even have proportional representation the way that democratic countries do. Secondly, power corrupts and in many countries that did have successful third parties, as soon as they got any power, they became corrupted. What we need is direct democracy so that we the people can vote directly on what we want instead of delegating our power to corporate shills to make our decisions for us. That way if 90% of us oppose the bailouts and a majority of us want single-payer, the bailouts wouldn’t happen and single payer would.

Do you think this is a free country, Paul? Do you know what the word free means? Imagine early humans luring wolves and big cats with food, gradually taming and domesticating them and then owning them. That’s what happened to us. We were tamed and domesticated. We traded our freedom for a mess of pottage. Now we whine at the knees of our masters and beg them for scraps.

It seemed so alluring. Why hunt and gather when you can have a steady supply of food given to you by others? Why grow your own when you can just work for somebody else and buy whatever you want? Well, our owners have grown tired of us and they are abandoning us. And now we are finding that we have lost our survival skills. So we whine more loudly. Surely if our masters hear enough of us whine, they’ll feed us, even if we’ve been declared surplus, even if it cuts into corporate profits, etc. Surely they tamed and domesticated us for our own good because they love us, right?

Wrong!

Paul: “*I have seen no evidence (some headlines, yes, but no confirming data) that most Americans favor single-payer.”

Well, if you look at the wholly corporate owned mass media, you won’t see ANY public opinion. If you talk to people you will, but that’s just “anecdotal evidence,” right? Public opinion is simply discredited and doesn’t count.

Paul: *I think your idea that Obama’s base is the top earning one-percent is nutty given his grassroots campaign and his desire to raise the taxes of the most wealthy.”

Well, I don’t judge by what Obama SAYS he wants to do, I judge by what he actually does.

Paul: *But you did not answer my question on the bailouts? What would YOU have done if you were told the global economy would collapse unless we did the bailouts?”

I don’t think of predatory capitalism as “the global economy.” ALBA wouldn’t collapse without the bailouts. Subsistence farming wouldn’t collapse without the bailouts. If I was told that predatory capitalism would collapse without the bailouts, I’d let it. Part of the global economy is sustainable and part of it (predatory capitalism) is a Ponzi scheme and isn’t sustainable. Pouring more money into a Ponzi scheme doesn’t make it sustainable.

I don’t have a car, so I don’t care what happens to the automobile industry and the oil industry. I have two legs and two feet, so I do care about my health. If the automobile industry and the oil industry collapse, it would eliminate much of the air pollution that threatens my health. I’m sure that there are greener, cleaner forms of transportation.

I spent many years in fourth world countries living off the grid and found that my health and happiness increased with a simpler lifestyle. I care more about my health and happiness than I do about corporate profits. Selfish of me, yes. But that’s how I am.

re: Mark E. Smith

When was the last time you saw the beer doctor pal-in’ around with billionaires? To the vast majority the movers and shakers abide on another planet. Perhaps that is why celebrity gossip news is deemed so valuable. The peasants got to know, just got to know, where the the Lords of the realm abide.
Yes there is tons of money… they print more everyday.

Mark—I dont sees how you are disagreeing, really. There is plenty of money, its all just in the hands of the top 1-5%. The dollar may not be worth anything, but, the Captains of INdustry just invest in foreign markets.

People say, “B-b-b-ut they need us! Who will buy their crap if we dont have any money? We are all in this together!”. LOL!

The rich Japanese, Chinese and Europeans will, dummies. An intl good ole boys club. The intl financiers are running the entire planet, and, this guy with the pig-o-nater (lol) or whatever thinks he has his little piece, but, the poor dude…they did NAFTA, CAFTA and are rushing quickly to approve PAFTA…the Shock Doctrine is coming soon to a city near near—-and the country.

There are enough tangible goods to meet everyone’s needs on the planet, just not the upper crust’s golden toilet seats.

Re: Thebeerdoctor

Joe Bageant is a good writer, but the thesis of that article is incorrect.

The United States has tons of money.

Think of it this way. You have five thousand dollars. Your phone bill is $15, your rent is $700, and you need to pay a $400 credit card bill. So you spend $2,500 on guns and feuds. You give another $2,400 to some very wealthy and corrupt friends of yours who want a bailout. NOW you only have $100 and you can make those shithouse arguments.

Auctioneers and snowplow drivers don’t know what every delivery person knows. When you make deliveries to the homes of the poor, they are apt to give you a tip. When you make deliveries to the mansions of the rich, they never seem to have any money on them and they don’t tip. So if you judged people by the tips they give you, you’d think that the poor are rich and the rich are poor. ‘T’ain’t so.

re: KDelphi

Any ordinary American has every right to be angry. I just received this, here is something you might enjoy:

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2009/04/there-are-no-geniuses-in-the-outhouse.html#more

Thanks, Mark. thebeerdr—I will go back and check it out. ..ever since I tried to download the Daily Show clip , and, my old pc said, “out of memory line….” I havent been able to navigate with my browser…somebody buy me a pc that isnt 10 yrs old…

Paul , I sounded pretty harsh…I am just TRYING to get back to work before I am so old that I cant work with the type of clients that I like, and I received an offer—-but if I take it, part-time, I lose my Medicaid coverage…I am unbelievably pissed!! I can try getting an attorney, filling out a 15 page, “Plan for Achievng Self Support” and they will give me, maybe 18 mos to find coverage elsewhere. I have a pre-existing condition—-there is no way. The last place I worked (for the state), I had to sign a pre-existing conditons waiver! Most people dont know how bad it is…I am tired of asking family and friends for help , or, putting medical bills on my 17.24% + prime credit card! (which Pres. Obama is doing almosts nothing about—-it will not help anyone who already has the completely bank-revocable contract—-credit cards will be the next big “crisis”, and, in Ohio, if you file bankruptcy, you lose you house) Of course, Pres. Obama will call for “personal responsibility”—-uh, I’m trying!!

Some Dems seem to under the impression that being on Medicaid or public asssitance of any kind is a “choice”—if it is, you shouldnt be on it…it is sparse, degrading and keeps you from making your own choices. I dont see how we are “saving jobs”, if everytime someone tries to return to work or embark on a new career, they have to libe in mortal dread of becoming sick or having an accident…Any Obama Dems got any suggestions??
Sorry me spelling is so bad…hands hurt today.
There is simply no more excuse for it…nothing has changed that I can see…btew—on BBC,a bunch of British troops went home today…how long are we going to stay? Let the deadline roll around…we’ll stil be there…mark Hillary’s words…

Paul asks, “Mark E. Smith—Don’t you think Obama would be for single-payer if a majority of Americans were for it?”

Uh, actually, Paul, no, I don’t.

90% of Americans opposed the bailouts.

The opposition to the bailouts was so strong and vociferous that it crashed the websites of Members of Congress, jammed their phones and faxes, and many said they had never seen anything like it.

Obama, at the time, was running for President, a time when candidates are usually most sensitive to the wishes of the public and the will of voters.

But his big donors and cronies wanted the bailouts, so he took the lead in pushing them through.

So do I think that if a majority, or 90%, or even 99% of the American people wanted single-payer, Obama would put it back on the table?

No, I don’t. As KDelphi points out, despite the propaganda, most Americans do want single-payer. Obama is now safely elected and has no more incentive to listen to voters. If he didn’t listen when there was 90% public opposition to his agenda, why do you think he would listen if there was 99% opposition?

Obama’s base, like that of Bush before him, is the top one percent, the haves and the have-mores, which includes the highest paid executives and the biggest stockholders of the insurance companies. Those are the people he will listen to, not us.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I’d like to know about it.

When Obama won’t even let single-payer be mentioned in his so-called public meetings on health care reform, it is obvious that he already has his mind made up. He welcomes public opinion when it agrees with him, and ignores it when it doesn’t.

And in America, the land of the free, we do not have the right, as many people do in other countries, to impeach a President. We have to ask Congress to do it, and as many of us learned the hard way during the Bush/Cheney reign, Congress is made up of rich people who won’t impeach one of their own. So single-payer is off the table the same way that impeachment was off the table, and it doesn’t matter to the rich if the other 99% of us don’t like it. We don’t have the power in this country, they do.

re: KDelphi

As Big B once said about me, I am the biggest self promoter since P.T. Barnum. You might want to take a look at my comment on the recent Obama Moment, Chris Hedges piece. Again thanks to Mark E. Smith for bringing up the rolling tobacco federal tax robbery.

Paul—It is just not true that the majority of USAns do not want single payer. Survey after survey shows that they do, unless you ask it like ‘Do you want a bureauarcracy making your health care decisions”? Guess what, unless you are independently wealthy, an HMO or insurance company schill is already making your choices!! The entire civlized world has it.What is this “choice” crap?! Do insurance cos give people “choice”?? They have some people so snowed..

http://www.healthcare-now.org/2009/04/top-ten-enemies-of-single-payer/

The Democrats have control of the presidency, the Senate and the House. If they wanted to enact reform they would.

HERE are the top reasons WHY we wont get single payer (plus BaucASS got $500,000 from insurance industry lobbyists):Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PHRMA). The Lewin Group. (The go-to consulting firm for health reform studies.)Kaiser, funded initially by insurance industry money,Health Care for America Now. (The largest coalition of liberal groups promoting a choice between a public plan and private insurance companies.) “They are saying - we can’t do single payer because Americans don’t want it,” said Kip Sullivan of the Minnesota chapter of PNHP. (Physicians for Natl Health Plan)(pnhp.org) Also try Ca Nurses—how many times has this been posted)“That’s based on junk research conducted by Celinda Lake for the Herndon Alliance. It is bad enough to say we can’t do single payer because the insurance industry is too powerful to beat. But it is just plain insidious to say we can’t do single payer because the American people don’t want it. In fact, polling data indicates that two-thirds of Americans support a single payer system. And that level of support exists despite the fact that there is little public discussion about it.”

I’ll go on…

Families USA. A major inside the beltway liberal foundation and long-time foe of single payer. It’s chief executive, Ron Pollack, was once an advocate for single payer. But no more.

The alternative is a Democratic Socialist party, among others. We need to get rid of the duopoly.

I will continue…

Business Roundtable, Barack Obama, and,  America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). (The private health insurance industry.)American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). These groups are , according to the link, (who , unlike Obama and Congress, has no vested interest in preserving insurance industry profits)determining our “health care insurance policy”.Most people DO want it, and, the so-called progressive Congress (as well as Obama) had better watch their ass, if they think they can just do a big insurance industry ass kiss.

I get so angry when I hear this. “What else can we do” crap! The rest of the world marches on! If Obama is progresasive, so was Nixon…what bullshit.

I am so tired of repeating this shit over and over. NO worries—we wont get it. And, many will never vote Democrat again. I wont. (I didnt)

Thanks, mark, garth for links…many people I know buy tobacco in a pouch—I am an ex-smoker, myself, but, remember how it feels…

Many thanks to thebeerdoctor for that valuable link.

re: Mark E. Smith

To verify Mark E. Smith’s assertion about rolling tobacco, it is absolutely true. As of this April Fool’s Day, the federal tax on a pound of rolling tobacco went from $1.09 to $24.78. That is a 2,200% increase.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26662

Here is a link to a recent article by Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East correspondent, that to American television news is Persona non grata.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/robert-fisk-obama-falls-short-on-armenian-pledge-1675197.html

Of course those adamant supporters of the President, will see this as an intelligent nuanced response. Funny how hell hath no fury when the President of Iran questions the chosen holocaust, by displaying his ignorance, which the western media are more than willing to flaunt. But an entire nation in denial? That’s okay if you are considered a strategic partner in the war on whatever it is you claim it to be. Of course there will also be those who say the Armenian holocaust is yesterday’s news, and it is time to move forward. After all: “who remembers the Armenians?”...and that is a quote from someone who was not President of Iran.

Obama sure took his thumb off the scale to pass SCHIP, which extends coverage (not health care) to kids, leaving it up to the insurance companies to approve or deny medical treatment.

SCHIP was funded by a more than two thousand percent increase in the federal tax on cigarette rolling tobacco. This was not a move against smokers, as cigarettes were not taxed as highly. This was against the poorest of the poor, those smokers who cannot afford to buy cigarettes and buy rolling tobacco instead. And this was done at a time when Obama was giving trillions to the banksters and increasing the defense budget. Not a dime came from defense or from the rich, only the poorest were taxes, and the money goes straight to the insurance companies, not to health care providers.

Obama has been holding “health care reform” public meetings all over the country, but won’t allow anyone to talk about single-payer, He has his thumb on the scale in favor of the insurance companies and his fist knocking the teeth out of poor people—due to Obama’s cuts to state funding, Governor Schwarzenegger just cut ALL dental care for Medi-Cal recipients in California.

Obama’s “stimulus” amounts to only 40% of the federal funding he has eliminated to the states. Since when is a 60% cut called a stimulus? California cut SSI payments to compensate, so the stimulus that SSI recipients get in California will be less than the cuts. Net loss to the poor.

The rich get trillions, the poor get less than they had before. Progressive? As far as I know, the tax increase on rolling tobacco is the single most regressive tax in U.S. history. Never before has there been a two thousand percent federal tax increase on something used only by the poorest of the poor. If it was aimed at smokers to save health care costs, ordinary cigarettes would have been taxed equally, but they weren’t because the poorest can’t afford to buy cigarettes. The tax was deliberately aimed ONLY at the poorest.

The opposite of progressive is regressive. Obama is a regressive, not a progressive.

Jeezus, Mr. Dionne…I know that you like the guy, but, your spending too much time on MSNBC…even supporters dont usually have such whopping praise. Its so “gooey”!

As my 5 yr old neighbor would say, “eeewww, yukk!”

Some of the posts here are just sickening. There is NOTHING “progsesive” about the man!

Guaranteed access to health care?? By whose plan?? Wall St??Huh???

I dont know whose plans y’all are talkng about, but, they aint the Democrats nor Pres. Obama’s! He is decidedly “conservative” or neo-liberal (by that I mean Clintonian) in almost all the fields you mention..

“It’s equally clear that the financing for all this will depend more heavily on taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans, and assistance to the neediest Americans will grow.”  He hasnt even decided to reverse the Bush tax cuts fully. The “neediest” are not those getting a paycheck, and, they only get like $13-25. Keep it and buy them health care (NOT “insurance”)
“As one social activist to Obama’s left who was closely involved in the stimulus fight observed, “When it has the opportunity, the administration always puts its thumb on the scale in favor of doing more for the poor.”

Not with the Bank Bailouts, the credit card mess, health care, not, cutting the military budget. For that matter, what are his plans for “the poor”—he hardly admits that they exist!
“Obama doesn’t tout that fact, and he is not a radical egalitarian. But he certainly is for more equality.”

I dont know what that means…true he is not an egalitarian..

I dont know whose plan you are talking about, but, it certainly isnt Pres. Obamas!

Paul, is it progressive to take single-payer off the table when most Americans want it, as Obama has done?

Is it progressive to stand the Nuremberg Principles on their head by saying that those who were only following orders or just doing their job when they tortured, won’t be prosecuted, as Obama has done?

I lived in Afghanistan for almost five years, back in the late ‘60s, early ‘70s, and I have no fear whatsoever of Afghanistan becoming a lost state. They have been successfully defending themselves against foreign invaders since the days of the old Silk Road, and I expect them to continue to do so. It is the United States, which is pursuing wars of aggression based on lies, that I fear has become a lost state.

You are correct that the article did not directly connect Obama to Chicago machine politics, but to imagine that somebody could succeed in that milieu without compromising any principles they may have had, takes quite a leap of faith. If you are familiar with how bureaucracies work, you know that sometimes a person will pretend to oppose something so that the bureaucracy will reward and promote them for selling out. Those who don’t sell out, don’t get rewarded and promoted. I don’t know of anything that changed in Chicago because of Obama, and I don’t think that anything will change in corporate America because of Obama.

Giving even bigger bailouts to the rich than Bush/Cheney did isn’t change. Increasing the defense budget even more than Bush/Cheney did isn’t change.

Bush and Cheney, as evil as they were, were at least honest about being evil. They didn’t ask for public input because they didn’t want public input. Obama asks for public input, but then takes 90% public opposition to the bailouts and majority public support for single-payer and for torture prosecutions off the table. The public has no more of a voice in government under Obama than we did under Bush/Cheney, but there are still many die-hard optimists who think that they do.

That may turn out to be an even greater tragedy.

Paul, if you mean “progressive” in the sense of a person who claims to be opposed to genocide but always votes for genocide, who claims to be opposed to the bailouts, but always votes for bailouts, who claims to be in favor of progress, but always votes for the status quo, then Obama is a progressive. “Progressive Democrat” is an oxymoron.

As for moderate, there is nothing moderate about Obama’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, nothing moderate about the amounts of money he had given to the banksters, and nothing moderate about the way he took single-payer off the table.

Obama favors his corrupt corporate cronies and campaign donors, the exact same way that Bush and Cheney did, defends torture the same way that they did, and only differs from them in that he is better at telling campaign lies and saying things that the faith-based community can use to support their imaginary hopes for change, but that the reality-based community sees right through.

Herewegoagain, I’m not going to call you naive, but you obviously believed what you wanted to believe. You are to be commended for acknowledging reality rather than remaining in denial and continuing to believe that Obama has some secret plan to eventually undo everything that he has done and is doing. Not even Obama can bring the victims of genocide back from the dead, not even Obama can make Ponzi schemes work by pouring more money into them, and not even Obama can force health insurance companies to approve medical claims when the law says that they have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to deny as many claims as possible so as to maximize profits.

Those of us who, instead of listening to his campaign lies, looked at his voting record in the Senate, saw that it was virtually identical to that of McCain, and refused to choose between two candidates with similar voting records. That’s not an election, that’s the corporatocracy making sure that whoever wins, their agenda continues and the people have no voice in government.

Obama is a very special kind of Democrat—a Chicago Democrat. To understand exactly what that means, this article by Stephen Lendman about Chicago politics is most illuminating.

He cites a report from Frbruary 3rd called, “Curing Corruption in Illinois - Anti-Corruption Report Number 1,” where Dick Simpson, Thomas Gradel, and Andris Zimelis (below Simpson et al) from the University of Illinois Chicago’s Political Science Department, call Chicago “a one-party system where Democrats control the city” but govern like Republicans.

To understand exactly what that means, you have to read the article.

I am flabbergasted at the vitriol in the comments here.  Such unrealistic whining about how Obama should be leading us to the promised land.  If you all made yourselves signs and stood in the middle of a tea party you would fit right in.  Scary, misguided, and playing into the hands of the demagogues.

We’re sooo careful.  Even here where we might expect some strong analysis and memorable words once in a while. Soo careful, he’s this and he’s that, this faction seems this way, this other faction another way, so careful. What about his inconsistencies? What about the vagueness, the peculiarity, what about tempering the worship with a few good questions.

Here’s one: why the drone activity in Pakistan, engineered out of Nevada, that has displaced more than a million people in that area and killed mostly innocent people, including women and children. How much is this activity costing us a recruitment tool for enemies against us? 

Why? Why this idiotic policy?

It seems that Media has now taken up a role as the new “Third Party”. It’s agenda is totally about what creates the ratings and profits. If the story of the day isn’t “newsworthy”, the producers will create one that is and then stuff the rest of the their “air time” with “fluff” and inflamatory commentary (always a ratings grabber). President Obama is seems to be doing his best and must spend more time than should be necessary in answering questions like, who is going to walk his new dog?
Todays journalists are more showbiz than news and show little background knowledge concerning the stories they report on. I used to believe the only dumb question was the one that wasn’t asked but todays news showed me how wrong I can be, too.

From what I’ve seen so far is that americans will be ” guaranteed access to healthcare “,,,,, if they can afford it . We’ll also make sure insurance companys and the thieving fatcats that run them continue to syphon 30% or so off the top , wow , what a visionary . The ” gag ” defense ( war ) business will stay just as bloated as ever , we really need to spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military , eating up more than 40% of the budget . Of course the best people to fix the financial mess we’re in are the people that got us into it , heaven forbid we should hold any of then to account for almost destroying our financial system while raping and pillaging . The bush administration shouldn’t be brought to justice for eight years of trashing the constitution , destroying our standing in the world , torturing people ( some to death ) , getting us into wars based on lies and generally wreaking our country . Why do we need little timmy Geithner and Larry Summers to write ” new ” regulations for the banking system ? Why not just reinstate the ones they worked so dilligently to get removed , Glass-Steagle worked perfectly for more than 60 years , why not just put it back in place ? How about some good old anti trust actions against companys that are too big to fail that are in effect monopolies ? While on that subject why not start breaking the grip a few very conservative conglomerates have on the media , lets put the public interest back in the public airwaves . What we have at present is nothing but a huge conservative propanda machine , other views and the truth are pretty much ignored or spun beyond recognition . Is it any wonder there is such division and out and out ignorance in the country when all the information many of us recieve is filtered through conservative talk radio ( and television news ) unchallanged ? How about revisiting FISA and the awful patriot act and giving us some of our privacy back ? Obama has to present been a huge disapointment , he seems to be nothing but a typical DLC ( republican lite ) democrat . It appears that our two party political system now consists of a bunch of far right lunatics ( the republican party ) and more moderate republicans ( the democrats ) , both in the firm grip of corporations , sad , but true .

Obama will do exactly what his Zionist handlers tell him to do. Like making it a hate crime publishable by jail time to question the Jewish holocaust. Just what are these people so afraid of, the truth that’s what. Mark my words, next they will go after the net to stop the flow of info to the masses. Welcome to the new world order, now get back in line and shut your fucking mouth.

It is par for the course that beltway pundits can offer this caveat: :There can be no denying that if Obama succeeds, government will play a larger role in American life…” I wonder what American life he is actually talking about. Certainly its not the folks who over the last 8 years found themselves swept up and detained for simply having unfamiliar names. Forget about the shoeless insanity at the airports, or how about the incident in Boston, where a notebook computer user was considered to be a possible terrorist because he used a Linux operating system (you know those Linux people know how to use a command line… and that spells a special kind of trouble, according to the writers on Fox’s 24).
Obviously Mr. Dionne lives in a world unfamiliar with what happens to poor people, working or not, every day in this country, without any means of redress or legal protection, who are simply ground up and spit back out, once there is nothing left to be squeezed. Even the prison-industrial-complex gets to be a burden after awhile.
Mr. Dionne also claims, and basically without evidence, that under President Obama, “the financial system will face much tougher rules.” Obviously, this bit of newspeak did not filter its way over to Mr. Dionne’s colleague at the New York Times, Louise Story, who wrote about the banks on April 25, 2009:
“Even as the industry’s compensation has been put in the spotlight for being so high at a time when many banks have received taxpayer help, six of the biggest banks set aside over $36 billion in the first quarter to pay their employees, according to a review of financial statements.”