Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 27, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Gratitude in a Warring World
Thank a Politician Today




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
The Day Wall Street Exploded

The Day Wall Street Exploded

By Beverly Gage
$18.45

more items

 
Report

The Sickening Influence of Campaign Contributions

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 24, 2009
AP photo / Charles Dharapak

Sen. Max Baucus’ Finance Committee is thought to be the best bet for a bipartisan bill. The senator has raised close to $2 million this election cycle from the health sector, according to OpenSecrets.

By Joe Conason

If Congress fails to enact health care reform this year—or if it enacts a sham reform designed to bail out corporate medicine while excluding the “public option”—then the public will rightly blame Democrats, who have no excuse for failure except their own cowardice and corruption. The punishment inflicted by angry voters is likely to be reduced majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives—or even the restoration of Republican rule on Capitol Hill.

Many of those now talking down President Obama’s health care initiative were in Washington back in 1994 when Bill Clinton’s proposals to achieve universal coverage were killed by members of the president’s own party. The Democrats lost control of Congress that November in a historic repudiation, largely because of public disillusionment with their policy failures.

Nearly every poll now shows the American people demanding change in the health care system, with majorities favoring universal coverage and, in many surveys, a government plan that competes with private insurance. But powerful Democratic politicians, especially in the Senate, are pretending not to hear. They adopt all sorts of positions, from bluntly opposing any substantive change this year to promoting bogus alternatives. They claim to be trying to help Obama gather the votes he will need, or to assist him in attracting Republican votes. They insist that the country can’t afford universal care, or that the public option won’t pass (before debate has even begun).

Indeed, many of the most intransigent Democrats don’t bother to make actual arguments to support their position. Nor do they seem to worry that Democratic voters and the party’s main constituencies overwhelmingly support the public option and universal coverage.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., has simply stated, through her flack, that she refuses to support a public option. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has tried to fashion a plan that will entice Republicans, warns that the public option is a step toward single-payer health care—not much of an objection to a model that serves people in every other industrialized country with lower costs and superior outcomes. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., feebly protests that her state’s mismanagement by a Republican governor must stall the progress of the rest of the country. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., says he has a better plan involving regional cooperatives, which would be unable to effectively compete with the insurance behemoths or bargain with pharmaceutical giants.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The excuses sound different, but all of these lawmakers have something in common—namely, their abject dependence on campaign contributions from the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations fighting against real reform. Consider Landrieu, a senator from a very poor state whose working-class constituents badly need universal coverage (and many of whom now depend on Medicare, a popular government program). According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog outfit, she has received nearly $1.7 million from corporate medical interests, including hospitals, insurance companies, nursing homes and drug firms, during her political career.

The same kind of depressing figures can be found in the campaign filings of many of the Democrats now posing as obstacles to reform, notably including Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who has distinguished himself in the most appalling way. The Montana Standard, a news outlet in his home state, found that Baucus has received more campaign money from health and insurance industry donors than any other member of Congress. “In the past six years,” the Standard found, “nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by the Montana senator and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals.”

Whenever Democratic politicians are confronted with this conflict between the public interest and their private fund-raising, they take offense at the implied insult. They protest, as a spokesman for Sen. Landrieu did, that they make policy decisions based on what is best for the people of their states, “not campaign contributions.” But when health reform fails, or turns into a trough for their contributors, who will believe them? And who will vote for them?

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer.

© 2009 Creators Syndicate Inc.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 23, 2010 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Hurray!  The Health care bill passed and is now signed into law, even though not one Republican voted for it.  Now, all the Health Care Bill needs is some adjusting to make it fit the populace. 

Corporations will be spending billions upon billions more than the Democrats to try and cinch the election in 2012 for the Republicans, if regulations can’t be initiated by Congressional Democrats and put in place early enough to stop them.

Report this

By ardee, March 21, 2010 at 5:44 am Link to this comment

In revisiting this old thread I can say that I have seen an improvement in the forum since the absence of ThomasG from it…Thanks for small favors anyway.

Report this

By randy, March 20, 2010 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

CONGRATULATIONS and Salute to the few Democrats and all the Republicans who oppose the socialist/communist/marxist takeover of the United States of American society.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 12, 2009 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

ardee the sophist,

The organized sophists of the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT that bankrupted the nation and destroyed the U.S. Economy, are unrepentant and still active as organized sophists engaged in a new cycle of organized sophist activity in support of the sophist agenda of the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT; this unregenerate, unrepentant organized sophist activity is a threat to the National Security of the United States and to the best interest of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the UNITED STATES, and must be dealt with as the organized crime that it is; it has cost the COMMON POPULATION of the United States trillions of dollars that will take generations of ordinary people of the COMMON POPULATION to pay for the organized criminal activity that robbed both the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, their children and generations of future children that are as yet unborn; if this type of organized criminal activity is allowed to be perpetrated as legitimate political activity, there will be no end to it.

Already the organized political sophists of the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS are gearing up for a new round of organized political sophistry to loot the treasury of the United States and rob the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States and their yet unborn progeny in one more so called economic cycle that will end up being payed for by welfare to the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN sophists and their sophist minions that cooperate and enable them, the Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, and the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST echo-chamber of the media; this type of organized criminal activity must not be allowed by the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION that always end up being the victims of these organized political sophist schemes by being forced as a matter of law by the organized political sophists and their minions that infest the government of the United States to provide welfare for the wealthy and remedy cyclical organized crime by organized political sophists that loot the government treasury of the United States and rob the people of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION on a cyclical basis and call the looting and robbery an “economic cycle”; this is an organized crime subject to punishment and punishment must occur, because it is the only way to restore faith in the government of the United States in the hearts and minds of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States.

Oh, BTW, Are you a paid sophist or a sophist monkey that works without pay?

Report this

By ardee, July 12, 2009 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

ThomasG, July 12 at 12:09 pm #

Once more into the abyss, watch out Nietzsche , the abyss stares back…..

Organised political action, as a crime, is a concept only a sick mind like yours could conceive of, and especially when I am an organization of one, you fool.

The more you continue to post as a raving lunatic the more obvious becomes your condition, obvious I think to all but your dualistic self, Martha/Thomas….Which are you today?

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 12, 2009 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

ardee the sophist,

Organized political sophistry is an ORGANIZED criminal enterprise.

Organized political sophistry intentionally perpetrated by organized sophists of the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT is an organized criminal enterprise that was used to subvert the government of the United States, destroy the U.S. Economy and borrow and spend the United States into bankruptcy; these acts are conspiratorial high felonious crimes, and no amount of organized sophist contention will change the effects of these organized crimes upon the masses of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States.

The organized sophists of the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT from Goldwater to Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and all of their organized sophist minions of the media echo-chamber and the cooperators that enabled the organized sophist agenda that are the Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, of the Democratic Party are all complicit in an organized sophist conspiracy of the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT, that intentionally, over the past 30 years, have engaged in an organized criminal enterprise to subvert the government of the United States for their own greedy self-serving interests that is contrary to the best interest of the United States and the people of the United States, and left the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION holding the bag to pay for the bankruptcy of the United States and economic collapse that they perpetrated for their own greedy self-interest; this was an organized crime and must be both recognized and punished as an organized crime, so that organized sophistry does not continue to recur as what the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS term an “economic cycle”.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 12, 2009 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

The number of people who prefer to dip their bread in gravy may be less then presupposed. Actually the number of people who dislike SOS(S..t on a shingle)  may be higher, this may mean nothing unless one likes SOS, as the economy becomes less robust, we may see much more of SOS!

Report this

By ardee, July 12, 2009 at 6:20 am Link to this comment

If there are any qualified psychiatrists present perhaps they , in their knowledge of how exactly one reaches a deeply disturbed personality, can inform this raving lunatic that lying is only a crime if one has been sworn to be truthful.

He/she makes assumptions of untruthfulness, distorts posts to fit into her/his preconceived notions of political allegiance, not through careful analysis of one efforts , but because of opposition to his/her wacky ideas.

I do sympathize with one who seemingly suffers a grave and serious mental illness however, and offer my condolences to her/his family. I do reserve the right to point out the increasingly bloodthirsty efforts of this sad little poster’s attempts to subvert truth, honesty and the justice system all at once.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 11, 2009 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

ardee the sophist,

Political sophistry as organized crime must be criminalized as organized crime.

I am calling out to the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION to demand and maintain their demand that political sophistry as organized crime be dealt with in the same manner as any other organized criminal endeavor, nothing personal, but you are a criminal.

Report this

By ardee, July 11, 2009 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment

ThomasG, July 11 at 8:06 pm #

ardee the sophist,

With regard to respecting greater and lesser sophists, I respect a sophist’s right to a speedy trial and then execution or imprisonment, dependent upon the level of harm the sophist is responsible for, with regard to sophist effort that they are responsible for, or have contributed to, that compromised National Security and brought down the economy of the United States, and resulted in the Common Population having to shoulder trillions of dollars that was lost to sophist schemes that forced the Common Population to pay welfare for the wealthy.

..........................

To the general forum

This is the second post from an obvious nutjob, the first being when he/she disclosed the “fact” that he/she had already caused the demise of a couple of political forums for the crime of not agreeing with him/her.

Now he/she suggests that she/he has the wisdom to accuse, judge, sentence and execute someone for the crime of seeing exactly how mentally ill he/she happens ot be and noting it…..

Bring it on you sick fuck.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 11, 2009 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

ardee the sophist,

With regard to respecting greater and lesser sophists, I respect a sophist’s right to a speedy trial and then execution or imprisonment, dependent upon the level of harm the sophist is responsible for, with regard to sophist effort that they are responsible for, or have contributed to, that compromised National Security and brought down the economy of the United States, and resulted in the Common Population having to shoulder trillions of dollars that was lost to sophist schemes that forced the Common Population to pay welfare for the wealthy.  My respect for sophists is best expressed as follows:

Destructive Political Sophistry Must Be Defined As A High Crime

Political destruction of the communal wealth of the nation for minority interests of greed by allowing organized political sophists to masquerade as legitimate political movements is the dilemma of both the Republican Party and to a lesser degree the Democratic Party that presently exists in the United States.

Political sophistry must be defined by law as a high crime, a felony, that is punishable by death or life imprisonment, death for greater offenses and life imprisonment for lesser offenses; political sophistry that resulted in the collapse of the economy, as is the current case in the United States has ramifications that are a threat to the National Security, and to the greater majority of the people of the nation that are much greater than the death of a single person, and must be punished more severely than just for the death of a single individual.

The RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT is a movement of political sophists, the results of the political sophistry of this movement, and the people involved as sophists in the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT from the time of Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I and Bush II are all known, and the results of their political sophistry is known, can be collected as proof of intent and used to execute and imprison the responsible political sophists as an example to political sophists in the future; we as a nation must have the resolve to make this happen.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

ardee the sophist,

You are funny. Do you have a need for respect?  Is respect what you are looking to find on this blog? I assure you respect never crossed my mind, especially from you, I’m only interested in informing the masses as much as possible.

I say what I say based solely on my thoughts and only use others as verification of my own thoughts against sophists like you.  Regardless of what you’re following, duoploy is, and the article is a good article.

My thoughts concerning you are that you follow conservatism to the Nth degree, if somebody hasn’t documented their thoughts for you to think, you have no thoughts of your own and can’t imagine how anyone else can have thoughts of their own that aren’t found in a book. If all people were like you, nothing would ever be created.

I seek not your respect and strictly feel that you have not the ability to earn my respect, as you are a sophist who will say whatever, so respect from you is meaningless.  If and when I do talk to you it is because you have said something that needs clarification.  I truly consider you a follower that has one of conservatism’s right-wing sphincter’s tightened down around your head only allowing your nose to stick out a little to breathe some of the time, the rest of the time you have to use a snorkel, which is most of the time.

Report this

By ardee, July 10, 2009 at 2:59 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, July 10 at 1:04 am #

You need something far more important than a reference to an article by Ms. Amato if you wish to salvage any dignity or the shred of any worth to this forum.

You have posted , incessantly, the screed that voting for Democrats is the only way to go. Further you hurl vicious and shrill accusations, whether in the form of you or your alter ego Tommie, that anyone holding an opposing viewpoint is a ‘republican sophist’ or has ones head somewhere anatomically impossible.

Suddenly, and out of the blue, you morph into a Green Party supporter? Nope , sorry, far too late for you , in either guise, to salvage any respect from me…Talk to the hand lady.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 9, 2009 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

You need to read this post about the real duopoly in the United States and perhaps get the book:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/140493/grand_illusion:_the_myth_of_voter_choice_in_a_two-party_tyranny/?comments=layout#comments

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 9, 2009 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

You can’t possibly understand your sphincter problem until you get your head out.

Report this

By ardee, July 9, 2009 at 3:25 am Link to this comment

The duopoly, Martha/Thomas seems inordinately obsessed with sphincters…..I wonder if he/she once had a bad experience in a prison shower or with a trusted relative or babysitter?

But one does admire consistency I suppose, and his/her political commentary and his/her personal jibes are certainly consistently stupid.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 8, 2009 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

Try to loosen the sphincter around your neck a little bit and perhaps you will be able to think more clearly.

Report this

By ardee, July 8, 2009 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

With every post of the Duopoly poster, Thomas Martha GA, I am more convinced of his/her mental instability….Very sad indeed….Now back to politics for me, and hopefully back to therapy for him/her.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 8, 2009 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

You are sick, ardee, or willfully ignorant.  Ross Perot, with all his money wasn’t able to use a third party effectively, and it hasn’t helped Ralph Nader get elected, either, which doesn’t mean they weren’t electable, they were; it only means their hands and feet are tied by the other parties to the extent that they can’t run equally.  It can’t be done without an institutionalized MULTI-PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM so all political parties will be equal in every way in every state.  The Democratic Party is the only available expedient means of accomplishing a MULTI-PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM by way of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION becoming members of the Democratic Party and taking over the party from within, so that the Democratic Party can then be used by the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION to legislate law and order for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.  If you have a better way share it, instead of constantly harping without adding anything to the dialog that is of benefit.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 8, 2009 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

That sphincter is still cutting off the oxygen to your brain, an archive is not going to help you in this regard.

Your posts give the feeble minded something to talk about by dividing discussion into binary contention with you taking both sides of argument and discussion and excluding dialog from those that you claim are making your argument; to do so is your way—and that is of your own choosing, but your self-serving binary contention is a figment of your own demented mind taking both sides of your own argument and is with yourself, not with me.  This is understandable when you have your head up the RIGHT-WING’S ass so far that you are blinded by what is on the far side of the sphincter, as well as by your own loss of oxygen from the stricture of the sphincter around your neck.

Can you say MULTI-PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM?  Or comprehend how to enable a MULTI-PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM, or is that something that a RIGHT-WING sophist like you will get the sphincter tightened past breathing at all if the thought is allowed to penetrate into that swamp of waste that by your own choice blocks your vision and restricts your oxygen supply preventing you from having a clear mind?

BTW, I don’t expect an answer, because I know that you are incapable of doing so, because from your perspective where you have your head, your air is restricted and your head is surrounded by a rather smelly waste product.

Report this

By ardee, July 8, 2009 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

For those not paying attention, and who could blame you?

The first exchange between this wicked witch ( how did that house miss anyway?) and I was over the establishment of third party politics. I took the position that we should work to build such a party, one unbeholden to the corporate influences.

For this stance I was roundly castigated in Martha/Thomas style, which is basically a cesspool of insane ravings, of with which all are undoubtedly familiar. I was lectured and scolded for my belief in third party politics and accused of being a republican agent…excuse me if I do not duplicate the capitals….I was told in no uncertain terms that the ONLY WAY was to reform the Democratic Party.

In the fullness of time, and an endlessly seeming exposure to a truly sick mind, one which recently noted how many liberal forums he/she had brought down for disagreeing with her/him, ( you didnt miss THAT one did you?) we now see a call for third party politics….

I guess Martha is as unaware of the presence of an ARCHIVE as she is that most here undoubtedly see directly through her crap to the seamy underbelly of real mental illness.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 7, 2009 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

Your master’s sphincter is around your neck chocking off the blood to your brain, so that you can’t speak for yourself, apparently? Therefore, you are pretending to speak for others. Speak for yourself only, as no one would want you speaking for them.  And, quit calling me by your family names.   

It is plain to see that a third political party is needed because lack of representation of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION is what caused the loss of all the homes and mass unemployment.  Fending for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION having a political party institutionalized by law to be equal with the other two political parties representing the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION only seems ridiculous to the other two political parties and their sophist minions, all of which benefit from a lack of political representation for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

Duopoly government is what is in the United States that has left out the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, if you can manage to get that sphincter released a little, you will have a different perspective.

Report this

By ardee, July 7, 2009 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, July 7 at 5:53 pm #

Martha/Thomas—you really need to figure out why youre doing this.
........................................

I fear it an impossibility, KD. Such an obviously disordered mind is incapable of self examination.

After pimping the Democratic Party endlessly, the Duopoly Poster now says he/she/it is awaiting a third party. No hope of lucidity here, sorry to say, waaaaay too far gone.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 7, 2009 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

Martha/Thomas—you really need to figure out why youre doing this. Its really wierd…

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 7, 2009 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

ardee the sophist,

Neither I nor ThomasG are waiting to find out about a political party, silly person—- We are working toward getting people aware that another political party is needed, one that’s also institutionalized into law the same as, and equal with, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

I wonder, ardee, do you know what is in your own best interest?

ardee, if you want you start a cult, I want a political party institutionalized in Congress that will represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, the people who are losing their houses and jobs; they are not the 20% Professional Middle Class, but are of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

Report this

By ardee, July 6, 2009 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, July 6 at 9:14 pm #

AWWW Thomas G., losing it badly I see.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 6, 2009 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment

ardee the sophist,

Is that the best you can do, Mr. Dumb Ass?

Report this

By ardee, July 6, 2009 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

ThomasG, July 6 at 2:10 pm #

Awww Martha, you are so in need of help…..

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 6, 2009 at 11:10 am Link to this comment

ardee,

With regard to your comment to MarthaA about my post:

YOU are either from the Planet Stupid, as YOU are the one that has made reference to that sphere of existence, or as is my judgment of your actions on this blog, YOU are a RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN SOPHIST; one who uses intentionally false, deceptive, misleading and dishonest arguments, rhetoric and accusations to lead others to false conclusions.

We do have one thing in common, however, and that is that we are talking to others when we both talk to each other, YOU to mislead for political purpose, and I to wake up sleepers that would be led by YOU and other RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN SOPHISTS greater than YOU, such as Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, George Will, Bill O’Reilly and on and on, that now represent the failed RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION that destroyed the U.S. Economy, started an illegitimate war of convenience with Iraq and bankrupted the Nation with “borrow and spend” policy based upon “supply-side” trickle down economics that only flowed upward to RIGHT-WING INDUSTRIALISTS and didn’t trickle down to the Common Population.

I think that those who are listening to what we have to say to each other need only to ask themselves, are you better off now than you were before Goldwater, Reagan and Bush I and II?  The minority that will say “yes” are the American Aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class, a combined 30% minority of the United States.  The 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION have lost; and are continuing to lose their homes, are in debt and increasingly homeless as a result of the REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION; have voted for change and have heard enough sophist argument and rhetoric to last them for a life time, that results in a RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN attitude of “Let them eat grass.”—- to paraphrase Marie Antionette’s “Let them eat cake” declaration—- and are on the verge of storming the Bastille of the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS that would continue to use the 70% Majority Common Population as livestock commodities; rather than let the 70% Majority Common Population share in the same level of life, liberty, happiness , freedom and justice that the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS have at the expense of the 70% Majority Common Population, as “We The People”, while the 70% Majority Common Population have only the “freedom of the field” and RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN law and order to put the 70% Majority Common Population back into their field, if the 70% Majority Common Population try to escape confinement to their freedom of the field as useful commodities to the American Aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class.

Report this

By ardee, July 2, 2009 at 3:34 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, July 2 at 5:57 am #

ardee,

Since you say you are waiting to find out about a political party being institutionalized by law, here is a copy of ThomasG’s post to KDelphi that should enlighten your wait, of course you are aware legislators in Congress make law and institutionalize by law:
.....................

I simply cannot be the only one doubled up with laughter at the specious “logic” thrown upon the wall by Martha, my favorite fanatic.

In response to a request for verification of the nonsense she and her alter ego post here she gives me a comment by her other self…..what insurmountable proof! How could I have questioned her on this ???

I have searched high and low ( for those with actual brains ) for any such verification of the crap she spews here, both the absurdity of a political party “institutionalized by law” and the now worked to death “70% common majority” crap as well. But, I fear, they are products of a cultist like mind and not reality.

If I want to start a political party I am absolutely free to do so, the law provides no barrier to me or to anyone so desirous. That is the reality of my nation, I do not know the rules on Martha’s home planet however.

This crap she spews, with utter sincerity (scary in fact) is the product of desire to keep inviolate the two party system and stifle any competition to her chosen party from arising. It has NO basis in fact or law.

Of course the two party system has become, over time, an institution, but by custom and not by the laws of the land, every sane citizen understand this. It is up to the people to decide if this should change, and Martha’s right to defend the institution, probably from an institution in fact…..But it is not her right to spew carp she makes up and swears is true.

Ironic that the biggest sophist in this forum calls another poster such a name…perfect Rovian politics in fact….

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 2, 2009 at 3:22 am Link to this comment

ardee the Repug Sophist,

Institutionalizing a political party to represent the 70% Majority Common Population is only garbage to a Repug sophist.

A 3rd political party needs to be institutionalized by Congressional legislation to represent the 70% Majority Common Population.  Institutionalization by law of a 3rd Political Party will have to be done, so that REPRESENTATION of the Common Population will be on equal ground with the two political parties, that have already been institutionalized by Congressional law.  The Republican Party represents the Aristocrats and what is of interest to the Aristocrats, and the Democratic Party represents the New Professional Middle Class of New Conservative Democrats and New Conservative Democrat interests; there is a need for a 3rd “institutionalized by law” political party to represent the interests of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION that currently is not being represented in their best interest in the Congress of the United States.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 2, 2009 at 2:58 am Link to this comment

ardee,

If you are still waiting to find out how something is institutionalized by law, here is a copy of ThomasG’s post to KDelphi that should enlighten your wait:

“A political party “institutionalized by law” means that any political party established by law will not be discriminated against by law as a matter of law.  The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have been “institutionalized by law” and can not be discriminated against by law.  All other political parties in the United States are discriminated against by law because they do not have “institutionalized status as a matter of law”.

More than two political parties have not been institutionalized by law in the United States, therefore the institutionalized parties have set the bar too high by law and have intentionally set standards of law to exclude other political parties from competition with the two institutionalized parties that control the political system in the United States.

INSTITUTION: 3) an established law, custom, organization, or society.  4) an instituting; setting up; establishing; beginning.

INSTITUTIONALIZE: 1) to make into or treat as an institution.

The United States, Federal, State, County and City governments have institutionalized infrastructure such as water towers, public thoroughfares (highways, roads and rails), bridges, government buildings, etc.  Society has institutionalized churches, schools, colleges, hospitals, asylums, prisons, etc.

The question is that if for the well being of the nation, the nation needs MORE THAN two water towers, MORE THAN two public thoroughfares (highways, roads and rails), MORE THAN two bridges, MORE THAN two government buildings, MORE THAN two churches, MORE THAN two schools, MORE THAN two colleges, MORE THAN two hospitals, MORE THAN two asylums, MORE THAN two prisons, etc.—- why is it that the United States has only TWO POLITICAL PARTIES?  Could it be CONTROL, and that there is INTENT behind the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION not being institutionally represented by a political party, so that the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION can be represented in the Congress of the United States and be able to take part in the making and enforcing of law and order that is in the best interest of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 2, 2009 at 2:57 am Link to this comment

ardee,

Since you say you are waiting to find out about a political party being institutionalized by law, here is a copy of ThomasG’s post to KDelphi that should enlighten your wait, of course you are aware legislators in Congress make law and institutionalize by law:

“A political party “institutionalized by law” means that any political party established by law will not be discriminated against by law as a matter of law.  The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have been “institutionalized by law” and can not be discriminated against by law.  All other political parties in the United States are discriminated against by law because they do not have “institutionalized status as a matter of law”.

More than two political parties have not been institutionalized by law in the United States, therefore the institutionalized parties have set the bar too high by law and have intentionally set standards of law to exclude other political parties from competition with the two institutionalized parties that control the political system in the United States.

INSTITUTION: 3) an established law, custom, organization, or society.  4) an instituting; setting up; establishing; beginning.

INSTITUTIONALIZE: 1) to make into or treat as an institution.

The United States, Federal, State, County and City governments have institutionalized infrastructure such as water towers, public thoroughfares (highways, roads and rails), bridges, government buildings, etc.  Society has institutionalized churches, schools, colleges, hospitals, asylums, prisons, etc.

The question is that if for the well being of the nation, the nation needs MORE THAN two water towers, MORE THAN two public thoroughfares (highways, roads and rails), MORE THAN two bridges, MORE THAN two government buildings, MORE THAN two churches, MORE THAN two schools, MORE THAN two colleges, MORE THAN two hospitals, MORE THAN two asylums, MORE THAN two prisons, etc.—- why is it that the United States has only TWO POLITICAL PARTIES?  Could it be CONTROL, and that there is INTENT behind the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION not being institutionally represented by a political party, so that the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION can be represented in the Congress of the United States and be able to take part in the making and enforcing of law and order that is in the best interest of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 1, 2009 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi,

You are wrong.  MarthaA and ThomasG are not the same person at all, but we do think a lot alike on politics, although ThomasG is much more intelligent than I.

Sophist is a good word for what you and your ilk do.  I thank you for your accusation, that word may not have come to my mind readily and it is such a good word for describing what the Repugs are doing on this blog.  Of course, a good sophist is one who denies being a sophist, and you are a good sophist that provides misinformation and never answer anything.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 1, 2009 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

ardee—yes ThomasG and MarthaA are the same person…I noted that a few weeks ago.The “speech” patterns are the same and the “commmon population” stuff comes out alot. I used the word “sophistry” to describe her beating the same “questionable drum” a week or so ago, and, she hasnt let go of the word since… Thanks for quantifying the laws better.

Samson—Yes! Bernie Sanders! (who is the only Senator to have put forth a decent universal health care bill—no one supported him on it) Proportional rep is what is needed (and, in my opinion, a Parliament, and many parties)

Can you name any people who are running against these croporacrats this time? I’d be interested..you could put them on your website??

Here is Sanders Bill, if anyone is interested…

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=314866

Report this

By ardee, June 30, 2009 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

Samson, June 30 at 5:03 pm #

I love the way the supporters of the two corporate parties toss out lots of nonsense about ‘3rd parties’.
......................................

I am still awaiting a response about that ‘institutionalized by law’ garbage.. I think it might be a long wait.

The deck is certainly stacked against the emergence of third party politics, as your four points illustrate rather well. In addition the two parties work hard to keep potential third party or independent candidates off the ballots as much as possible, as was Ralph Nader in several states.

But we really have no choice, in my opinion, but to continue to work for the growth of such party affiliations, as the two major parties represent the will of the corporations and not the will of the people.

Having some experience in grassroots democratic politics I am very aware of the top down nature of that beast, in which the only thing that flows upward is money, all decision making and direction comes from above, and no suggestions from the local clubs are heeded.

If we wish to see real health care reform I believe it will have to await the emergence of said third parties, the insurance companies write large checks to ensure loyalty to their bottom lines from both Dems and Repugs.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, June 30, 2009 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

I love the way the supporters of the two corporate parties toss out lots of nonsense about ‘3rd parties’.

I can think of at least two winning campaigns by ‘independent’ or ‘3rd party’ candidates at the state-wide level in the last couple of decades.

—Bernie Sanders, current US Senator from Vermont, runs as a ‘Socialist’ candidate.
—Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota, ran as an independent.

The limits on alternative parties are generally as follows.
—the existing parties are very well funded by exactly the people they make rich with their policies.
—the existing parties have a core of voters who tend to vote for that party no matter what.
—the Winner-Take-All style of elections tends to force a very limited number of parties in an election.  What we have is essentially a system where the wealthiest and most powerful in each ‘district’ get to pick who represents the district.  This leads to a ‘Congress’ which is a collection of the rich and powerful.  It does not represent the people as a whole.
—the news media noise machine emphasizes the two parties and ridicules and ignores any challenges.

All of this means that we can win.  The two examples given above show that it does happen.  However, we need to run very different campaigns from what the rich parties run.  We need to build a grassroots campaign. This takes time.  Right now, we need to be active and recruiting the core of the people that will be working on campaigns next year.

We have to teach people that the candidates with the money are not on our side.  We have to teach people that the candidates that appear on the corporate TV set are not on our side.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, June 30, 2009 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

My local employee of the health insurance companies, also known as my local Democratic US Senator (Bennett-CO), sent around an email.  Of course, this was written to make it sound like he was working hard to get me better (any) health care.

Of course, you know we were being setup for ‘no change’ or ‘very little change’ by the title, which was ‘Health Care without Breaking the Bank.’  Me, I’d like to break a few banks right now, but obviously the Democrats are more committed to giving them trillions instead.

When you went further down, his priorities on health care started with this right at the top of the list.

“They want us to leave alone the parts of the system that aren’t broken. They want to have the choice to keep their health insurance if they like it.”

So, when you translate that out from politicianeese into the real world, that means my Democratic Senators top two priorities really are ...

1)  As little possible change to the existing system as possible.  Or, in other words, he knows people are mad, and that some change is unavoidable, but he’s committed to making sure that as little as possible changes.

2)  If there does have to be change, then the private insurance policies, and of course the profits the insurance industry makes from them, are untouchable and must be maintained at all costs. 

That’s at all costs to the rest of us, as we’ll be the ones paying for it.  After all, we sure couldn’t think of breaking a bank (or two).

——————
People, its clear that voting Democrat is not the answer.  We need to start organizing, right now, independent campaigns in the next election.  Don’t just tell your congressperson or senator that you won’t be voting for them.  Instead, let them see a growing independent campaign in their district with contributions coming in and volunteers out working a year in advance of the next election. 

That’s how you let them really know you won’t forget this.

Report this

By ardee, June 30, 2009 at 3:52 am Link to this comment

Never send a dupe to do your own work:

http://www.goethe.de/in/d/presse/gesetzestexte/e/parteien-einl-e-f.html

The constitution and the political parties

Competing political parties form the basis of modern parliamentary constitutional systems; they perform functions of political leadership and control for specified periods and are answerable to the people. As organized groupings, they provide alternatives upon which the life of the State can be moulded and shaped. Through their mediatory function, the nation is cast in the role of the subject of political rule. Today, political parties are among the decisive elements of the democratic State. Their freedom to function is an essential component of the democratic order. edited for space and ennui…......
Article 21 of the Basic Law decrees that:

“(1) The parties help form the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organization shall conform to democratic principles. They shall publicly account for the sources and use of their funds and for their assets.

(edit again)
In a democracy, the people alone are not capable of action. The Federal Constitutional Court had the following to say on this point: “The political parties are the political units of action which democracy needs in order to unite the electors into groups capable of political action, only thus giving them effective influence over what happens in the State. The political parties participate in the forming of the people’s political will chiefly through their participation in elections, which could not in any event be carried out without the political parties. Furthermore, they represent links between the citizens and the organs of the State, intermediaries through which the will of the people can also be realized between elections. They assimilate the opinions, interests and endeavours directed toward political power and its execution and shape them into alternatives from which the people can make their choice. The political parties exercise decisive influence on the occupancy of the supreme organs of the State. Where they form the parliamentary majority and support the government, they represent and sustain the main link between the people and the State’s political organs of leadership. As minority parties, they form the political Opposition and give it effectiveness. They influence the shaping of the will of the State through being involved in the system of State institutions and offices, in particular through exerting their influence on the decisions and activities of parliament and government.”

However, the Federal Constitutional Court also emphasized – as elucidated in Article 21, Paragraph 1, of the Basic Law – that the political parties hold no monopoly as regards influencing and initially forming the will of the people. Besides them, associations and other groupings and organizations and the mass media are also free to play their part in the opinion-forming process. Above all, the participation of independent, non-partisan candidates is guaranteed.
...................

Please note that this article bounces between German and American law in a disturbing and car sickness producing ways….but the suggestion that political parties are “institutionalized by law” seems a way to affirm the nature of our two party system and exclude all others, it is also as much a bit of silliness as is the notion of a mythic “70% common majority”.

Sometimes sophistry is found among the accusers and not the accused.

Report this

By ardee, June 29, 2009 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

There is no such thing as a political party “institutionalized by law” Find me a law that specifically does so please.

You are really Martha arent you?

Report this

By glider, June 29, 2009 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is copied from another comments section on the web. I would love to see it in action!

“Robin Williams suggested that lawmakers should dress like NASCAR drivers showing their sponsorships on their jackets pants and hats”

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 29, 2009 at 5:33 am Link to this comment

KDelphi,

A political party “institutionalized by law” means that any political party established by law will not be discriminated against by law as a matter of law.  The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have been “institutionalized by law” and can not be discriminated against by law.  All other political parties in the United States are discriminated against by law because they do not have “institutionalized status as a matter of law”.

More than two political parties have not been institutionalized by law in the United States, therefore the institutionalized parties have set the bar too high by law and have intentionally set standards of law to exclude other political parties from competition with the two institutionalized parties that control the political system in the United States.

INSTITUTION: 3) an established law, custom, organization, or society.  4) an instituting; setting up; establishing; beginning.

INSTITUTIONALIZE: 1) to make into or treat as an institution.

The United States, Federal, State, County and City governments have institutionalized infrastructure such as water towers, public thoroughfares (highways, roads and rails), bridges, government buildings, etc.  Society has institutionalized churches, schools, colleges, hospitals, asylums, prisons, etc.

The question is that if for the well being of the nation, the nation needs MORE THAN two water towers, MORE THAN two public thoroughfares (highways, roads and rails), MORE THAN two bridges, MORE THAN two government buildings, MORE THAN two churches, MORE THAN two schools, MORE THAN two colleges, MORE THAN two hospitals, MORE THAN two asylums, MORE THAN two prisons, etc.—- why is it that the United States has only TWO POLITICAL PARTIES?  Could it be CONTROL, and that there is INTENT behind the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION not being institutionally represented by a political party, so that the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION can be represented in the Congress of the United States and be able to take part in the making and enforcing of law and order that is in the best interest of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.


ardee, Sophistry gone to seed.

Report this

By ardee, June 29, 2009 at 5:14 am Link to this comment

in?sti?tu?tion?al?ize??/??nst??tu??nl?a?z, -?tyu-/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-sti-too-shuh-nl-ahyz, -tyoo-]  Show IPA
Use institutionalized in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz?ing. 1. to make institutional.
2. to make into or treat as an institution: the danger of institutionalizing racism. 
3. to place or confine in an institution, esp. one for the care of mental illness, alcoholism, etc.


Of course most know my opinion, it is overwhelmingly for number three…..wink


KD You are of course spot on in noting that political parties are free to be formed by those interested in doing so, not by those who must follow the mandates of some law or other. In fact qualifying for matching funds references no constitutional requirement or legal mandate other than the agreement to keep ones expenditures under a preset limit.

Matching funds are public monies given to presidential candidates that “matches” funds they have raised privately from individuals. During the primary season, eligible candidates may receive up to $250 in matching funds for each individual contribution they receive.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/765718.html

Nor is it evident what sort of information you’re asking for.
Starting a political party generally involves rounding-up like minded
people.  You meet somewhere, you talk, you write an op-ed in your
local paper, you begin a petition, or you do other sorts of activities
to get folks involved.

At some point, you may wish to field a candidate for a local, state or
national election, and for that activity, there are a host of specific
requirements that apply, depending on what particular election you’re
aiming for.

Prior to that, though, you start up a political party more or less by simply calling yourself by a party name, and trying to get folks
involved.


Another in a longish list ( and growing longer all the time) of a unique and odd view of our political system, its flaws, foibles and even its merits.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 28, 2009 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Martha/Thomas__what does “institutionalized by law” mean? there is nothing in the Constitution about “two parties”. We already have other parties. They are just too minor to succeed.

Of the Dems keeps screwing up maybe they will. It is our only hope.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

Unify Insurance Risk Pool

There is a lot of talk about health care: single payer, a public option and lesser schemes that are the FREE Market sophistry of greed.  Aside from all of the talk, the effect is meaningless unless a law is established that “unifies the insurance risk pool”, so that insurance rates can be determined by a “unified insurance risk pool”; rather than the current diversity of risk pools that separates one risk pool that is the population of the United States into a fractionalized conglomeration of high risk to low risk divisions as a money-making scheme for the insurance companies at the expense of the greater part of the population, who rely upon insurance but can’t afford insurance, because the risk pool in the United States is not unified to provide rates to everyone based upon the shared risk of a unified risk pool.

All insurance rates; health insurance, automobile insurance, life insurance, et al, are a FREE Market Scam of capitalist sophistry that are not set on the basis of a unified insurance risk pool.

To talk of health care based upon insurable risk, with the current high risk/lowrisk division of the insurance risk pool is the purest form of sophist rhetoric that has, during my lifetime, been practiced by the CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS of the Republican Party from the time of Goldwater and Reagan to the present time.

It is time for a change from sophistry to meaningful dialogue with regard to health care and all forms of insurance.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 28, 2009 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi,

A 3rd Party can not succeed unless it is institutionalized by law and NO 3rd Party has been institutionalized by law as of the present day.

A 3rd Party needs to be institutionalized by law for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

Unregulated FREE Market Capitalism is already being pushed by the REPUBLICAN PARTY and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY; for this purpose a 3rd Party would be obscene overkill.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 28, 2009 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

A Third Party could succeed , if the people feel let down enough (shouldnt be any problem there!). But, I dont think that a third party could succeed by pushing unregulated free market Capitalism.

I dont think that many people in the US think that people start at a “level playing field” anymore, because they dont.

And the idea of ‘no govt” isnt going to appeal to many. There is probably too much distance between the former Dems and Libertarians to be bridged…that would be the way to win.

Report this

By ardee, June 28, 2009 at 5:10 am Link to this comment

PhreedomPhan, June 27 at 11:34 pm #

This entire effort of yours is one giant backpedal, Phan, good luck with that enormous insincerity thingie.
.............................................

Purple Girl, June 28 at 7:26 am #

What part of their Oath of office Eludes their comprehension? ‘Support’, ‘Defend’, ‘Enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC’??? Are the confused about who the Constitituion was written For? Clue: It’s found in the First 3 Words…“WE THE PEOPLE”.
Instead of wasting our time and efforts on bitching about lobbist influence, why are we not prosecuting those who have been Derelict in their Duties or have been outright Traitors
.....................................

You are, of course, absolutely correct in your call for prosecution. But how can it happen until the people take back their government from the special interests that now own it?

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, June 28, 2009 at 4:26 am Link to this comment

What part of their Oath of office Eludes their comprehension? ‘Support’, ‘Defend’, ‘Enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC’??? Are the confused about who the Constitituion was written For? Clue: It’s found in the First 3 Words…“WE THE PEOPLE”.
Instead of wasting our time and efforts on bitching about lobbist influence, why are we not prosecuting those who have been Derelict in their Duties or have been outright Traitors. If their legislative decisions are obviously being tainted by campaign contributions, instead of trying to push through campaign reform through the very body which is infected with it’s disease, Go through legal action on the Grounds of Treason.
What difference is it if a person takes money from a Foreign country to wokr against the interests of the American People and those who take money from Incs. Our Founders made a clear declaration that neither is exempt- “Enemeies both Foreign and Domestic”
Heres where the Teabaggers are once again being misled by the Very corps who sponsor their ‘rallies’. Of course these Corps what to deflect blame towards the Gov’t, so that their influence and crimes agaisnt the State are ignored.
Teabaggers- Our Democratic Gov’t IS WE the People, so it is not the Problem- it’s those who have solicited it’s various members services through campaign contributions. You are throwing out the Baby with the Bathwater! Anarchy is not the solution,nor is expecting those Whores to pass legislation which takes money out of their pockets. The only way to end the system of prosititution is to bring Criminal charges against those who took an Oath and have foresaken it for monatary or political gains.
Baccus’s (among others) have blocked all means towards a Universal healthcare system for Americans and healthcare is the Essential ways and means to “LIFE,Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness”. Baccus et al have done this to support, protect and defend the Private Corps ‘life’ Liberties and their ‘pursuit of happiness’ (the profit margins which afford exorbinant Salaries, Comp packages and Golden parachutes).
46 million peoples Constituional Rights have been violated - and more are being added everyday as this economy tanks and more become unemployed.
Besides if ‘We the People’ were granted the right to access the Free Market, doe that not also include ‘WE the People’s Right to be on th eother side of the market table, as producers, providers, supplier and vendors. Relegating the American people to JUST labor and consumer is no different than the lopsided Market place of ‘merry ol England’ which Our Founders Declared Our Independence From. It is far more accurate to say our Founders granted US the inalienable Right to be on the Other side to the Table, as a Collective Force, hence the phrase “We the people”(FYI “We the People” is a declaration of a Socialist ideology, Not a Capitalist)

Report this

By PhreedomPhan, June 27, 2009 at 8:34 pm Link to this comment

Ardee,

I don’t know if there are more than a few here who begin an “honest debate” with an insult, but I have noticed that those here and those in other places that do this are the first to whine when someone throws it back at them.

For example, my post, which was not part of a debate but merely a statement of my opinion based on many years of observation, experience, and reading quickly drew an insult from someone who apparently didn’t bother to read my opinion of Reagan.

“Are you perchance channeling Reagan?”  This I consider an insult.  Of course, people who use this technique are usually cowards, so they put in the “perchance” to try to conceal the insult.  Notice that I turned that technique back on you.  I’m learning the tricks of the professional propagandist.

But of course, the biggest insult was calling me a liar.

“The reason I have such a problem with your characterisation of govt as universally bad is that it is a small truth wrapped in a giant lie.”

Again, an insult, but couched in terms that the poster can use to squirm out from under if called on it.  More cowardice.  BTW, not that you’re interested in facts, but I am not an anarchist.  I recognize the need for government.  I just believe that government should be as small and as local as possible so that it can’t be used as a tool to loot us.

Of course you have no problem responding “IN KIND.”  If you did, you wouldn’t have started the insults in the first place.  Are you a professional character assassin or is it just a hobby?

“I would love to respond to this post but it seems a hash of incoherency to me, and bears little relation to your first effort, the one that I responded to originally.” - Ardee

I’m sure you would love to respond, but you lack the ability.  I’m sorry I talked over your head.  If I were going to waste anymore time with you, I would try to dumb my comments down to your level.  Since my post was largely an expansion of my earlier post but you were unable to grasp that, it becomes another bit of evidence to support the ADS idea.

BTW, ADS is not a thinking disorder.  Fundamentally it’s just a short attention span which is what I implied in response to your being unable to pay attention long enough to read that I was no Reagan fan and again with your inability to tie my posts together.

On this I agree with you. Roosevelt certainly started many of the programs that have brought this country down.  Some historians have said that Money dumped Hoover because he objected to the NRA as too Fascist.  It wasn’t too fascist for FDR.  He and Big Business played Brer Rabbit’s “don’t fling me in that thar regulated economy” game perfectly.  Roosevelt knew full well the regulated economy of old Europe was where the modern money powers and corporate monopolies thrived and and grew as they learned to use regulation to destroy competition.

If Franklin’s programs had any effect on the depression, it was to make it the longest and deepest in our history.  His programs kept us in the depression until war preparation production pulled us out.  This started before we entered the war directly.  Here’s a reason I would have hung FDR with all the other war criminals had he lived.  In the 90’s classified documents were released vindicating men like John T. Flynn, Rear Admiral Theobald, and Admiral Kimmel, all of whom wrote books outlining how “the great man” set up our fleet as a sitting duck in Pearl Harbor and then gave the Japanese an ultimatum that would force them to attack to survive.

Rather than try to answer your entire barrage of personal attacks in response to my return against your original attack, I’ll just leave you with the philosophy I’ve developed from dealing with a certain internet type.  “He who argues with a fool, knowing the fool is a fool, is a fool.”  I’m no fool.  Knowing what I now know, I’m not going to argue with you anymore.

Report this

By PhreedomPhan, June 27, 2009 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

Rontruth

Ron,

I agree with you in part.  But maybe easier than pushing an independent candidate, try to get people to vote out all incumbents regardless of party.  Sure, you might lose a good person or two that way, but think of all the dregs you’ll be rid of.  Another thing is to convince people to vote against candidates with party endorsement in primaries.  The same would also be true of media endorsed candidates.

I wish I could say a third party would be possible, but I have experience having chaired our county committee of a third party.  Everything is stacked against a third party in most States.  The third party gets no media coverage and every attempt is made to keep you out of candidates nights sponsored by various groups.  To give you an idea of how thorough the media blackout is, when I ran on our party ticket for county treasurer, our commissioner candidate and I appeared with the Reps and Dems at a Constables Association candidates night.  Every candidate said they were law and order candidates.  I was the only one who said, “I too am a law and order candidate.  I just happen to think there is too much law and too little order.”  The next day the local rag reported that Rep and Dem candidates appeared before the Constables Association last night.  Each addressed the subjects of law (too much) and order (too little).  I was the only one who said that and yet, the Bucks County Courier Times, a roll of toilet paper that tries to pass itself off as a newspaper, didn’t even mention that our commissioner candidate and I were there.  They make it very hard to maintain a ballot position.  I sometimes wonder how the Libertarian Party has done it for so long.

Of course, if the third party will serve a purpose for the powers that be, it can have some instant results.  There are two examples that I can think of.  One was when Jimmy Carter was deselected President.  To ensure a Reagan victory, Carter’s fellow Trilateral Commission member, John Anderson was put up as a third party candidate.  Instantly he had an organization, a ballot position, and widespread media coverage.  Third parties that had been in existence for years were lucky just to get a ballot position.  The second instant was when George H.W. was deselected.  When the race looked pretty close, Ross Perot came out of the woodwork, a sure bet to pull votes from Bush.  When it appeared Clinton had a good lead, Perot dropped out, but when it started to look close again, Perot got back in the race.  Again, he had an instant nationwide organization, a ballot position, and widespread media coverage.

If you want to see some information that I think might interest you, try googling Phreedomphan AND lostliberty and also Phreedomphan AND americasenemies.  Those are two logical AND searches.  Follow the blog urls.  Leave a comment on what you think and, if you would, a means to contact you.

I do wish you luck in any efforts you make.  For me I’ll just keep trying to make people realize that big, centralized government is the problem and not the solution.

Rick

Report this

By NABNYC, June 27, 2009 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

I keep reading that “The Lobbyists” are “Too Powerful,” and will “Prevent” the Democrats from passing a decent public healthcare system.  But that doesn’t make any sense at all.  Do “The Lobbyists” have an army, a navy, weapons, do they threaten the politicians with physical harm?

No.  The Democrats just think it sounds good to put it like that.  “We tried, but “The Lobbyists” were just too powerful.” 

All the Democrats have done since they got into power is to shakedown major corporate interests for bribes by threatening to do something to help the people, but then agreeing not to when the corporations pony up the big bucks.

So the Democrats go public and say the Credit Card companies are awful, the Democrats are going to pass new laws.  Then they have secret meetings between Obama, and then the Congressional Democrats and the major Credit Card companies presumably to negotiate the amount of the bribes to be paid, and the Democrats come out of those meetings and announce that they refuse to cap interest rates, refuse to stop the b.s. late and other fees, and their only “reform” is that the Credit Card companies have to send two weeks notice before they send Guido and Carmine out to break people’s knee caps.  Thanks a lot for nothing.

And now we see the same thing on healthcare.  The Democrats make lots of noise, then set up secret meetings between the Hospital, Doctor, and Drug Industry CEOs to negotiate the bribes, then the Democrats say no single payer, no public option, no nothing.  Obama says:  Well, my good friends in the Medical Industry have agreed they will really try to hold down their costs.  No enforcement mechanism, no enforceable promise, nothing at all really.

If the Democrats do not provide a real public option, Medicare for All, I will leave the party.  I don’t know what else to do at this point, because they are showing themselves to be so treacherous to their own supporters, so much in the bag to the corporate dictators that run things, that I am ashamed to call myself a Democrat.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment

Joe,

NEVER, should the people ever restore REPUBLICAN RULE—- REPUBLICAN RULE is what has historically ALWAYS caused economic failure causing the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION to get left out of the economic picture in the United States.  The people do have to remove the Democratic Party’s conservative/moderate Republican-Democrats from the halls of Congress, because they represent a corporate right-wing agenda, instead of a left-wing public agenda.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

You know, a Third Party might have a chance (I would certainly like to see one! Or , hell Five Parties!) if the so-called Libertarisn werent so focused on the acquisition of MONEY! It just turns off any left-leaning person right from the start.

Now, i have heard some “types” of Libertarians that I can agree with, on many issues. But, when it just seems to boil down to “ME—and I dont give a damn about anyone else”(Social Darwinism—or, worse, “gawd decides what happens”)—well,you will remain a fringe party because peopel who have not been as fortunate will assume that you do not give a damn about them and that you actually believe that people fall and rise purely from their own decisions..and no one with a brain buys that anymore.

Leefeller—I think that the problem is , that the Govt and MSM use FEAR! USAns are always thinking “well it could be worse”—as in, “we could have Bush again” or “they could end up giving everyone crappy care and no one would complain” (if the middle class was going to end up with the crappy care people get on Medicaid, which is what most neo-cons are thereatening—the bourgeoise would put up with it for about 5 minutes—but, that might be what it would take). The plan being proposed, which does nothing to limit profit from others;’ mises5ry, will collapse under its own expense and bureacratic wieght.

The insurance INDUSTRY exists for its own profit and there is no reason that they should..unless one believes in death profiteering, like private war.

People like McConnell and Dodd and Norm Coleman, if you listen, keep using words like DIE!, and, “bureacrats deciding” (like they dont now!)and NO CHOICE! (People do not want a “choice of plans”—they want a choice of drs…if people knew what was best for them, that would be one thing, but, that is why one goes to a dr) Pricitizing everything just results in peopel having to become experts in almost everything—-to “make a choice”. The “choice” is false.

They like to throw in scary things like “regular colonsocsopy” (Coleman seems obsessed with this one!) and CANCER!—totally ignoring the fact that 20-80,000 are dying every year right now.

People should be afraid that we’ll end up with corporate care, which we will. People should be afraid that the insurance corporations will crack down more and more, as they realize that the administration is feckless.

The people should not fear a govt-payer, (yes, the holy grail—tax-payer paid!)professionaly practiced form of universal , civilized medical care for all.

I’ve lived where it works.

Sadly, we will not get it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 27, 2009 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

When the people say they would like a national health and even if most people actually say they would like a national health plan, it is the duty of the big business to crush these irrational opinions from the ignorant masses thoughts. 

Lobbyists are the good old boys network, part of a revolving door in Washington Dc designed to provide undue influence on our alleged representatives in Congress.  The media is the other part of the network using any means; it seems they prefer to use fear; by telling the masses how bad medical plans are in Canada and other socialist countries. 

After awhile, the ignorant masses may jettison their ignorance and realize our great medical boondoggle is not really so great.

Obama said during the campaign, the lobbyists running the halls of Congress are a major problem and need to be controlled, but has he followed up on it? 

Since corporations were given the same rights as individuals the people have been screwed above and beyond
acceptability.  Though is seems some people enjoy being screwed as long as they are not alone?

Report this

By ardee, June 27, 2009 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

PhreedomPhan, June 26 at 11:24 pm #

Ardee

Are you perchance one of those unfortunate individuals with ADS who can only read the first paragraph or two before writing a reply
................

So, honest debate begins with an insult? There are more than a few here who agree with your methodology, and I myself have no problem responding IN KIND. I will ignore the knee jerk reaction to a criticism until it becomes obvious that; you are indeed a jerk, or it was an aberration.

I would love to respond to this post but it seems a hash of incoherency to me, and bears little relation to your first effort, the one that I responded to originally.

Your inclusion of Roosevelt in that short list brands you as the one with a possible thinking disorder by the by, and I suggest you study that administration more closely. The first minimum wage, the first woman in a cabinet position ( and a dandy she was).

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems, through various agencies, such as the Works Project Administration (WPA), National Recovery Administration (NRA), and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). Although recovery of the economy was incomplete until the outbreak of war, several programs he initiated, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), continue to have instrumental roles in the nation’s commerce. Some of his other legacies include the Social Security system and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Hardly a record of a corporate stooge.

Anyway, your abhorrence of government is your own business but facts are what they are. I repeat the statement you made originally and my response to it:

PhreedomPhan, June 26 at 1:05 pm #


When will we ever learn?  There is no problem so small that federal intervention can’t make it a disaster.

Most of our problems today, including corporate bankruptcies, personal bankruptcies, and State and local government bankruptcies can be traced to the expansion of the federal government.

Rather than post a critic that obviously upsets you I will simply say that this assumption of yours is a false one and, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, one might consider ways to end the influence of the corporation on governance and return it to the will and the people.

Report this

By mill, June 26, 2009 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

Where’s my second senator?  If cash from outside MN wasn’t pouring in for both sides this might have wrapped up.  Maybe not. But campaign contributions certainly amplified in a gross way the Mn election for US Senator.  More than 50 million has been spent by the 2 leading candidates, for a job that pays under 200,000 per year.  A lot of it was not from Minnesotans - both leading candidates (Mr. Coleman, Mr. Franken)  had pretty high negatives but access to deep pockets outside the State.

By the time 50 million was spent, the assault ads did their trick on both individuals, neither of whom is a low-life slug really, though both are hard-ball pols.

So ... with campaign contributions paying Coleman’s noncampaign legal bills (he’s involved in an alleged bribery attempt) ....

where’s my 2nd senator?

50 million dollars didn’t sort it out.

Report this

By PhreedomPhan, June 26, 2009 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

Rontruth,

Unfortunately, my experience with Verizon DSL was a disaster.  Within three weeks of signing on it slowed to less than my dial-up speed so I went back to dial-up.  Consequently, I can’t watch video.  It’s watch three seconds and then wait thirty to load the next three seconds.

I was at the office when Kennedy was shot.  In this case the “office” was the ABC Cafeteria in Copenhagen, Denmark.  That’s where GI’s on leave often spent much of the day.  Hence, the “office.”

When I got home, I did watch replays on TV, but the one that hit me hardest was the assassination of Oswald.  When I saw where Ruby was pointing the gun, I couldn’t believe the shot killed Oswald.  I said immediately that they shot him an air bubble in the Ambulance.

I think it was five years after Oswald’s assassination that I heard once, and only once, a report that said, “It was five years ago today that Lee Harvey Oswald died from an air bubble that entered through the gaping wound in his side.”  Every doctor I’ve questioned on this have said it can’t happen.  The air can’t get in through an artery because it couldn’t flow against the blood pressure.  It can’t get in through the veins because they collapse immediately when severed.  Of course, it could get in if injected by a needle.

What was the final death count in the cover-up?  I’ve forgotten.  Was it 12?, 15?,  more?  Nobody will ever convince me that Dorothy Kilgallen, the only person to get an interview with Ruby in prison, over-dosed.  I watched her enough on TV to convince me she wasn’t the type.  Didn’t the same thing happen with witnesses in the Lincoln assassination?

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com
is a great site for ebooks on banking history from at least as early as the 1830’s.  It’s worth a look.

Rick

Report this

By Rontruth, June 26, 2009 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

PhreedomPhan:
Once again, I must agree with you. I think that the next time I call into a talk radio show, or perhaps a TV talk show or two I know of, during the next Congressional elections, I will support an independent party candidate such as Jesse Ventura who holds many of my views but may not be presidential material, or some other actually independent politicians for the House and if possible for the Senate.

There needs to be some kind of union of parties that believe in reducing the power of government, rather than just holding it to what it is now. People need to be asked to decide whether they are teenee weeny brained robots, or can they decide for themselves and as a group whether they are able to collectively decide whether Congress has been fully informed or not about war and peace, and other policy areas.

There is one way, to start with that I can think of and that is to organize on a national basis a party that has a platform statement that any politicians who lie and get us into war, or treat us unfairly in the tax system and this can be reasonably proven, they ARE to be impeached, automatically. No choice. That should be the law.

That gives people back control over the government.

Report this

By PhreedomPhan, June 26, 2009 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

Ardee

Are you perchance one of those unfortunate individuals with ADS who can only read the first paragraph or two before writing a reply?  Had you read any further, you’d know that Ronald Reagan would never choose me as a channel.

When will you learn?  You don’t listen to what a politician says, you watch what he does.  Reagan was fully under the control of big money as was FDR, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama.

I’m old enough to have seen and experienced the growth of government regulation.  I went through the period when the “liberal” mantra was, “Big Business controls the government.”  I would agree with them, but when I asked what we should do about it, the answer was always, “Give more power to Congress to control Big Business.”  Well, duhhh!  If Big Business controls government, and you’ll get no argument from me on that, then if you give more power to government, who are you giving more power to?

If I’m right, and giving more power to government just gives Big Business the power to regulate their competition out of business, then you’d have expected Big Business to grow at the expense of others.  Are you prepared to argue that didn’t happen, Ardee?

Money tends to take government with it to its level of operation.  When the Constitution was written, money sought to operate on a national level and it wrote the Constitution to give it a strong national government.  Only the wisdom (and economic interests) of a few men delayed full realization of money’s goal with the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, money is international today.  It has made a mockery of the Constitution.  It is seeking world government of it, by it, and for it.  It will draw any additional powers we give government with it to the world level.  Government is a demon and it serves the devils of high finance.  Exorcise as much of it as possible or we will lose everything.

When will we ever learn?  Government is the source of the “big lie!”

Report this

By hippie4ever, June 26, 2009 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

It is obvious what must be done. We watched it in Iran and the same thing needs to happen when (not if) “our” politicians sell us out. I don’t care much for myself—I think their medicine’s rubbish - but others, especially women and children, need it, or what passes for health care in this barbaric country.  Health care is a human need and a human right: how dare these craven, despicable creatures inhabiting ration its application for their personal enrichment? What hole came they forth?

Report this

By richardbelldc, June 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

In regards to my earlier comment about the criminality permitted under our “campaign finance laws,” here are the highlights of a new Common Cause report on the multi-hundred million dollar level of bribery in the health care arena:

Common Cause: Legislating Under the Influence

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/{fb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665}/COMMONCAUSE_HEALTHCAREREPORTJUNE2009-FINAL.PDF

“A look at the numbers shows that citizens are right to worry. Major health care interests have
spent $1.4 million per day this year lobbying Congress, so you can bet the legislative battle will
not simply rest on the merits of each side’s argument. Health care-related industries wield
tremendous influence in Washington and have sustained an expensive, high-intensity campaign
to protect their own interests. In particular:
· Health industries – including health insurance, pharmaceuticals and health
products, hospitals and HMOs, and health professionals – have contributed about
$373 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress since 2000.
· Political spending by the health industries has increased 73 percent since 2000.
Health interests contributed about $94 million to candidates for Congress in the 2008
election cycle, up from about $54 million in the 2000 cycle.
· Members serving on committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over health
care reform in the House and Senate received the lion’s share of health industries’
largesse. Committee members raised $178 million from the industries this decade –
roughly half of the industries’ contributions to the entire Congress. Since 2000, the House
members sitting on health committees have raised twice as much money from the health
industry per election cycle as non-committee members (an average of 171,000 compared
to 87,000), and the average House member on a key health subcommittee hauled in three
3
times as much per cycle ($269,000). Senators with plum committee posts also enjoy
sizable fundraising advantages.
· The industries engage in “switch-hitting” – shifting campaign contributions between
Democrats and Republicans to win access with the party in power. In 2000, with
Republicans controlling the House and a closely-divided Senate, Republicans on healthrelated
committees received more than double what Democrats received (68 percent to 32
percent) from the health industries. In 2008, with Democrats controlling both the House
and Senate, over 61 percent of the industries’ contributions to committee members went
to the majority Democrats and just 39 percent went to Republicans.
· The major health interests have spent an average of $1.4 million per day to lobby
Congress so far this year and are on track to spend more than half a billion dollars
by the end 2009. That comes out to about $2,600 per day per member of the House and
Senate. The pharmaceutical lobby alone spent $733,000 per day in the first quarter of
2009. Since 2000, the industries have spent over $3 billion on lobbying, with the total
increasing every year and rising more than 142 percent over the course of the decade. In
each of the past four years health interests have been the number-one lobbying force in
Washington, measured in expenditures, and have averaged over $1 million per day.
· The end of this report lists campaign contributions received by members of Congress
who serve on the five committees with jurisdiction over health care: The House Energy
and Commerce Health Subcommittee, the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee,
the House Education and Labor Committee and the health committees of the Senate
Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 26, 2009 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

It is a moral question and anyone who thinks that some people do not deserve health care, is immoral. Thats all there is to it.

It is not an “option” it is a moral imperative. We will “pay” for our lack of concern for our fellow citizens one way or another. But, unless it comes directly through taxes, it will be impossible to point out to so-called radical Libertarians.

If we are to be a society, we have to act like one. I dont give a damn whether its in the Constituion, I dont give a damn about insurance corporate profits, and, I dont give a damn about he “free mkt”—I care about people dying in the street.

If one does not wish to be part of a society, one should go live on one of Petri Friedman’s new metal “islands”.

katydid—according to dailykos, here are the Dems who are NOT supporting a public option.

Max Baucus
Dianne Feinstein
Mark Warner
Ben Nelson
Blanche Lincoln
Evan Bayh
Harry Reid
Mark Pryor
Kent Conrad
Michael Bennet
Tom Carper
Joe Lieberman
(and a few others)

Sorry to say thisk but, this is why a public option wont work: (for most who are uninsured or under-insured)
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/june/obamas_doctor_knock.php

From Obama’s doctor:

“..Scheiner thinks that Obama’s “public plan” reform doesn’t go far enough. He supports the idea of that option for people who don’t like or can’t afford their HMO. But he worries that it will be watered down or not happen at all. “It’s nonsense that the private insurance companies need to be protected,” he says. “Why? Because they’ve done such a good job?”

He thinks that Americans have been scared into believing that they will lose the coverage they already have if a public plan is created. And he worries that nobody cares about the 50 million uninsured….

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/june/obamas_doctor_knock.php

Will a Public Plan Bring Better Care?

“...Moreover, the savings on overhead from a public plan option are far smaller than you suggest. While it might cut insurers’ profits (which is why they hate it), that’s only 3 percent of the roughly $400 billion squandered on health bureaucracy annually.

Far more goes for armies of insurance administrators who fight over payment, and to their counterparts at hospitals and doctors’ offices — all of whom would be retained with a public plan option. In contrast, a single-payer reform would radically simplify the payment system and redirect the vast savings to care..”

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/june/will_a_public_plan_b.php

Report this

By felicity, June 26, 2009 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

Mark Twain was more right than even he could have possibly imagined when he said that there is only criminal class in America and it’s Congress.

Report this

By ardee, June 26, 2009 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

PhreedomPhan, June 26 at 1:05 pm #


When will we ever learn?  There is no problem so small that federal intervention can’t make it a disaster.

Most of our problems today, including corporate bankruptcies, personal bankruptcies, and State and local government bankruptcies can be traced to the expansion of the federal government.

..............................................

Are you perchance channeling Reagan? Your comments are the same as those “nine little words” of which Reagan prattled. It is not intervention per se by our govt that causes disaster, but the perversion of govt to a tool of corporate profit.

The problems we face can be traced directly to the abandonment of the governments responsibility to oversee and regulate, to follow the wishes and the needs of the American public and not the needs of the boardroom.

The reason I have such a problem with your characterisation of govt as universally bad is that it is a small truth wrapped in a giant lie. Govt is not going away, thus we should avoid demonizing the institution and discuss ways to recapture its direction.

Report this

By Midway54, June 26, 2009 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Despite the antics in full view of those in the public who pay attention, it will be well to think before punishing the Democrats on election day by voting them out.  We have just endured eight years of pure disaster under Puppet Bush and his despicable crowd working hard for the comfort and luxury and inequitable tax liability of the plutocats.

The choice boils down to whether average Americans trying to remain solvent prefer Democratic vaseline or Plutocratic barbs when the plutocrats, aided and abetted by their grossly ignorant Dupes, give it to them economically and politically up into the lower realm of the body where the sun never shines.

Do we really want to return to Gilded Age II of the Plutocracy?

Report this

By ocjim, June 26, 2009 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

In 2007, seventeen percent of all money spent (GDP) in the United States each year—$2.4 trillion—goes to health care. And thirty-one percent of that goes to administering health care—not to doctors, or nurses, or labs, or medicines, or wheel chairs, or comfort for the afflicted.

Can we have reform without a public option, though a one-payer government plan is what we need?

Hell, no.

Report this

By FeralCat, June 26, 2009 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is all smoke and mirrors.  We are in what Sheldon Wolin calls “managed democracy”.  Bi partisanship = how do we screw the people and make it look like no one is to blame?

Baucus just got elected in Montana by a landslide.  He buys his votes with bridges, grants to the universities and parking garages.  Votes don’t cost much anymore.  He probably is looking at becoming an Ambassador or work as a lobbyist for his contributors and not running again.  Lots of his former staffers work for Big Medicine.  And his former chief of staff is now Obama’s deputy chief of staff so it’s all being coordinated to screw us.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 26, 2009 at 11:10 am Link to this comment

PhreedomPhan:
Though I’m not sure what either Kennedy or Lincoln would have done with the poor, including the majority of them who are properly classed, because they in fact do work, the working poor, I do agree that, especially where Kennedy was concerned, when the world-class monied interests found what must have been a real cache of groups who hated Kennedy for all kinds of reasons—to pass blame onto, they hired they agitated the groups who did order his death.

It is true. And Americans have been so mesmerized by all this “Christian nation” bull-derm that they refuse to see what their own eyes have seen on film.

They look at films showing clearly what happened in Dealey Plaza in front of the grassy knoll, yet blame a man who, as FBI Informant S-179 (uncovered by the Dallas Police Dept. investigation), was an infiltrator of the very groups who were paid to kill Kennedy and in fact TRIED TO STOP IT when he reported his findings to Hoover’s Dallas FBI field office for whom he worked, they turned his position against him and blamed him for it.

What you have said is, unfortunately for the vast majority of Americans who choose to be too afraid to look at the truth you have told, is TRUE. What is even worse is that the man who was caught when FBI Special Agents had an informant who passed a tip on to them by the man, himself.

The man, who is alive at 67 years of age today and is in prison on attempted murder charges. He has been proven now to have been the man who fired from behind that fence on the little knoll in Dealey Plaza. The CIA has done everything in their power to obfuscate his admission to private investigators (the government has not been willing to even deal with what has been uncovered and verified). He has given the private investigators, backed by CIA Cuban exile assets, full proof of what he did for the Chicago crime “family.”

If people could just get the connections between our historical past, as verified in spite of government lies, and out present, right now, and the fact that the killer knew Oswald whom he said “did not have the ability or personality to desire to kill President Kennedy, feared that Oswald, who knew of his group’s plot to kill Kennedy, might report to someone what he had found out from one of the four killers who were in Dealey Plaza that Nov. day in 1963. See http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com, or James Files admission of killing President Kennedy online at YouTube.

It is all about greed and malice. Follow the money. It always leads to the scene of the crime.

Report this

By Textynn, June 26, 2009 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

These blue dog dems are very sheltered if they can’t even see the kind of contempt for the people and their suffering that they are standing for.  They also must be very thick headed to think that they will be reelected. These phony dems must be socially disabled if they are so removed from an average life style that they can’t see what they are doing to their own careers. I guess they don’t care because they have done their part for a cushy CEO position in the same businesses they say don’t rule their thinking.

America is learning that nice suits and hairdoos don’t make smart people that care about America. These people are soooooo gone.

sorry to be so redundant but I can’t say it enough. These dems are complete lying losers that don’t care about the people they represent whatsoever.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 26, 2009 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

Richardbelldc. I think one thing that also needs to be said about the cozy corporate/lobbyist alliance is that lobbyists are likely just a small percentage of the costs that corporations, a fair number of which have gone into BK, is that the reason they ended up where they are at is that their corporate owners and upper level management took too much of the bailout $mega-billions and stuck into their offshore bank accounts, or invested in other safe havens.

They cared nary d tinker’s damn about the workers they through out of hillions of jobs while the taxes the workers paid went into paying the bailout TARP monies that went to those whose greed threw them out of work.

Campaign finance reform with FREE, paid for ONLY by taxpayers when they pay the yearly taxes, with air rime the same for all candidates, is the ONLY way for real reform legislation to be passed a Congress no longer beholden to the wealthy vested interests that caused all this trouble in the first place.

Report this

By PhreedomPhan, June 26, 2009 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

When will we ever learn?  There is no problem so small that federal intervention can’t make it a disaster.

Most of our problems today, including corporate bankruptcies, personal bankruptcies, and State and local government bankruptcies can be traced to the expansion of the federal government.

We have had no semblance of a free enterprise system in at least a century.  We are completely controlled by the money powers that have global control of the issue of money and credit and have reduced almost the entire human race to serfdom bound to the national debts.

There has not been a president in a century that hasn’t been under the thumb of money, and that includes the great “friend” of the working man, FDR and the man who should have won an Oscar for his role of the “Conservative” in real life, Ronald Reagan.  One possible exception was Kennedy who tried to break free of banker dominance by going back on the silver standard and it got him killed. Another who tried through replacing bank notes with Treasury Notes was Lincoln.  He got the same reward as Kennedy.  Both Vice-President that succeeded them dropped the plans.

One thing the “gimme gang” fails to realize is that nobody gets it if there isn’t any.

PhreedomPhan

Report this

By katydid, June 26, 2009 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

I am confused.  Is there adifference between the “public option” and actual national health care .  I am not intersted in supporting a plan or candidate that wants a plan that competes with corporate health insurance companies.  I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF there is a list of names that show which Democrats don’t support national health care but are trying to bamboozle constituants by saying they are in favor of a public option, hoping it will fool people into believing they actually support national health care.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 26, 2009 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

GoldenT: After what I have observed over the past 60 years or so, and the fact that Democrats and Republicans are, today, no different from each other even in the slightest degree, I have to agree with you. But, I think it goes much further than just the fact that there is no difference between them. The idea of any real difference having vanished goes all the way back into the two parties’ histories.

There were key events that were catalytic in bringing this about. Just look at the difference between the Democrats of the 1930’s and those of the 1960’s, for example. In the 1930’s, with the country’s economic back against the wall, the Democrats rose to the task, and they did SHINE.

They enacted legislation that did much to reverse the GOP serve-the-vested-corporate interests policies that helped bankers and the mega-corporations that existed then. They stayed in control of Congress and the White House for 20 years, almost without any interruption from the GOP.
But, even that legislative effort took 6 or 7 years to really turn the depression around. WW11, gave jobs to millions of Americans, thereby putting the government into the unemployment reduction business.

When Kennedy came along, there was NO difference between the two major parties. It is now a documented fact that the political leaders, at the behest of corporations that produce weapons for the Pentagon, in collusion with the CIA and their puppets in the anti-Castro community, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress, along with LBJ, Gov. John Connolly (two Democrats) and Nixon and Hoover (two Republicans) participated in the JFK assassination plot, and covered it up for those who pulled all the strings in Congress so they would also cover it up.

If we recall that when Barack Obama was a primary candidate and the Democratic Convention in Denver was about to start, the Denver police broke a conspiracy involving four teenaged males who had rifles with scopes attached. These young men were detained for three whole days (Wow. What a long investigation was conducted.) They were released on the basis that they said they had no definitive plan. And, they were teenagers.

Then, you may recall that when it became apparent that Obama would be the Democratic nominee and he was in the Chicago area, he was supposed to be at a certain location, and news media types went to the location, it turned out he was taken to another location. They went there, and still no Obama. He turned up in a southern state. It was rumored that he had been contacted by the Bilderberg Group relating to foreign policy.

I don’t know the veracity of this, but added to the four young would-be assassins scenario, one begins to see that Obama has lived under a potential threat, and this is, again, why getting to the truth about the one that so much documented information is available, online and elsewhere about, is likely a major reason, if not, the real reason why he has shifted so much from major aspects of his domestic and foreign policy campaign statements.

The wealthy in this country and around the world play their game for keeps. They are the real killers of democracy.

Report this

By von bargen, June 26, 2009 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Part of the problem here is weak leadership.  God forgive me, but I wish we had people like DeLay on the Democratic side of the aisle,who could kick some butt and make these guys support their leadership (such as it is) and the president.
Harry Reid is a DINO and Nancy Pelosi just doesn’t have the clout within the Senate.  I’m ashamed to say that Feinstein is my other senator.  She, too, is a DINO. As for the House, does anyone even know who speaks for the Democrats there?  Waxman, Frank, Levin, Conyers all have their own agendas in other areas.

Report this

By felicity, June 26, 2009 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Outraged - So much for a non-agenda, non-politicized, non-biased Supreme Court. Never has been and never will be.  The agreed upon definition of corporations:  Legal fictions - nothing more than bundles of contractual agreements.

I have yet to meet a human being who is a bundle of contractual agreements.  Apparently our august members of the Supreme Court have?

Report this

By richardbelldc, June 26, 2009 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

Joe is being too nice. The fundamental problem with achieving any kind of progressive change in America is that we accept a criminal electoral process based on bribery. Is it any wonder that the elite of America hold the American people in such contempt when we sit idly by while corporations and the rich use campaign contributions and lobbying to buy what they want?

Just how profitable is this legalized robbery? Here’s a recent story from the Washington Post, entitled:

“Investments Can Yield More on K Street, Study Indicates One Tax Break Brought Companies 22,000% Rate of Return on Lobbying Costs”

“In a remarkable illustration of the power of lobbying in Washington, a study released last week found that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue—a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment…..

“The paper by three Kansas professors examined the impact of a one-time tax break approved by Congress in 2004 that allowed multinational corporations to ‘repatriate’ profits earned overseas, effectively reducing their tax rate on the money from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. More than 800 companies took advantage of the legislation, saving an estimated $100 billion in the process, according to the study.

“The largest recipients of tax breaks were concentrated in the pharmaceutical and technology fields, including Pfizer, Merck, Hewlett Packard, Johnson & Johnson and IBM. Pfizer alone repatriated $37 billion, representing 70 percent of its revenue in 2004, the study found. The now-beleaguered financial industry also benefited from the provision, including Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, all of which have since received tens of billions of dollars in federal bailout money.

“The researchers calculated an average rate of return of 22,000 percent for those companies that helped lobby for the tax break. Eli Lilly, for example, reported in disclosure documents that it spent $8.5 million in 2003 and 2004 to lobby for the provision—and eventually gained tax savings of more than $2 billion.”


We’ve all heard every politician say with a straight face that campaign contributions do not impact his/her vote. In a real democracy, anyone making such a bald-faced lie would be run out of town on a rail.

Yes, it’s true that the insurance industry’s bribes are warping the health care debate. And the oil industry’s bribes alter the energy debate. And agribusiness blocks safe food regulations. And on and on, issue after issue, all of which are fought by separate coalitions on the bitterist, case-by-case basis. Winning is difficult, and rare, even with the “Democrats” ostensibly holding both the executive and legislative branches.

Unless and until there is a national movement for some form of publicly financed campaigning, progressive forces will be forever at the gravest disadvantage in taking on plutocracy.

Report this

By GoldenT, June 26, 2009 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

Listen, this so-called health care “reform” President Obama is promoting is little more than financial tribute to the same interests he supported when he voted in favor of the TARP last fall in the Senate. So, then, if you opposed W’s attempt at “reforming” Social Security, why would you support this? Because Obama is a Democrat? Get this through your head. This “reform” proposal is fascist policy designed to steal from the poor and give to the rich (making Obama no more a “Democrat” than Adolf Hitler). If you can’t see through the slick language and the empty promises, then why bother commenting on political matters such as this? (Indeed, you look stupid, or worse, complicit, when you do.) Forgive my strong language, but I see this site’s name still has the word “Truth” in it, so I thought I should speak it.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 26, 2009 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

Mestizo: I am in my mid-60’s, agewise, and I remember the history of the 1960s and ‘70s and the political BS that went on then. We took to the streets, marched, carried picket signs, sang the songs of protest against “the war” (Vietnam) that our US involvement in began under Eisenhower and the guy who really wanted it, VP NIXON.

We barely elected a wealthy northestern Democrat, who after he was set up by the wealthy, rightwing military/corporate weapons manufacturing giants to fail by their buddies in the CIA lying to him about success in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, he, seeing the poll numbers showing young people taking to the streets, decided to listen to them.

His brother had developed a plan to get rid of Castro in Cuba, to rid the Republicans of a campaign point about not having Castro killed. His brother, the Attorney-General, was going to have Castro murdered. He knew about it, but did nothing to stop it. The president, who had followed in Eisenhower’s footsteps by increasing the number of US “advisors” in Vietnam, when the young turned against the advisor-buildup, suddenly decided to order their complete withdrawal from Vietnam.

The National Security Action Memo (#273)that reversed the young president’s withdrawal order, was prepared FIVE DAYS BEFORE the corporate/CIA/with mafia connections/weapons manufacturers went through their allies in the mob and had President Kennedy shot to death in broad daylight in front of movie cameras, letting everyone know that they had shot their way into power in the United States, and they have been the threat behind the scenes ever since.

That is what happened to Democracy in America. They got rid of real Democracy when they got rid of the man who stood firmly in their way.

Report this

By rockinrobin, June 26, 2009 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Corps were CRIMINALIZED by the USA Gov; all protections to the PEOPLE were removed; The GOV works WITH Corps and THAT is why the “media” is WEAPONS of MASS DECEPTION. TRUTH is: there IS no 2 party system in the USA; the POLITICAL AGENDA of the USA IS CRIMINAL: it is called EXPLOITATION; it has NOTHING to do with CAPITALISM: it has to do with CRIMINAL INTENT; FASCISM: Hitler’s agenda; world dominion using CORPS in nation after nation: started HERE: and has now gone GLOBALLY;
MONSANTO, DOW: EXTREMELY close connections to BUSH, CLINTON, ROCKEFELLER: & ALL politicians: who are only PUBLICALLY SAYING one thing while SCREWING the COUNTRY (people, land, air & water) BEHIND the “scenes”; Just like the “we are a force for good” fabricated LIE to MISLEAD and DECEIVE the PEOPLE: Rumsfeld; Kissinger names sound FAMILIAR? should; they were behind it; to HIDE from the PUBLIC their dastardly deeds; MONSANTO, DOW: chemicals; put into the FOOD CHAIN to DELIBERATELY CREATE slow mentabolism, high blood pressure, diabetes; they ALSO HAVE PHARMACIAS FOLKS!
LAWS were “written” to PREVENT and REMOVE all competition from the CORPS: exploitation: targeting and harming for PERSONAL PROFIT & GAIN: is a CRIME, not the way ANY GOV other than a CRIMINAL ONE WORKS!
Even IF you have HEALTH COVERAGE it STOPS the moment you are ILL: FEDERAL LAW; if it “effects” their PROFIT: they do NOT have to PAY FOR ANYTHING!
WELCOME FOLKS: to what every other nation has KNOWN for DECADES: SLAVERY to CORPS: CRIMINALLY RUN GOV backed up by JUDGES who call to find out how to rule; AMAZING, isn’t it? All they have to tell you is “you are free”: you are FREE to have ANYONE anywhere anytime do whatever they want & never be brought to justice because of it. THIS is the USA;

Report this

By Ibett, June 26, 2009 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

To Mestizo Warrior,
I live in a very small,big-oil, republican/fundamentalist controlled community, these people are like ignorant sheep, there is no talking to them!  I am willing to go to the street and fight, for them and myself, to gain democracy back in America. Where and when is the first meeting?  Anyone else willing to stand?  This is what it is going to take to get health care, and election reform, the two most important issues before us.  Mestizo, if we do not get health care, we MUST go to the streets and eliminate the elected officials health care also!  You in?

IBETT

Report this

By Rontruth, June 26, 2009 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

If Democrats had any real courage, they would do as Republicans could never do. They would now float the idea of free campaigns; campaigns paid for by the tax payers through a campaign contribution part of their state and federal tax forms that they fill out each year, just as they used to do back in the 1960’s and ‘70s. Obama is proof that young people now have the power, along with more enlightened older people, to herald a system completely free of any form of organized collection by candidates or parties of “campaign contributions” based on the ideology of a party or candidate!

When journalists and columnists speak of “the resistance of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries through their paid lobbyists to real reform, if you want to see a real battle, per se, just watch what happens if either major party takes on eliminating private donations to the political process.

The problem back in the 1960s and ‘70s was that the little taxes collected for TV and radio advertizing was quickly swallowed up by the corporate media increasing what they charge for air time. A part of any effective legislation to control private campaign contributions would be the control of the cost of air time. That would have to be legislated as well.

Legislation that makes private political contributions of any kind a federal crime (because such contributions really ARE a threat to DEMOCRACY) would need to be enacted. Does America have the courage to stand UP for Democracy?

Report this

By Mestizo Warrior, June 26, 2009 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

As a social worker, parent, healthcare consumer and advocate for single payer it sickens me that we have NO functioning form of REAL democracy in the U.S.!

The rich and powerful are the ones that elected officials pay attention to and that is a sad commentary on our form of government!

What to do? Take to the streets! Look at Iran! If they can do it, why can’t we?
Another solution is to unite the left of this nation and form a viable no corporate loving third party! It can be done! The hacks from the DNC will say otherwise, but we all know where their REAL interests lies! Resist! Organize! Agitate! Mobilize!

Report this

By Dave Schwab, June 26, 2009 at 6:27 am Link to this comment

Want single-payer Medicare-for-all healthcare? Get active with the Green Party. All Green candidates pledge not to take money from corporate donors, since Greens recognize the anti-democratic effects of corporate money in politics.

Go Green - peace, justice, democracy, ecology!

http://gp.org/

Report this

By Bud, June 26, 2009 at 6:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Washington D.C.,Same garbage with different flies every few years.I don’t know how these liars can look in the mirror.I want the same healthcare benefits these parasites have,or a movement should occur to suspend theirs.

Report this

By Kesey Seven, June 25, 2009 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment

Outraged:  Right on and write on! 

It’s sounds like you’ve seen a documentary called The Corporation. 

Everyone who hasn’t seen it, should.  It helps to recognize in a global way—not just as a personal problem that your job sucks and it’s a bummer never knowing when you’ll be laid off or your job outsourced—it helps you see clearly that corporations are out of control, not just for you personally, but for the whole world.

Corporations want the same control over workers that they had in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They want people to work for slave wages. They want to be able to pollute at will. They want our government to overthrow governments who restrict corporate behavior.  They want to make a profit all costs. That’s why they outsource. 

Corporations are out of control.  We need new regulations and laws to reign them in.

Do check out the movie called The Corporation.

http://www.thecorporation.com/

Report this

By boggs, June 25, 2009 at 9:45 pm Link to this comment

Baucus is a maggot, just like most of the legislators in DC.
We need to get them out of DC and out of the taxpayer flesh. Let them feast on their spoils.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 25, 2009 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment

A repost from the other thread.  Consider that,  if you consistently patch problems, they will not go away…. they will simply remain the patches of a rusting, “clunker”..... more rightly meant for the scrap heap, than to be considered a reliable vehicle.

My Post:

The underlying problem here is corporate personhood, this is also the underlying problem with attaining healthcare, or getting any legislation passed which in the interests of The American People.

Ralph Nader:

“Here is how bankruptcy attorney Laurence H. Kallen described the process in his book, Corporate Welfare: “…in chapter 11 the megacorporations almost all succeed famously. They dominate the committees and bully the judges. They stay ten steps ahead of any feeble attempts at supervision. They use the bankruptcy laws to force plans of reorganization down creditors’ throats. And then the executives of those corporations laugh all the way to the bank.”

Speaking of banks, wouldn’t you like to have the power to mutate yourself like six large insurance companies did last November to get billions of your tax dollars under the TARP rescue program?

Mired in their risky, reckless investments, including derivatives, these insurance companies qualified for the money simply by a paper restructuring of themselves as bank holding companies. Voilá! The U.S. Treasury declared they qualify as financial firms and will soon be receiving your money. The New York Times reports that “hundreds” of other such companies “are still in the pipeline for review.”

Whether it is equal justice under the law, equal protection under the law, equal access to the law, or the power to make laws, there is no contest between the corporate entity and the real human being.

What Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis feared in an opinion he wrote during the nineteen thirties is happening. These megacorporations have become Frankensteins—moving to own our genes, the plant seeds of life and taking control of computerized artificial intelligence. Their final conquest is far along—the control of government which is then turned against its own people.”

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2121-Avoiding-Corporate-Liability.html#extended

He’s right, and we’ve seen this in other countries as well.  In fact we wouldn’t even BE in the wars in the Middle East if not for the interests of these mega-corporations.  This is not against business, this is against business running our government, initiating wars, killing people through denial of healthcare, ruining our economy and disintegrating the rights of “WE THE PEOPLE”.  Small business can hardly stay afloat because of the actions of these huge entities.  Taken as a whole these interests are a THREAT to America, and this needs to be addressed.

From Citizen Works:
“End Corporate Personhood

The Problem:

Over time, U.S. courts have granted corporations - once considered mere “creatures of law”—the status of “persons” with specific constitutional rights, such as the right of speech and protection from search and seizure. Corporations have used these rights, along with their superior economic might, to dominate various political processes and shield themselves from normal government regulatory oversight.

Recipe for reform:

Pass a constitutional amendment to define only human beings (and not corporations) as persons entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizenship.”

http://www.citizenworks.org/admin/press/corpreforms.php#endcorp

Report this

By Kesey Seven, June 25, 2009 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

I agree with P.T. that the article is a very good analysis. But it begs the question:

Why do politicians need so much money?  Television advertising. 

Television news media is out of control. It has abdicated its responsibility to be the final check on the checks and balances system. 

It is a for-profit absurdity that contorts itself with such insane rationalizations that it finds itself peering out of its own belly button saying:  See I told you the view is objective from deep in here. 

A part of the solution is to break up the corporate media giants and don’t let them merge again.  Take the profit out of owning broadcast systems and cable news networks.  Give candidates airtime for free. Let journalists go back to being journalists instead of announcers at a horse race. 

Then politicians—Democrats, Republicans, Independents—can have a voice that is not filtered through a microphone splattered with horse shit.

Put another way: There are many politicians of all stripes who want to speak out and do the right thing. They can’t because pathological liars are given equal time to lie against them. There is no credibility check in the broadcast media.  FOX is the worst, but the others CNN, CNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC are all varying degrees of terrible. They report like a collective flock of parrots, all flocking from this sensational story to the next, always claiming objectivity while attempting to make a profit. It is absurd.  Objective journalism and profitable journalism are mutually exclusive. 

It’s not a matter of liberal or conservative bias; it’s a matter of profit bias. Objectivity pisses people off. It’s furniture stores, department stores and churches that determine the content of your local news. At a national level, it’s multinational corporations, not editors and journalists, who determine what you see and hear. 

Break up the media, take out the profit, then we can get serious about fixing health care and other issues because we’ll be able to have realistic didcussions about the problems.

As it stand now, when someone speaks the truth, media outlets don’t say:  Ooh that person spoke the truth. Let’s hear more of that. Their response: Did the truth make anyone mad? If so, how can I profit by the anger while pretending the truth doesn’t matter?  The other common response is: That bit of truth will offend my advertisers. Better muzzle it. 

Politicians know this. They are as afraid to speak the truth as anyone else, afraid to do the right thing as anyone else, and, because their opponents spend millions of dollars on television advertising that in turn generates news coverage, they, too, must slave for campaign contributions. 

The answer is simple:  Whoever can afford the most advertising gets the most news coverage. 

Break up the media and we’ll be able to start fixing health care.

Report this

By msgmi, June 25, 2009 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sooner or later the hubris on Capitol Hill will result in a health plan that will benefit the Wall Street industry at the EXPENSE of Main Street. No doubt about it, read the lips of your lawmakers.

Report this

By glider, June 25, 2009 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nice article on linkage between congressional votes and amount of their accepted bribes.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html

Report this

By bcc, June 25, 2009 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The insurers want the government to force people to buy coverage.  However, the insurers do not want competition from a government option.”

PT, that is exactly right. But I am sure they are working another angle. I suspect that will be to water down the “public option” such that it becomes an uncompetitive dumping ground for “pre-existing condition” cast asides or other high risk profiles they don’t want on their books. This is the “bipartisan solution” I am expecting to come out this so called reform. The insurance companies will maintain or improve profits and the public plan will be costly.

Report this

By ocjim, June 25, 2009 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

During the last 2 decades, the death of democracy has become more than apparent. That is not to say that we don’t vote for the members of the executive and legislative branches of government. It is just to say that those we elect do not represent us anymore.

They represent moneyed interests who contribute to their campaign. Since the decline of unions, it has become quite apparent that this is true.

For example, in California, there are 2 Democrats representing us in the Senate. Sen Boxer, perhaps the exception, is truly a Democrat and seems to vote for the people. Contrarily, Sen Feinstein increasingly votes against the interests of the people: she was for the Medicare prescription scam, she seems to be against the public option for health care.

Report this

By Arabian Sinbad, June 25, 2009 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For years now I’ve been lamenting the sad situation of our so-called model democracy as being all the democracy that money can buy. In fact, money for political offices coming from interest groups and industries and real democracy are two mutually exclusive concepts. We will not have real democracy as long as lobbies exist. I do not understand why people at the grassroots level don’t raise hell about this!

Report this

By SteveL, June 25, 2009 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

A few points.  Private health insurance has about a 30% overhead.  Medicare is around 3%.  Most get their health insurance through their employer.  The employers are going to want the best plan for the money so say good by and good riddance to private heath insurance if everyone is offered Medicare.  Finally health care for profit is never going to work for those receiving it.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 25, 2009 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

They scrubbed the numbers twice.

“According to the Commerce Committee’s report, in one instance Aetna omitted the highest 20 percent of medical charges before sending data to Ingenix. Once at Ingenix, officials there “scrubbed” the figures again to further temper charges. “The result of this practice is that American consumers have paid billions of dollars for health care services that their insurance companies should have paid,” the report states…..

....Earlier this year, a probe by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo found that calculations used by Ingenix to determine reimbursement rates produced numbers that were as much as 30 percent lower than actual market rates. Cuomo described it as “a scheme by health insurers to defraud consumers by manipulating reimbursement rates.” About a dozen New York insurers, including UnitedHealth, have already reached settlements with Cuomo, which consists of not only changing their practices but also funding the replacement of Ingenix with a new not-for-profit database.”

http://www.healthnews.com/family-health/investigation-reveals-majority-insurers-underpaying-claims-3352.html

Don’t you wonder how many other “extra squeaky clean claims” are still floating around out there?  So basically they were paying $.70 on the dollar of what they should have paid of covered charges, AND STILL they denied coverage.  If your claim got covered, they shafted ya’ twice! (“Risk management”, I suppose)  Unreal.

Bottomfeeders.

Report this

By P. T., June 25, 2009 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

The insurance companies customers are canceling their policies due to prices.  In my opinion, getting no healthcare legislation and letting the current healthcare system collapse is better than an insurance company bailout (that is, having no public option).

Report this

By Naz, June 25, 2009 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t see any hope for the U.S. and I don’t think most people see any. That’s what put Obama in office, the glimmer of hope which most people have lost. Once he’s in office, it’s business as usual. All of the politicians, supreme court justices, and media moguls who have deceived us, are still right there getting richer and richer while the other 98% of us are getting poorer and poorer. And, they have Homeland Security to protect them if and when we rise up but no one in the US is willing to sacrifice their blood and lives to change what has happened, so the wealthy have an unimpeded path to do whatever makes them richer. If you think you are living in the land of the free and home of the brave, you’d better wise up.

Report this
JimBob's avatar

By JimBob, June 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

Why worry whether your stance on a public option will get you tossed out of the Senate next year, when your buddies in Corporate Medicine have promised you a nice “job” with lots and lots of salary for when you get out of the Senate with your fat pension and gold-star, lifetime health care package?

Report this

By samosamo, June 25, 2009 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

How was it said that at one time ‘spin’ was considered lies but now it is studied and taught.

Well, I doubt there is very or NO difference in the knowing that bribery is against the law no matter what name you give it or try to sanitize it with, such as lobbyists/lobbying, campaign contributions, corporate sponsership, quid quo pro or bailouts, it is all just one thing but gussied up to appear cute, quaint and pleasing and most of all acceptable.

Next to breaking up the conservative ownship of the MSM, returning to the reality of prosecuting the crime of bribery no matter what name is attached to it, both are of highest priority in gaining control of OUR country from the political and financial thugs who have stolen it from US.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook