Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 21, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Knowledge Is Crime
The Rhetoric of Violence
First Solar Bread Oven Takes a Bow




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Street Without Joy

Street Without Joy

By Bernard Fall
$16.47

more items

 
Report

The Real Health Care Debate

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

Posted on Apr 9, 2012
AP/J. David Ake

People wait in line overnight in front of the Supreme Court for admission on the eve of oral arguments before the court on President Obama’s health care legislation.

By Chris Hedges

The debate surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act illustrates the impoverishment of our political life. Here is a law that had its origin in the right-wing Heritage Foundation, was first put into practice in 2006 in Massachusetts by then-Gov. Mitt Romney and was solidified into federal law after corporate lobbyists wrote legislation with more than 2,000 pages. It is a law that forces American citizens to buy a deeply defective product from private insurance companies. It is a law that is the equivalent of the bank bailout bill—some $447 billion in subsidies for insurance interests alone—for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. It is a law that is unconstitutional. And it is a law by which President Barack Obama, and his corporate backers, extinguished the possibilities of both the public option and Medicare for all Americans. There is no substantial difference between Obamacare and Romneycare. There is no substantial difference between Obama and Romney. They are abject servants of the corporate state. And if you vote for one you vote for the other.

But you would never know this by listening to the Democratic Party and the advocacy groups that purport to support universal health care but seem more intent on re-electing Obama. It is the very sad legacy of the liberal class that it proves in election cycle after election cycle that it espouses moral and political positions it will not pay a price to defend. And since we have no fight in us, since we will not punish politicians like Obama who betray our core beliefs, the corporate juggernaut rolls forward with its inexorable pace to cement into place our global neofeudalism.

Protesting outside the Supreme Court recently as it heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act were both conservatives from Americans for Prosperity who denounced the president as a socialist and demonstrators from Democratic front groups such as the SEIU and the Families USA health care consumer group who chanted “Protect the law!” Lost between these two factions were a few stalwarts who hold quite different views, including public health care advocates Dr. Margaret Flowers, Dr. Carol Paris and attorneys Oliver Hall, Kevin Zeese and Russell Mokhiber. They displayed a banner that read: “Single Payer Now! Strike Down the Obama Mandate!” They, at least, have not relinquished the demand for single payer health care for all Americans. And I throw my lot in with these renegades, dismissed, no doubt, as cranks or dreamers or impractical by those who flee into the embrace of empty political theater and junk politics. These single payer advocates, joined by 50 doctors, filed a brief to the court that challenges, in the name of universal health care, the individual mandate.

“We have the solution, we have the resources and we have the money to provide lifelong, comprehensive, high-quality health care to every person,” Dr. Flowers said when we spoke a few days ago in Washington, D.C. Many Americans have not accepted the single payer approach “because people get confused by the politics,” she said. “People accept the Democratic argument that this [Obamacare] is all we can have or this is something we can build on.

“If you are trying to meet the goal of universal health coverage and the only way to meet that goal is to force people to purchase private insurance, then you might consider that it is constitutional,” Flowers said. “Our argument is that the individual mandate does not meet the goal of universality. When you attempt to use the individual mandate and expansion of Medicaid for coverage, only about half of the uninsured gain coverage. This is what we have seen in Massachusetts. We do, however, have systems in the United States that could meet the goal of universality. That would be either a Veterans Administration type system, which is a socialized system run by the government, or a Medicare type system, a single payer, publicly financed health care system. If the U.S. Congress had considered an evidence-based approach to health reform instead of writing a bill that funnels more wealth to insurance companies that deny and restrict care, it would have been a no-brainer to adopt a single payer health system much like our own Medicare. We are already spending enough on health care in this country to provide high-quality, universal, comprehensive, lifelong health care. All the data point to a single payer system as the only way to accomplish this and control health care costs.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Obamacare will, according to figures compiled by Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), leave at least 23 million people without insurance, a figure that translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths a year among people who cannot afford care. Costs will continue to climb. There are no caps on premiums, including for people with “pre-existing conditions.” The elderly can be charged three times the rates provided to the young. Companies with predominantly female workforces can be charged higher gender-based rates. Most of us will soon be paying about 10 percent of our annual incomes to buy commercial health insurance, although this coverage will pay for only about 70 percent of our medical expenses. And those of us who become seriously ill, lose our incomes and cannot pay the skyrocketing premiums are likely to be denied coverage. The dizzying array of loopholes in the law—written in by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists—means, in essence, that the healthy will receive insurance while the sick and chronically ill will be priced out of the market.

Medical bills already lead to 62 percent of personal bankruptcies, and nearly 80 percent of those declaring personal bankruptcy because of medical costs had insurance. The U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care as other industrialized nations, $8,160. Private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume 31 percent of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single, nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough, the PNHP estimates, to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

But as long as corporations determine policy, as long as they can use their money to determine who gets elected and what legislation gets passed, we remain hostages. It matters little in our corporate state that nearly two-thirds of the public wants single payer and that it is backed by 59 percent of doctors. Public debates on the Obama health care reform, controlled by corporate dollars, ruthlessly silence those who support single payer. The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Max Baucus, a politician who gets more than 80 percent of his campaign contributions from outside his home state of Montana, locked out of the Affordable Care Act hearing a number of public health care advocates including Dr. Flowers and Dr. Paris; the two physicians and six other activists were arrested and taken away. Baucus had invited 41 people to testify. None backed single payer. Those who testified included contributors who had given a total of more than $3 million to committee members for their political campaigns.

“It is not necessary to force Americans to buy private health insurance to achieve universal coverage,” said Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action. “There is a proven alternative that Congress didn’t seriously consider, and that alternative is a single payer national health insurance system. Congress could have taken seriously evidence presented by these single payer medical doctors that a single payer system is the only way to both control costs and cover everyone.”


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.

By heterochromatic, May 5, 2012 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Zap—thanks for the info. and speaking for everyone here, i want to welcome you
and commend your courage for commenting.

it’s very rare that we get members of the exceedingly sub-normal intelligence
community joining us here and if any of your associates have helper animals that
can type for them pass along the welcome.

Report this

By Zap Glomer, May 5, 2012 at 9:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obamacare will survive because one out of seven balcks, one out of ten Hispanics and one out of twelve Italians (thank Fumento) have HIV/AIDS. Do you really want them biting you on the street corner if you refuse to donate?

Report this

By darfoot, May 1, 2012 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

Jets of Health Insurance

a hobby of mine….

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002498796

Report this
bob4healthcare's avatar

By bob4healthcare, April 21, 2012 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

Extensive coverage of the topic of studying other countries is found here:
http://www.mforall.org/p/830#othr1

- Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

ohhhh—- I guess that I didn’t understand, but you’ve got a great point. here in the
USA we have had no foreign influences in our culture and political system

Report this

By Korky Day, April 21, 2012 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

Agreed, but I meant to copy within the USA the successes from other countries.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

Korker—- Americans look to solve problems outside our borders perhaps a little
more than we should.

Report this

By Korky Day, April 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

As usual, US Americans make things much worse by refusing to look for solutions beyond their borders.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 21, 2012 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment

you must realize that they bill self-payers more because they are so much less
likely to collect and the expenses associated with collection are higher.

this is one of the things require redress…... my decades in healthcare were spent
exclusively in non-profit hospitals and mostly in neighborhoods that were low-
income.


it’s not merely money. the entire delivery system is fragmented and irrational in
how resources are distributed.

Report this

By theTribster, April 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

right, I would. The problem isn’t (generally) the deliverers of healthcare but the administrative overhead, vendor raping, inefficient operations, ridiculous lawsuits, it goes on and on. No, I don’t blame the doctors or the nurses but pretty much everything else.
Hospitals are disgraceful in their approach to billing, you can blame it on the insurers but that is only partially true. They bill self-pay patients the highest rates for everything, this is insane and ruined thousands of lives.
Everyone is to blame, some more than others but in the end its a systemic problem that can only be corrected by changing what drives it. Right now its money, almost exclusively. Any other measurements that are used are only to justify rates with insurance vendors…

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 21, 2012 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

tribster—- The only way to fix healthcare is to remove profit as a motivation and
measurement—-

——-wouldn’t bring much improvement…..beyond freeing up the money drained
by the insurers…....I’m sure that your experience in healthcare impressed upon
you that the majority of the professionals aren’t only in it for the money.

Report this

By theTribster, April 21, 2012 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

It is just a way to give insurance companies another 40-50 million customers, at any price they want. Our gubmint is incapable of doing anything that benefits we the people. EVERYTHING they do, and I mean EVERYTHING, is based on giving money or benefits to some corporation or special interest group. Its beyond disgusting.

The only way to fix healthcare is to remove profit as a motivation and measurement - which is clearly the wrong thing to measure the system with anyway. This is as true for Prison as it is for Healthcare as it is for Education. Not everything should be measured by financials - this is the fundamental problem and nothing can change until this is addressed.

Maybe capping profits or revenues is a way to control things. I know ‘capitalists’ complain about this approach but if they have their way we’ll destroy the planet through fracking and other wonderful ‘technologies’ that destroy the planet.

I’ve worked in healthcare for 30 years and its pretty clear where the problem is, parochialism for profit. But, to think the gubmint can handle it is crazy - privatization under today’s environment would be just as bad. Bottom line, we are incapable of fixing healthcare or anything else for that matter.

Unless the problem requires military intervention it won’t be solved and even then it won’t be solved but at least it will get attention. The gubmints solution to this will cost us hundreds/thousands more a year and the services will be degraded - this is what happens when a gubmint gets involved, certainly ours.

Let Pharma pay for it, they could afford funding most of the system, all of it it if it was run efficiently and effectively like other corporations and businesses. I’m only half serious, a clear solution isn’t available.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 21, 2012 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

Lgsutekh——so what’s Obama supposed to do…..leave things as they were or use
his magic wand to change everything all at once?

Report this

By Lgsutekh, April 21, 2012 at 7:04 am Link to this comment

The health care mansion is burning and Obama changes the door handles. Affordable Care Act-the very name is an insult and a sham. I pray it is butchered by SCOTUS so we can tell Obama what an asshole he’s been for not pushing at all the Public option. He completely dropped the notion by inauguration day.Remember how almost every stump speech during 08 he mentioned the PO?

Fitting that it should go down in flames and payback for stringing Dems and everyone else for lying about the PO.
Obama AVOIDS CONFLICT. He is an academic used to the fawning of students. There is no proclivity to fight for ANYTHING. Compare Obama to Truman and Roosevelt and ou get the picture.
Hayes is great-takes balls to write the truth about this loathsome pile of crap foisted on aMERICANS WHO CANT EVEN PAY FOR GROCERIES…..

Report this

By - bill, April 17, 2012 at 11:44 pm Link to this comment

I’m afraid, JDmysticDJ, that the opinion of one so manifestly incompetent really isn’t very persuasive.  First, you called my assertions ‘unsubstantiated’; now that I’ve called your attention to the material which you missed earlier that so clearly DOES substantiate them, you seem strangely reluctant to confront that evidence rather than simply continue to babble (though perhaps you simply found them beyond your clearly limited ability to comprehend and grapple with).

But that’s really not my problem, so I’ll just leave the analysis to any other interested parties who are more capable of performing it (the links pretty much speak for themselves to anyone willing to listen).

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 17, 2012 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

RE: - bill, April 16 at 1:18 am

The question as to which one of us is the moron is easily answered in my opinion. My contention that your anti-Obama dialectic is based on conspiratorial suspicion and not on anything of substance is validated by your comment on another thread: You “suspect” that Obama was pleased with the Republican/Tea Party victories in the 2010 mid-term elections. That contention, by you, ranks right up there with the most absurd of conspiracy theories I have seen.

Your obstinate refusal to recognize what is possible and what is not possible during the reconciliation process only reinforces my opinion that you are a moron.

Report this

By - bill, April 16, 2012 at 2:22 am Link to this comment

Hi, Mona.  You posted a similar question at healthcare-now.org and I answered it at some length there - see http://www.healthcare-now.org/single-payer-activists-views-on-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-17502

Report this

By - bill, April 16, 2012 at 2:18 am Link to this comment

Hmmm, JDmysticDJ:  Since TD’s comment links are kind of screwed up these days I’d normally suspect that you may not be the utter moron that you appear to be, but since you actually DO seem to have followed the link that I provided successfully to my post and then completely ignored the substantiating links WITHIN that post (leading right back to the original New York Times article, plus other such sources) I’m not sure that I can find a reason to give you any such benefit of the doubt.

Should you wish to correct your error, a link that works (at least currently:  it seems that as new material gets added to a thread as soon as the page on which a linked post resides changes that post is no longer reachable by its original link) is http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/five_hypocrites_and_one_bad_plan_20120329/P300/#474753 (and the second post that I linked to, which has no links in it, is not all that far after it).

Report this

By noughtwright, April 15, 2012 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Republicans instead of Democrats had introduced a health care bill in Congress with the insurance mandate (plausible, in view of Gov. Romney’s bill in Mass.), Dems & especially progressives would be protesting and urging the Supremes to overturn it. And Republicans, Tea Partiers, & the Limbaugh-Beck gang would be defending it. The health care debate isn’t about health care reform or reining in skyrocketing medical costs or the needs of patients, it’s about political loyalties.

Let’s not forget that Obama killed the public option during negotiations with insurance cartel lobbyists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html). The public option was probably meant to be a bargaining chip all along.

The missing part of the discussion about health care reform is that the Green Party (http://www.gp.org) has been enthusiastically promoting Medicare For All, with candidates (including presidential contenders) speaking out over & over for single-payer national health care. If even just a few Greens were elected to Congress, the two corporate-money parties (Democrats & Republicans) would no longer be each other’s sole competition. The debate on health care would have to include Medicare For All and Dems would be under far greater pressure to support it. In other words, Medicare For All would have a chance of passage.

The willingness of so many progressives to vote & endorse Dems who reject progressive agenda has made progressives irrelevant in today’s political landscape. The lesson of the past two decades, with Presidents Clinton & Obama and Democratic Congresses, is that the Democratic Party knows that it can always take progressive votes for granted, while Dem leaders coopt more & more GOP policies. If Social Security gets chopped up, it’ll happen because of Dems. Both Ds & Rs are responsible for the Iraq War, the USA Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance of US citizens, the Wall Street bailout, and a lot of other awful ideas.

Unless something happens to interrupt the bipartisan symbiosis, the US will continue heading in a dangerous political direction—and progressives, through their acquiescence & self-imposed impotence, will be as responsible as the Tea Party.

Report this
Mairead's avatar

By Mairead, April 15, 2012 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

“You will not be able to use your current Truthdig account to post comments in the new system. We hoped to avoid this inconvenience, but could not find an alternative compatible with our site architecture. (We actually tried and failed to build a custom comments engine for this reason alone.)

I can’t imagine how the bolded part of this statement could possibly be correct. The current comments model is primitive in the extreme. Comment models, as opposed to discussion models, are all primitive, but this one is the flatworm of comment models.

Creating a database table and binding an article to its comments by making the ArticleID also the ThreadID is dead simple.  Since there’s no more than one thread per article, the scheme need not be more complex.  Once that database is in place, one additional SELECT statement will retrieve the current set of comments for any given article.

What can they have been thinking of? 

I, too, won’t be writing here after the new scheme comes into operation.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 15, 2012 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

Dear Fellow TD Posters:

I’m going to miss discussions of Scheer and Hedges!

I recently received an eMail from TD containing the follow two disturbing bits of information:

“With the new system, instead of logging in to your Truthdig account, you’ll see the option to log in and post comments using Facebook, Yahoo!, AOL or Hotmail. If you already have an account with one of these services, you won’t need to create a new login; and if you don’t have one, you can sign up for free.”

You will not be able to use your current Truthdig account to post comments in the new system. We hoped to avoid this inconvenience, but could not find an alternative compatible with our site architecture. (We actually tried and failed to build a custom comments engine for this reason alone.) Once we get the new feature in place, you’ll need to use one of the aforementioned services to log in and comment. Remember you can create a pseudonym account if anonymity is important to you. We plan to preserve all comment archives, so you don’t need to worry about losing anything you previously wrote.”

When I first started using the Internet many years ago, I used Compuserve, a competitor to AOL. During that time, AOL was twice caught with their pants down selling subscribers’ private and personal information to advertisers without permission.  Both times AOL promised to clean up their act but have been caught again repeating this over the years.  The day AOL purchased Compuserve I cancelled my Compuserve account.

FaceBook has become notorious for violating subscribers’ privacy, promising to make it “better” yet somehow they always have leaks.  I would not be surprised if FB had an engine to locate where anonymous accounts come from and can then tag them to real names.  I learned the hard way a few years ago that even amateur website managers can tag an anonymous account to you. Do not be reassured that your anonymity can be preserved against the likes of FaceBook, Yahoo!, and AOL.  It cannot.

Therefore, I am leaving Truthdig until such time as they change this policy.  It has been fun!

I wish you all the best,
ITH

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, April 15, 2012 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, of a painting named Mona:

“Does anyone have a simple link to a chart that shows how much the mandate costs a person or family according to size and income?...  No one, pro or con, seems to know what they’re talking about!”
____________________________

There is no “simple” way to unarguably determine what the **ACTUAL** individual costs of Obama’s federalization of RomneyCare will be because the already overly complex private profiting SickCare system was made even more complex by the ever devious and disingenuous Democrats.

However, it is clear that mandating greater profits for more private insurance control of medical services to the public would not have been done by any administration intending to provide healthcare… especially if it was supposed to become “affordable” healthcare.

The corporate (R) & (D) party is completely focused upon WealthCare.

The Devolution of Liberalism:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=496&Itemid=1

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Report this
Mona's avatar

By Mona, April 14, 2012 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

Does anyone have a simple link to a chart that shows how much the mandate costs a person or family according to size and income?  And how much their subsidy for insurance would be under the legislation?  Also, the new qualifications for Medicaid? 

I am a single payer supporter, but frankly, it disturbs me to see so much debate over the legislation and mandate with such a dearth of information about how it affects individuals posting in their daily lives.  It’s all smoke and mirrors.  No one, pro or con, seems to know what they’re talking about!

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

—-Simple solution: Ban lobbyists. Its a form of cronyism. I guess the question is;
is that even possible?—-


not really. people got some right or something to petition the govt for redress…..


gotta work to try and limit access and the best way is probably to regulate the
conduct of the government’s officials.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 14, 2012 at 11:57 am Link to this comment

RE; Mairead, April 14 at 6:08 am

Blaming Obama and the Democrats for the actions of “Blue Dog” Democrat Max Baucus and his Republican cohorts is not logical. Be it right or wrong, removing, and sometimes arresting, disruptive people from Congressional Hearings is standard operating procedure.

Negotiating with, explaining, and cajoling potential opponents is a normal part of the negotiating process and not proof of conspiratorial perfidy. The fact that Obama supported the Public Option is a matter of the public record. Obama, Bernie Sanders, other left leaning commentators and even Dennis Kucinich and the progressive caucus supported the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” after the fact that a Public Option was not attainable became the reality.

Disingenuous? Given Obama’s propensity for compromise in order to accomplish goals his meeting with potential opponents is unsettling for the more dogmatic among us, but such meetings in no way substantiates the conspiratorial perfidy asserted.

RE: - bill, April 13 at 7:54 pm

You have questioned my competence to educate myself. Without belaboring the issue of my competence I’ll simply state that I have every confidence in my competence to educate myself and furthermore authoritative sources have certified my competence. Compounding my certified intellectual capacities with very closely following what transpired during the lengthy health care reform debate the issue of my competence is by my appraisal a non issue, but I understand your desire to make it an issue. When the facts and truth contradict your dialectic of conspiratorial perfidy the issue of my competence might in some way be of service to you and somehow give credence to your unsubstantiated allegations of conspiratorial perfidy, (I’m amused to the point of laughter by such absurdities.)

Are you so foolish as to believe that your links to another article where you make bold unsubstantiated allegations somehow gives credibility to your conspiratorial allegations made here? Your unsupported allegation that Obama had abandoned the public option before he defended the public option in a joint session of the House and Senate demonstrates your conspiratorial thinking perfectly.

Education time: Yes the Public Option could have been added during the reconciliation process, but wait, the Public Option “could have” been “passed” in the House and Senate. Single payer Medicare for all “could have” been passed in the House and Senate, there is only one minor difficulty, the votes necessary to pass the Public Option or Medicare for all in the House and Senate were not there. If the reconciliation committee had added the Public Option the Bill would still have had to be ratified by the Senate and the votes necessary for that ratification in the Senate were not there. You appear to be claiming that you have knowledge of what transpired during the health care debate so you must know that the Public Option did come up for a vote in the Senate and that turn-coat Democrat Joe Lieberman (Now an Independent,) a Democrat who campaigned with Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, cast the deciding vote that killed the Public Option in the Senate.

Those who critique our society and our politics, such as David J. Cyr and a myriad of others, (including me,) perform a valuable service by my appraisal, but those critiques in and of themselves do nothing to solve the problems that confront us. Solving those problems in a democracy will require rational thought and making the best choices.

Report this
Mairead's avatar

By Mairead, April 14, 2012 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ wrote: Your convoluted description of what constitutes evidence replete with Latin legalese is not evidence, is it?

...

What should be obvious to all here is that you are not offering any evidence to validate your assertion. You are simply offering a convoluted description of what constitutes evidence. If you had any real evidence to validate your suspicions you would present it, wouldn’t you? I’m requesting any evidence you might have that the “Public Option” was “Sabotaged” by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi as has been asserted. That evidence will not be forthcoming because there is none.

Just an FYI: the inclusion of 1 common 2-word phrase in Latin does not qualify as “replete”.

As to evidence, I presumed that you, like others here, are aware that Obama

- met “early and often”, per an AP story no longer available online, with med-insurance industry lobbyists:

George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans.

Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist who represents Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients.

Billy Tauzin, head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby.

Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association, and numerous lobbyists.

...but not with any single payer advocates (one real advocate (head of PNHP) and one nominal one (Conyers) were included at the last minute, as a figleaf).  That’s the “fending off with an oar” analog.

- Doctors, nurses, and lay advocates for single-payer were evicted from Baucus’s Senate hearing on healthcare and arrested.  That’s the “hitting fingers” analog.

Being disingenuous should be beneath you.

Report this

By - bill, April 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm Link to this comment

Then I’m even more surprised and appreciative.  Makes me think I might want to keep a closer eye on my own behavior as well rather than just continue to assume that business as usual is probably the order of the day.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 13, 2012 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment

it’ wasn’t at all sarcastic….. once or twice previously, you were correct to caution
me and I ain’t too stuck up to not appreciate it…..

Report this

By - bill, April 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

My word, tic - even if some of that response had a tinge of sarcasm in it it was still pretty polite.  Makes me wonder whether that might be in part because we’ve managed to find more areas of agreement recently than usual, but regardless it’s welcome.

The bluntness of my objection to your earlier response to David came from your accusation of “dishonesty and
distortive rhetoric” which I did not find justifiable despite the fact that I often find David’s apparent assumption that his is the only true path to salvation to be rather annoying myself (not that such assumptions are all that rare here).

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 13, 2012 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

bill—- I was objecting to what we sais and meant and the specific instance of the
single option was but his springboard to the broader claim that I found fauty.

thank you again. you have indeed previously reminded me to do more than skim a
comment before replying, but in this instance your cautioning wasn’t necessary.

Report this

By - bill, April 13, 2012 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment

What David was specifically referring to, tic, in terms of what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid ‘took off the table’ was clearly the single-payer option (that being the option that was specifically kept ‘off the table’ - sometimes by police action - even amid continuing pious protestations that ‘everything is on the table’ for the entire duration of the debate).

And what they replaced it with - a gift to the private insurance industry which codified their bloat and profit margins into law with taxpayer support, no less, while leaving tens of millions of people uninsured and even more people significantly under-insured with no recourse to ANY public plan - can justifiably be characterized as something which did not constitute “even the thought of government ever possibly providing any actual care for the people’s health” - especially in the specific context of the ACA itself (which context his statement was beyond doubt couched in) rather than a more general context of what other government programs had accomplished.

Context matters, tic.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

bill—-try reading Davey’s opening sentence where he says—-In their taking “off
the table” even the thought of government ever possibly providing any actual care
for the people’s health…. then tell me that my response was unresponsive.

Report this

By - bill, April 13, 2012 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

Not that you’re likely to be competent to educate yourself in this area, JDmysticDJ, but I presented the ‘evidence’ you’ve requested in http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/five_hypocrites_and_one_bad_plan_20120329/P200/#474753 if you’re prepared to delve into it - including specific evidence that Obama had sold out the ‘public option’ well before his public expression of support for it that you linked to - which fleshed out my assertions in http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/five_hypocrites_and_one_bad_plan_20120329/P200/#474702 .  Obama is very, very convincing while saying one thing when already doing quite another, and the sooner more of his deluded minions recognize this the better off we’ll all be.

But even beyond that, my post to which you purport to have responded was very specifically refuting your incompetent assertion that ‘the inadequate “Public Option” was impossible to pass in the U.S. Senate because of unanimous Republican obstruction’ by noting that there were nowhere nearly enough Republicans to block its passage in the Senate in the reconciliation package.


tic, you really need to learn to read more carefully before responding to something other than what was said (how many times I’ve already suggested this to you is not worth counting, but every time it’s necessary to say it again only reinforces your blatant deficiency in this area).  What David said reflected our failure to “have public funded universal healthcare for all”, and your alleged rebuttal that “government actually spends a hell of a lot of money on the people’s health and has done so for a long time” really doesn’t refute that (especially considering that even the shiny new ACA won’t EVER cover even nearly everyone in this country - the CBO’s estimate is that in 2019 about 23 million people will still be uninsured, let alone the tens of millions more who will be severely under-insured).

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 13, 2012 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

Davey, you’re positing blue-sky bullshit. The history of the world and of a
society that has long produced an abundance of food and then industrialized
that production so that it now has taken the surplus and used some of it to
churn out junk food isn’t evidence of a damn thing other than a a dizzying array
of poor choices offered to a society that has TOO MUCH food and surplus cash.

you advocating a government/society that refuses to allow people to offer bad
choices to the population or refuses to allow that population to make those
poor choices?

This shit has little value in proving that the government has no interest in a
healthy citizenry…..

more distortion and silly theorizing.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, April 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

The food, drug, energy, environmental and “education” policies of the corporate-state has created a sick society that values profits for the extortion racket of private medical insurance over the needs of people… not evidence of corporate person government having any real care for the health of natural persons.

A health caring society would not have a system of private sickcare insurance chaining workers to employers. It would not support factory farming’s industrial production of “food” products designed to be hazardous to health when consumed; nor would it require it’s population to be prescription drug dependent; nor would it permit the fracking of the commons; nor would it “educate” natural persons into choosing to support the profits of corporations over the sustainability of Nature’s nourishing environment.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 13, 2012 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

well, St Davey, the government actually spends a hell of a lot of money on the
people’s health and has done so for a long time…..dissent is good, dishonesty and
distortive rhetoric not so good.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, April 13, 2012 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

In their taking “off the table” even the thought of government ever possibly providing any actual care for the people’s health, Obama, Reid and Pelosi were dutifully representing their corporate party constituency — the 69,456,897 deeply depraved Democrats who flocked to the polls in 2008 to manically join together there with 59,934,814 really retrograde Republicans… the corporate party’s (D)s and (R)s joined in solidarity together to provide a 99% popular vote mandate to continue having more war and to not have public funded universal healthcare for all.

The function of “progressive” Democrats is to ensure that government produces either none or the least possible progress.

We know that corporate government responds to election results because all the world’s people keep getting the continuum of sociopathic neoliberal policies that America’s corporate (R) & (D) party voters keep voting for.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 13, 2012 at 11:34 am Link to this comment

——- Any f-ing thing the People want and need
would be possible legislatively in a Democracy.——

including spit-roassted Grady Lee?

unicorns for all?


when the people are ubtied in wanting something and are willing to provide the
resources to realize it, there’s much that’s possible…..but some stuff doesn’t come
easily and some is simply aspirational.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 13, 2012 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

RE: Mairead, April 12 at 12:31 pm


Your convoluted description of what constitutes evidence replete with Latin legalese is not evidence, is it?


“Mutatis mutandis is a Latin phrase meaning ‘by changing those things which need to be changed’ or more simply ‘the necessary changes having been made’”.

Necessary changes? What changes; changes that are not evident but imagined in order to validate a suspicion?

What should be obvious to all here is that you are not offering any evidence to validate your assertion. You are simply offering a convoluted description of what constitutes evidence. If you had any real evidence to validate your suspicions you would present it, wouldn’t you? I’m requesting any evidence you might have that the “Public Option” was “Sabotaged” by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi as has been asserted. That evidence will not be forthcoming because there is none. What is clear is that the “Public Option” was abandoned and that single payer was never considered passable in the U.S. Congress because of political reality; a political reality that some obstinately refuse to recognize.

Blaming Obama, Reid, and Pelosi for the weak heath care reform is like blaming the victim of a crime for the crime that was committed, which is moronic thinking. The weak health care reform was a direct result of Republican obstruction. Any other kind of analysis would be a demented kind of logic indeed, but it is asserted here by morons such as you.

Given my insults directed at certain left-wing radicals, those unfamiliar with my political perspectives will more than likely be surprised to read that I consider myself to be a left-wing radical in most respects and I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of Americans would concur with my self identification as a radical leftist after being exposed to my political perspectives. For example, I do not believe that there is anything exceptionally “good” about the country of which I am a citizen, quite the contrary. I am in strong disagreement with the erroneous thinking that the United States is an exceptionally “good” nation, though I wish such were true. I am not just opposed to the abuses and injustices associated with capitalism but I am opposed to capitalism as an economic paradigm and I long for the far distant time when a new, fairer, more just, economic paradigm will come into existence. I am a believer in Social Democracy with heavy emphasis on the democracy. My hope is that Social Democracy will be arrived at via the ballot box and will be enabled by fiscal policy and that egalitarianism will someday be the reality. I am opposed to this nation’s foreign policies predicated on the need for hegemony and empire and I believe that the United States should use its wealth, power, and pre-eminence to pursue more altruistic goals and not to advance its limited self interest. Yes I am a radical, an idealist, but also a realist.

Now, to the left-wing radicals with whom I disagree so strongly and who cause in me so much frustration; that current political realities eliminate sweeping change as a rational expectation “At the present time,” is a reality that these morons are apparently incapable of realizing. I believe that abandoning the Democrats “At the present time” will have disastrous consequences and will only push this nation ever closer to the worst aspects of fascism, neo-feudalism, economic injustice, world conflict, and greater existential danger. The best that can be said about the Democratic Party is that the Democratic Party provides a bulwark against the worst excesses of right-wing lunacy. The inability to see that the better is preferable to the worst amazes me. And so, I define such as nihilistic, not just destructive, but self destructive with their irrational thinking.

Report this
katsteevns's avatar

By katsteevns, April 13, 2012 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

There is only one Prince of Peace, and when you approach him, he will step back and say:

“I do not think I know you, though I have a vague memory of a youthful man who sought me out among the pages of my Word. But, did you find me?
  Did you find my father to be a cruel master? Did you find his son to be a cruel savior? Do you seek to organize men in order to do a better job than I did, in order to create a separate peace, a “better” peace? A peace that eliminates some of my and my father’s less tasteful characteristics? If so, then forget not that you must first defeat Satan, the prince of darkness.

And you will say:
“But, didn’t I spend all my time in the fox holes and the trenches so as to communicate the horrors and injustices of war to my ignorant compatriots in order that they might come together and stop the carnage? Did I not do all those good works for you?”

And he will say:
“Well, did I ask you to do as much? And was not the work of my prophets of old sufficient to that end?
  Each man alive has enough work on his table to occupy him in his quest to enter through the narrow gate. This in itself is a daunting task for anyone.
  I suggest you take another look inside to determine whether or not all these works you do are done for the people or just for yourself. Did I mention anything in my Word about prophets in the last days? I do recall the 144,000 that I mentioned, but, ahh, you are a little old for that position and married to boot.
  Do those who seek to collar crooks who counterfeit currency spend their time studying and scrutinizing counterfeit money? No they don’t, they study the genuine authentic bills.
  It is I who hold back the beast until his time, not you.
  Every man is given a conscience. One can live his whole life abiding by his conscience. And there are others who can not because they are weak. Living by your conscience is living in your own strength. Those who are too weak fall and the provision for them is to receive the Holy Spirit, to ask for the Holy Spirit and receive it in their hearts. Which man are you? The Holy Spirit teaches men all things whereas the conscience plays a limited role in teaching. But a man of conscience can not be saved unless he sees his need for a savior.
  Did you ask that the Holy Spirit be imparted upon you? Did you ask with sincerity? Then I say, that if you did then chances are that you do have the Holy Spirit and it is incumbent upon you that you do not “suffer” the Holy Spirit by living in your own strength.

I hope it is not too late for you to “hate your life”. I will remind you that for those who want to know me, they must meditate on my Word day and night. I will remind you that Satan has far more resources that any man or combination of men operating “in their own strength”.”

Report this

By GradyLeeHoward, April 13, 2012 at 4:37 am Link to this comment

Know what? Any f-ing thing the People want and need
would be possible legislatively in a Democracy.
When commentators begin discussing “what is
possible” they are only showing their reverence
for crony corporatism and the “goods” it delivers
them (or at sometime in the future they expect it
may deliver them).

I have a theory: American citizens are brainwashed
to equate political progress with technological
advance. (Recall how Hedges teaches that moral
progress is an illusion, that the struggle is
dynamic and reversible.) When these colonized minds
say justice and fairness are not possible in these
times they are only saying they are content with
the status quo and decline participation in the
struggle. They are the moral equivalent of fearful
“conservatives” who care only for themselves, do
not understand the idea of the commons, and are as
unable to share as a two year old child. There is
no Moore’s law in politics and no big breakthrough
is coming. There will be no technological solution
to greed and power madness. Things will not change
until the majority embraces the best solutions in
the present time. People who settle for less have a
hidden selfish agenda or are crippled by the
worship of wealth and celebrity. And that’s the
truth. I’m not debating with sell-outs.

Report this

By samg, April 12, 2012 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

I think if Hedges can’t see any difference between Obama and Romney, he ought to go back to covering wars again. I’m not much of an Obama fan. But he’s three times as good as Romney. And that’s important. Remember 2000. Hedges probably voted for Nader. And that’s how we ended up with Bush. And don’t tell me that Gore would have invaded Iraq, because that’s nonsense. Or that Gore would have approved those big tax cuts for the wealthy, and done all he could to make them permanent. That’s the difference. Today’s Romney wouldn’t have gotten a law passed giving 30 million more people health insurance (if it remains the law). Sure, it’s imperfect. Sure, I’d have preferred Medicare for all, single payer. But it never stood a chance in Congress. Russell Mokhiber is a smart guy. And he’s right, Congress didn’t seriously consider single payer. Not these days. So single payer was out of the question. So then the question is do you build more-or-less universal health care with private insurance or drop the idea entirely. Obama and the then-Dem majority in Congress decided to go with private insurance rather than nothing. That was the best they could do. Would Chris Hedges and Russell Mokhiber and the rest of the single payer geniuses have preferred nothing? Because that’s what we’d have got if they hadn’t compromised. It was the best that could be done at the time. Period. Bitching that we should have insisted on single payer would have got us nothing. And Hedges and Mokhiber are smart enough to know that. But somehow, they don’t. Go figure.

Report this

By truth hurts, April 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@tony_opmoc, April 10 at 2:33 am

absolutely superb commentary on the true situation.

every american should read “murder by injection” by the late eustace mullins.

Report this
bob4healthcare's avatar

By bob4healthcare, April 12, 2012 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

By JDmysticDJ, April 12 at 11:15 am: “I offer no apologies for calling people morons.”

Clarification – My words in my “Stop ... ridicule” post are more general than I planned. Oops. I intended my input to be ONLY for rbe4free, who seemed to be acting in a different way than what he/she promoted twice at this comments page. Sorry about any misunderstanding/confusion. FYI, Bob

Report this

By BanLobbying, April 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Simple solution: Ban lobbyists. Its a form of cronyism. I guess the question is; is that even possible? Seems like a lot of problems would be solved for the U.S if lobbying was acknowledged for what it was: Corruption…

Report this
Mairead's avatar

By Mairead, April 12, 2012 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ wrote, among other sententious rubbish: Now, I would not equally equate those who believe Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi sabotaged the “Public Option,”  in order to serve their Corporate Masters, with the irrational types described in the paragraph above but the thinking and dialectic of those who assert such has much in common with the above described. The thinking of such is devoid of any factual evidence and is merely the result of suspicion.

I do not claim to be as knowledgeable about the workings of government as are our elected representatives who actually do the work, but I will assert that the President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have intimate knowledge of what is possible and what is not possible in terms of legislation.

If you’re serious about your claim that there’s no evidence for sabotage, you should perhaps get someone you trust to explain what “evidence” means because it definitely does not mean whatever you think it means.

If I’m in a boat and you’re in the water, drowning, and I hit your fingers and push you away with an oar whenever you try to climb out of the the water into the boat, and there’s no secondary reason for me to do that (I’m not delusional, you’re not an ax murderer) then anyone who’s competent is going to conclude that I’m trying to kill you.

That, mutatis mutandis, is the evidence for Obama et al. sabotaging the prospects for single-payer.

Report this

By LT, April 12, 2012 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Now, I would not equally equate those who believe Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi sabotaged the “Public Option,”  in order to serve their Corporate Masters, with the irrational types described in the paragraph above but the thinking and dialectic of those who assert such has much in common with the above described.”

Exhibit A of why everyone should leave the worthless Democratic Party alone.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 12, 2012 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

By - bill, April 10 at 4:34 pm

“One of the many facts that Democratic establishment apologists (like you, JDmysticDJ) consistently refuse to confront is that when universal health care (or at the very least a strong ‘public option’) COULD have been passed with only 50 Senators’ votes Obama, Pelosi, and Reid collaborated to ensure that it did not even reach the floor of either chamber let alone become part of the reconciliation package that immediately followed passage of the ACA.”

The purveyance of falsehood is a remarkable and curious phenomenon.  A falsehood put forth out of ignorance is, simply that, ignorance. I suppose a person who puts forth a falsehood without thinking critically while vigorously ignoring the actual facts he is “confront [end]” with does so in order to advance an agenda. Certain people appear to be prone to a kind of wishful thinking; blindly accepting falsehoods and grand conspiracies because that acceptance appears to validate a dialectic they believe to be true or wish to be true e.g. the amazingly high proportion of people who say they believe Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ, a Muslim, not a legal citizen, ad nausea, or the people who believe the terrorist attack on the New York Trade Center was actually perpetrated by: Bush Administration Neo-cons, the Mossad, a secret government, or other entity. The flimsiest of circumstantial evidence which in reality would not even qualify as being legitimate circumstantial evidence is put forth by such as these as being proof of perfidy merely because fabricated non-evidence appears to reinforce their phantasmagorical conspiracy theories.

Now, I would not equally equate those who believe Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi sabotaged the “Public Option,”  in order to serve their Corporate Masters, with the irrational types described in the paragraph above but the thinking and dialectic of those who assert such has much in common with the above described. The thinking of such is devoid of any factual evidence and is merely the result of suspicion.

I do not claim to be as knowledgeable about the workings of government as are our elected representatives who actually do the work, but I will assert that the President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have intimate knowledge of what is possible and what is not possible in terms of legislation. Pertaining to intimate knowledge of what is possible and what is not possible would be the “Progressive Caucus” in the House of Representatives all of whom eventually supported and voted for the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (The Progressive Caucus whose members were recently accused of being “Card carrying members of the Communist Party” by Allen West the Republican elected Congressman in Florida.) I digress.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 12, 2012 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

By - bill, April 10 at 4:34 pm (Cont.)

“Obama to defend public health care option
By Michael Mathes (AFP) – Sep 6, 2009
 
“WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama this week will defend his controversial push for a public health care option to be offered alongside existing private insurance plans, the White House said Sunday.

Obama’s plans to remake health care have been squeezed during a summer marked by volatile town hall meetings in which conservatives railed against changing the system.

But the president will try to breath new life into his reform effort with an address Wednesday to a rare joint session of the US Congress.

After the address, lawmakers and the public will know “exactly where the president stands, exactly what he thinks we have to do to get health care reform this year. And he intends to do it,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told ABC’s “This Week” program.

“The president strongly believes that we have to have (a public) option like this to provide choice and competition, to provide a check on insurance companies,” Gibbs added.”

Six months after the above, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act just barely passed into law with unanimous Republican opposition. Anyone who believes the “Public Option,” single payer universal health care, or anything similar, could have been passed into law under the political reality that existed is a complete and total moron. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and everyone else with the exception of counter productive, irrational, anti-Obama, left-wing radicals and demagogues dropped the demand for legislation containing a public option when it became painfully obvious that attaining such was impossibility under the existing political reality - end of story.

But that is not the end of the story. Progress rarely comes with sweeping change. Progress most generally comes in increments. Sweeping change requires large legislative majorities; the kind of legislative majorities that Obama and the Democrats did not have, and the kind of legislative majorities that Obama haters and left-wing radicals are actively and effectively working to prevent.

I offer no apologies for calling people morons. That these left-wing radicals are pathological nihilists actively and effectively working to obstruct the progress they claim to advocate is painfully and frustratingly obvious to more rational people. 
 
The narrative that states there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans is a narrative clandestinely put forth by Carl Rove and other sleazy Republican operatives which is intended to discourage traditionally Democratic voters from voting and a narrative openly stated by moronic left-wing radicals.

Report this
bob4healthcare's avatar

By bob4healthcare, April 12, 2012 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

rbe4free,

Your 2nd question:
... who will be doing the consuming ...

The new way to pay for health care (single-payer health care, improved Medicare for All) will dramatically help the overall economy. We’ll have millions of Americans consuming more, many of whom will, on average, have much better jobs ... as I implied at the end of my April 9 (8:02 pm) comments.

(Side note: Since most Americans have never heard of the subject, as I noted in another post, they do yet appreciate this point of looking forward to not only a healthier America physically, but also a healthier America financially.)

Technological displacement occurs continuously all over the world. What matters most is labor costs. When the U.S. finally implements the best, most sensible, rational, just, and efficient way to pay for health care, then the resulting dramatically lower health care costs will significantly lower the costs of labor for any company that operates inside the United States. That will positively impact our number of businesses and number of employees.

Single-payer health care is better than other alternatives ...
http://www.mforall.org/p/976#compare
and is the best solution: 
http://www.mforall.org/p/Best
[national single-payer is best, NOT state-by-state single-payer]

Your first question: how long we’ll keep limping along ...

From the standpoint of the U.S. implementing the best way of paying for health care (above) and realizing the benefits (including making a great contribution to the overall economy), the answer of timing depends on how soon individual Americans solidly inform themselves ... and solidly inform others ... including getting their questions and concerns answered
( http://www.meforall.org/p/Know#FAQs ) and do the relatively simple act of organized, monthly communications as our unified action(s) of the people. President Obama has been waiting for this activity to occur since that day (4/3/2007) on which he told us that this topic is up to us, the people. U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives were notified (June 2007) that the communications would be coming. If they want to stay in office, they will respond to the overwhelming amount of communications that they will receive.

- Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 12, 2012 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

we could go on for quite some time…unemployment has been higher than it now
is and there’s plenty of wealth around.

Report this
rbe4free's avatar

By rbe4free, April 12, 2012 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

bob4healthcare Please tell me how long you expect our current broken system to keep limping along in it’s death throes?  Actual unemployment in US is 20% already, technological displacement in the comming months will push that way up, who will be doing the consuming then?

Report this
bob4healthcare's avatar

By bob4healthcare, April 12, 2012 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

To: rbe4free (April 12 at 3:05 am) Stop your ridicule of others, please. It does not help anyone or anything. My impression of the concept and vision of the project (about which you suggest we learn) is that negative human interactions, such as your action of ridicule, would not be appropriate in that proposed society. Let’s move forward positively with not only hope, but also belief, for the future.
http://www.mforall.org/p/Hope
- Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate

Report this
rbe4free's avatar

By rbe4free, April 12, 2012 at 4:05 am Link to this comment

I find it hilarious that you people actually believe that any of the options stated in the comments will truly address this issue, when you are not addressing the underlying cause.  The cause is our Fiat monetary driven, socio-economic system, until we get rid of it, nothing will change.  Want a real solution?  Check out The Venus Project, if you have questions see the FAQ page.

Report this
katsteevns's avatar

By katsteevns, April 11, 2012 at 9:42 pm Link to this comment

By balkas, April 11 at 6:40 am

” no such entity had been seen and that the
notion itself does not exist in isolation from our thinking, inventing phenomena, wishes, etc.”

Although man is adept at imagining many things that do not exist, you are wrong on both counts. Having not seen something is not a final argument against its existence. The earth was not flat before we learned it was round. Compared to the age and complexity of our environment, we are but infants in our accumulated wisdom.

And you know that no such entity has been seen because…...?

Report this
sallysense's avatar

By sallysense, April 11, 2012 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

Petition To Congress:

Reimpose the Excess Profits Tax for Corporations/Corporate Greed to Pay.

Our United States’ Involvement in the Wars Abroad, and in the War Against Terror at Home, sees Corporate Greed Running Rampant; while Our Country and People Suffer the Effects.

This in Itself gives We-the-People and Our Nation the Justification for the Excess Profits Tax to be Reimposed.

Reinstate the Excess Profits Tax for Corporations/Corporate Greed to Pay. 

(The Excess Profits Tax, is a Tax paid by Corporations on Excessive Profits above a Specified Allowable Amount.  It has been Enacted at Various Times throughout Our Nation’s History.)

(The Excess Profits Tax sees that Corporate Greed Pays Taxes on its Greediness.)

For the sake of We-the-People and Our Nation; Reimpose the Excess Profits Tax for Corporations/Corporate Greed to Pay.

Hence furthermore, Direct those Taxes to be used via Non-Profit/Low-Profit Ways and Means, to produce more Jobs and better Health Care for Americans, since Corporate Greed’s Excessive-Profits have already taken so much away from Our Country and People.

http://www.petition2congress.com/6574/to-congress-reimpose-excess-profits-tax-corporationscorporate-gre/

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

Mairead—- there’s not much difference between the Supreme Court and those
wise old elders you were romanticizing.

Report this
Mairead's avatar

By Mairead, April 11, 2012 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

Maani wrote: About half a dozen posters noted that SCOTUS would probably strike down the ACA.  Yet only Canyon made the correct connection: they may only do so BECAUSE THE JUSTICES WHO ARE AGAINST IT WERE APPOINTED BY REPUBLICANS.

The implication being that Dem-appointed judges would not strike it down despite the mandate being a clear Constitutional violation. 

That would not be a good thing except from the perspective of the owner and political classes, and those who are their dupes and fellow-travelers.

It was Obama himself who in 2008 said, (I paraphrase) “if such mandates were legal, we could end homelessness by requiring that everyone buy a house”.

The idea that offering the alternative of a fine somehow takes the curse off is, of course, nonsense:  it cannot be legitimate to punish someone for not submitting to an illegal law. Of course the ruling class might punish people anyway, since legitimacy is just a big word to them.

Report this

By balkas, April 11, 2012 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

‘god’, ‘devil’, ‘priest’ are mere labels for our fancies. btw, i put the word “god” and others
under single quotes to denote two ideas: that no such entity had been seen and that the
notion itself does not exist in isolation from our thinking, inventing phenomena, wishes, etc.
it appears by far more educative to invent an entity which we may label “goddevil”, than
delusional splitting of our fancy into “god and devil”.
===,
that’s right folks, you cannot see a priest either—you can see only a man or woman calling
self a priest or priestess.
in stark reality, such a person is after all a human. and what more does one need/want to be
than that? [btw if a priest has god in herhis life, what more cold s/he want? why is that never
enough??]
but a priest being by far more delusional or schizophrenic than me and most people, just
cannot get rid of the delusion. such a person needs tough love in order that we cure himher!
perhaps some hard and dangerous work on a fishing boat, in a mine, polluting/noisy plant
might turn out to be a cure for such an illness.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, April 11, 2012 at 5:10 am Link to this comment

Man is God, and Man is Satan? We fight our nature and it fights us?  Dunno…....  it’s all words.

Report this
katsteevns's avatar

By katsteevns, April 11, 2012 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

It’s nice to have someone who encourages us(Chris Hedges) to fight for our civil rights, especially in the face of so many of our Christian religious institutions that encourage the opposite action. They preach that “all authority comes from God” and therefore it must be obeyed. The religionists apply this to personal morality but not to the morality of the state which protects their institution and property, their right to accumulate wealth and ply their trade. How convenient.

But Chris Hedges goes one step further and states that there is no evidence that Jesus existed or walked the earth, thus giving us the impression that all our efforts to thwart the system could result in our gaining the upper hand and possibly changing the tide of destruction to our world and ourselves to, in essence, make our country and the world a livable planet for future generations. This, in a nutshell, is the what is called New Age philosophy.

New Age philosophy denies the Christ, that God came to earth in the form of man. It also denies almost all of the bible teachings including the Rapture. It holds that man IS God.

So, keep this in mind as you take in what this man has to say. Fighting for ones rights is a good thing, but to think that the one who has dominion over this planet, namely Satan, can be defeated by man alone, is a pipe dream at best. He is preaching a false gospel.

Report this
S. Wolf Britain's avatar

By S. Wolf Britain, April 10, 2012 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

Thank you again, Chris Hedges. When I first saw the
title of this article, and that you had written it, I
thought that you’d probably be defending
“Obama’Care’”, being that most of the “Left” does. So
you can imagine that it was a breath of fresh air for
me to see that you’re telling the whole, real truth
about it. I know that this article is going to make
you (extremely?) unpopular among most of the “Left”,
so all the more reason to thank you for your courage
in speaking out against the monstrosity that this so-
called health-“care” law is. And I’ve only written
this paragraph before reading the entire article…

...Now that I’ve read the entire article, I have this
to say: WOW! The article far surpassed what I even
thought the level of telling it like it is would be
in it. In fact, it is completely right on the
money… or, perhaps I should say, right-on in
exposing the fact that money-interests are really
what’s behind the Orwellian double-speak, so-called
“Affordable Care Act (ACA)”. And that just when I
think I’m probably overestimating you, Chris Hedges,
I am blown away again by your courageousness and the
degree to which you make no apologies for the
nothing-but-truth that you tell us about the ACA and
related corporate-fascist politics-as-usual; even the
real, whole, unveiled truth about Obama and the
Democratic Party and the destruction of our society
that they are intentionally orchestrating, and about
the neofeudalism that they are very rapidly ushering
in nationwide.

So thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you again
Chris Hedges for telling it nothing but like it is
about this direly important subject matter. Truth,
truth, truth! Go truth! Go, nothing but truth(!):

SINGLE-PAYER, AND NOTHING ELSE IN ITS PLACE, FOR
ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(They won’t but…) May the Supremes find
“Obaminationcare” the unconstitutional “law” that it
nothing but is! Go truth, truth, truth! The truth,
and nothing but the truth, sets us free! Go
truth(!)...

Report this

By NewsNag, April 10, 2012 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m long past the threshold of becoming sick and tired of Hedges’ “reasonable” extremism.  Black-and-white thinking is so Bush-like.  Isn’t it embarassing, Chris?  Is your mind really so apocalyptic that distinction and nuance - and actually crucial policy differences - can’t penetrate your PTSD?

Sheesh.  Enough already.  Isn’t there a thinking-person’s alternative to Hedges that Truthdig could present?

Report this

By - bill, April 10, 2012 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

Whether single-payer could have passed the House is certainly debatable, tic.  However, the post to which you just responded said nothing about single-payer:  it referred to “universal health care (or at the very least a strong ‘public option’)” - so while the BEST path to universal access to health care is almost certainly a single-payer system (at least as a start:  if we STILL have insurmountable funding difficulties after we’re done that then we can nationalize actual providers as well to try to address them), it could also be achieved via the public option implemented in such a way as to leave no one uncovered.

So I’ll remind you once again to try to read more carefully before responding incompetently:  the subject of the post to which you responded was not single-payer, and that post was itself specifically responding to a claim about the infeasibility of passing the ‘public option’ (not single-payer).

The the fact that the ‘public option’ had ALREADY passed the House is not subject to debate.  While the idea that 49 Democratic Senators (plus Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden to break the tie) could have been found willing to vote to include a public option in the reconciliation package can be debated, the fact that more than 50 Democratic Senators had at various times expressed support for the ‘public option’ is a matter of record - so with vigorous leadership from Obama (and Dick Durbin’s pledge to whip aggressively for such a measure if it was sent to them from the House) it’s hardly unreasonable to suggest that the Senate could have been persuaded to pass it.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 10, 2012 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

bill=== single payer wasn’t getting out of the
House…at all

and it wasn’t likely to draw 50 in the Senate.

Report this

By - bill, April 10, 2012 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

One of the many facts that Democratic establishment apologists (like you, JDmysticDJ) consistently refuse to confront is that when universal health care (or at the very least a strong ‘public option’) COULD have been passed with only 50 Senators’ votes Obama, Pelosi, and Reid collaborated to ensure that it did not even reach the floor of either chamber let alone become part of the reconciliation package that immediately followed passage of the ACA.

It would have taken not only the 41 Republican Senators but the additional opposition of 9 Democratic Senators plus good old Joe The Weasel Lieberman to have prevented such passage in the Senate.

Isn’t it about time people like you stopped trying to place the entire blame on Republicans for the travesty that health-care ‘reform’ became?  They had active support not only from a few conspicuously ‘in name only’ Democrats but at the end from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid as well.

Report this

By Jeff N., April 10, 2012 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment

Truly frightening.. does this mean you’ll be casting a vote for our fearless leader to get another four years?

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 10, 2012 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

Jeff—that’s just the judiciary…. the federal agencies are also full of vacancies
because the Repubs are blocking nominees.

the emphasis HAS ben on notallowing any Obama appointees to take the bench
because the Repubs expected to delay them until the end of Obama’s term and
expected to unseat him and thereby not allow any liberal life-time judicial
appointees.

Report this

By Jeff N., April 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

interesting article btw will need to read some more about that, 80+ seats open for 1000 days??  Whats the point, tryin to block any rulings from Obama-appointed judges?

Report this

By Jeff N., April 10, 2012 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

hetero - Candidates would sell their children for a nomination if they could, so it’s hard to make a good judgement on all these promises that are being doled out.  However, looking at the money that is supporting both candidates we see some pretty similar trends, which is generally a pretty good indication of future policy. 

In either case, what happens in congressional races seems to be a great deal more important at this point.. but I see both candidates as being pretty close to the center despite all the b.s. that Mitt has had to spew out in order to make people think he is socially conservative.  There’s a reason he’s been criticized as being a flip-flopper; he’ll say anything to get the nomination.  Obama and Romney are both just going to spout out the usual crap about American exceptionalism while the corporate-owned congress robs us for another four years.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

Jeff—- have you paid any attention to the things that Romney has been promising
the Republican faithful?  Have you the slightest reason to think that would
surround himself with the sorts of people that Obama has nominated for
government office….and who are blocked from confirmation ?

http://www.theusconstitution.org/text-history/1361/1000-days

Report this

By Jeff N., April 10, 2012 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

hetero - What would be some of the substantial differences between Obama and Romney?  All I can really see is the differences in the budget they are putting forth, neither of which will get passed.  Romney’s campaign seems to consist of stopping Obamacare and repealing Dodd-Frank, and I don’t see him being too serious about accomplishing either one.  Obama’s campaign seems to consist of what.. the Buffett rule?  I don’t know, I realize there are some supposed ideological differences between the two, but at the end of the day we are talking about two guys being put into office by Wall Street are we not?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

Having much agreement with Hedges on much of his social analysis I must never the less comment that this article by Hedges is a complete distortion of political reality and a counter productive kind of pathology that will only serve the interests of the worst elements of our politics.

Hedges’ seems to want to shrink the proverbial circular firing squad until when the smoke has cleared all that will be left will be a small group of radical left wing sharpshooters easily overwhelmed by a united reactionary right-wing leviathan.

This article distorts facts and completely ignores political reality. Nearly everyone from the Left, including Barack Obama, and indeed the American People in plurality would prefer Universal Health Care but accomplishing that goal at present is a virtual impossibility under current political realities. Even the inadequate “Public Option” was impossible to pass in the U.S. Senate because of unanimous Republican obstruction. Even the grossly inadequate, “Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act” barely passed in the Senate after months of riotous acrimony. Republicans unanimously opposed the Affordable Health Care Act and their first order of business when again achieving political power will be repeal of the Affordable Heath Care Act and a return to the insane bankrupting Health Care policies that preceded the Affordable Health Care act. Contrary to Hedges’ claims the Heritage Foundation is adamantly opposed to “Obamacare” and the Heritage Foundation denies that it ever advocated a mandate; a mandate that is an absolute necessity in order for the Affordable Health Care Act to be economically viable. Hedges, the great humanitarian, quite rightly laments the 23,000 that will die because of no Health Care insurance but he completely ignores the projected 40,000 lives that will be saved because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act.

It is not necessary to destroy the Affordable Health Care Act in order to advocate for better Health Care and Hedges and his ilk can only be seen by me as counter productive and foolhardy morons; such as these need to focus on the true villains and not attempt to destroy those who are attempting to make things better.

Finally, anyone who writes that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are one and the same is a total moron oblivious to political reality or guilty of writing demagogic bullshit.

Report this

By Denis Mueller, April 10, 2012 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Chris, come the Vermont. The fight for a single-payer system is here. I am the co-
director of Howard Zinn: You Can’t be Neutral On a Moving Train. They already have
their lies on the air. The former mayor of Rutland is leading the disinformation.
They attack the Canadian system but Canadians are close and we can refute them
but we need people like yourself to get this passed.. We really have a chance to
create a single-payer system. Then the rest of the country will be able to see that
the sky does not fall.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

JB—- they provide redundant clerical and managerial jobs mostly, and employ
some physicians and healthcare professionals in ways that are less than optimal.

Report this

By Korky Day, April 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

With single-payer, the doctors’ lives would be much more pleasant and humane.  With much less time spent on paperwork and dealing with the murderous insurance companies, the doctors would have more time to treat patients.  Maybe some who gave up their practice would come back.  But sure, allow more to become doctors, too.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, April 10, 2012 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

hetero- be ready for the classic argument ‘well, the insurance salesmen and middlemen provide jobs’.  We do not recognize in this country that the free market is not working to compensate these leeches in any way proportional to their real value.  That is a tough underlying issue, ‘value’.  It is no longer visibly related to any utility value…..all ‘value’ is subjective, in the eye of the buyer, often irrational.  Hence we pollute the planet to make cheap wasteful crap including half our food.

But to return to the leeches in the insurance industry….....there is no reason some fraction of them can’t be re-qualified to disinfect hospitals.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 10, 2012 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

vec——Using a “middle man” (Insurance Companies) in
the system that only serves to “drain” of funds that
could have went to Health Care——

excellent point…the Insurance companies contribute
next to nothing and take a big old chunk.

they couldn’t be rooted out when the legislation was
passed, but they will be

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, April 10, 2012 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Only since democrats have become republican light has
the make-up of the scotus been served up as a defining
issue in a national election.  There are no more lines
left to draw in the sand so you circle the wagons
around the supreme court moderates.  It only
underscores how little real difference there is in the
two parties and how desperate democrats always are at
election time to come up with any principles to stand
on.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 10, 2012 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

——“Adding 32 million people to the system and not
adding any new doctors will *severely* ration care to
the point many people could die from this.”——

we’re not adding 32 million people to the system,
we’re mostly change the way that the care for these
people is financed…. and re-arranging, hopefully,
the places where they’re treated.


We will be affording them incresed access to some
extent but the impact isn’t going to resemble any
sudden spike in demand to the tune of tens of
millions.

Report this

By Blast Dorrough, April 10, 2012 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

In 1816 The Great Progessive recognized our problem
and commanded what we must do:

“Virtue and interest are inseparable.  It ends, as
might have been expected, in the ruin of its
people,but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought
to fall, on that hereditary aristocracy which has for
generations been preparing for the catastrophe.  I
hope we shall take warning from the example and crush
in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to
the laws of of our country.”—Thomas Jefferson
Letter of November 12, 1816 to George Logan.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 10, 2012 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

There is no substantial difference between Obama and
Romney. They are abject servants of the corporate
state. And if you vote for one you vote for the other.-
—-

akin to declaring that there’s no substantial
difference between Hedges and Increase Mather.

Report this

By LillithMc, April 10, 2012 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

We all agree we want the Democratic Party to
represent Progressives.  Would it help to eliminate
the Electoral College?  Many reasons why the GOP runs
the country: wealth unlimited, media control,
corruption, control the vote.  The Plutocracy is here
and it is not Democracy.  The Tea Party is a useful
tool for the wealthy.  Their elected representatives
know they will get a primary if they do not vote the
party-line.
We need Occupy, but we need to move past that
especially in local elections where the stealth GOP
works especially well.  Time for practical solutions
because this election counts.

Report this

By Textynn, April 10, 2012 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This mandate program is nothing but a way to control every single person in this country. Everyone will be forced to answer to the elite owned MHI. where’s your payment whether you can pay or not.  And if you can’t pay you are a slave to the system. Can you say DRAFT, Can you say forced to work for free to pay this mandate.

Anyone that owns anything and currently can’t afford health care will lose it to the banks running the MHI and the mandate program.  If you think Im wrong, you are uninformed.  They didn’t write this mandate thing up for the good of the people, no the people, as always were seen as marks, muppets, etc. 

We have to stop this or be forever slaves to the elite even more so than now.  We must have single payer.

the mandate is nothing more than taxing the poor who don’t have it.  That’s all this is.  EXcuse the rich from taxes that would be used for Single payer and make the poor pay.  it won’t work, but before they end it, they will confiscate a lot of property and make people so vulnerable to their control that people will die from homelessness in droves and the rest will SUBMIT..

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, April 10, 2012 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

My biggest disappointment with the Democrats is that
there has not been a wave of primary challengers
against all these pro-war, pro-corporate Democrats in
Congress.

I criticize these pro-war, pro-Wall Street leaders
regularly, and I think with good reason.  But, if I
saw a Democratic party where there were constant and
widespread challenges to these sitting pro-war, pro-
corporate Democrats, then I might have some faith
that the party still stood for something.

Actions count louder than words, and when I see
Democrats constantly both refuse to challenge these
pro-corporate Democrats in primaries, then campaign
and support these same pro-corporate Democrats in
general elections, then I know all their nice words
about stuff like health care are hollow and
meaningless. 

This isn’t anything new.  Its been going on now in
the Democratic Party for twenty years now.  And
twenty years of Democrats not putting forward
alternatives in the primaries and then supporting
these evil pro-war, pro-corporate candidates in the
general elections is what’s convinced me that I am
most certainly not a Democrat.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, April 10, 2012 at 9:36 am Link to this comment

If you want to understand this law, then take note of
two actions that Obama and the Democrats were taking
at almost the same time.

1)  Obama was holding secret meetings with all his
big contributors from the big health care
corporations to discuss what they wanted in the new
health care law.

2)  Single payer activists were being arrested and
led out of hearing rooms in handcuffs for daring to
speak about single payer when the Democratic party
leaders had already declared that to be off the
table.

Report this

By willrose, April 10, 2012 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

I am whole-heartedly for a Single-Payer system, but if we want such a system, democratric socialists need to actually take over the Democratic Party.  We can’t do this by simply claiming there is no difference between Obama and Romney, but by running for office, starting with the lowest levels of the local Democratic organizations.  We need a dual track approach.  Enter the party and take it over, little-by-little, on one, and employ direct action on the other.  The two tracks shouldn’t be feuding.  We are on the same side.

Report this

By gregorylkruse, April 10, 2012 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

Either there is some irrefutable justification for Obama’s decisions or there are political axioms which deny him and all other great leaders the freedom to do what liberals or progressives consider fundamental to a healthy society, such as to establish justice, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare. The actual government of the US makes the progressive founders of the nation look like a bunch of nerds who were denialists of reality. The actual dealers in reality are those who are most accomplished at charades, which game they apparently have been playing since they was babies.

Report this

By SharonMI, April 10, 2012 at 8:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Grammar’s a funny thing:

John Best’s “stopping to care for” as in a Good Samaritan stopping on the street to hand a sandwich to a homeless person, whereas I got that tony meant “people have stopped caring about others”

As for tony_opmoc’s thinking that the “health care industry” is out to kill us, oh I couldn’t agree more. I just had a conversation with my brother who thinks I’m kooky when I said “I boycott the medical industry” and am dropping weight to avoid diabetes and I’ve seen how people, including celebrities who can afford the best care, go into the hospital for some minor procedure, and don’t get out alive. Even my bro, after ridiculing me when I said I’d read doctors rarely diagnose gluten sensitivity because there’s no money in it for them, admitted that his friend’s wife was practically dead during her second recent trip to the hospital before they tried a gluten-free diet. The woman’s gained weight now for the first time in 25 years after looking like a holocaust victim.

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, April 10, 2012 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

“Now Einstein, you tell me what your solution is? “

charrob; one need not be Einstein to understand that one variable does not (usually)  make or break a situation. What you have said about the AMA maybe true, but the “bottle neck” in the system seems to appear at multiple junctures.

Using a “middle man” (Insurance Companies) in the system that only serves to “drain” of funds that could have went to Health Care.

Not negotiating for the lowest prices from Drug companies.

In my opinion the AMA should have been totally discredited when they hired Reagan to do this commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z43NCL6Fxug

Report this

By charrob, April 10, 2012 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

To:  vector56, April 9 at 5:52 pm

I am not libertarian, and actually have supported the Green Party since the 1990’s. It is for that reason that i care enough to make a valid point to which you offer no solution:

Adding 32 million people to the system and not adding any new doctors will *severely* ration care to the point many people could die from this.

My point is they need to stomp on the AMA so that the AMA stops limiting the number of students who can enter medical school each year (ie. even straight-A students many times cannot get in without connections). More doctors are needed to graduate so care will not be so severely rationed.

As stated, the status quo of doing nothing is a disaster.  I do think everybody deserves healthcare:  I just think they are taking the cart before the horse and by doing so their solution is horrible whether that solution be obamacare or single payer.  Now Einstein, you tell me what your solution is?

Report this

By Eric, April 10, 2012 at 7:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I currently live in South Korea. Recently, I had a
chest x-ray at a hospital. It cost me the equivalent
of $11 and the wait time was short. I can go to any
hospital because of Korean national health system.

In contrast, when I had a chest x-ray at a hospital
in the US a few years ago. Unfortunately, I went to
the wrong hospital, so my insurance refused to pay. I
guess I should have double checked the paperwork when
I was having trouble breathing. I should also mention
the 3 hours in the waiting room. Even if insurance
would have paid, my copay would have been $300.
Without insurance, I owed $900. I appealed and
unsuccessfully pleaded my case before the private
“death panel.” It took a long to pay off because I
didn’t make very much money as a public school
teacher.

To be fair, I think there is a lot of room for
improvement in the Korean system. However, given the
choice, I’ll take a little “socialism” if I don’t
have to go broke because I needed medical care.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, April 10, 2012 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

tony_opmoc, I think you meant the sentence “People are stopping to care about others.” as “People are not stopping to care about others.” 

In part, we have allowed ourselves to be programmed by commercially driven media to be more self-centered every year…....good little vain selfish jealous short-sighted consumers. 

We made the mistake of thinking government was wise and uncorrupted enough to manage the mass media, a one-way communication into the minds of the millions.  For 50 years, television ‘programming’ a double entendre, has molded us.  Now we have the internet.  What will our aggregate behaviors be like in another 50 years?  And given the rates of general acceleration of all things lately…....

Report this

By balkas, April 10, 2012 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

yes, that was the plan of the medical profession, pharmaceuticals [with deafening silence from
politicians, et al]: tell people over decades that if they get their jesus, allah, god, yahweh, and the
pill, they’ll be alright or would need nothing else.
i admit, i too fell for one of the greatest ruses/lies ever perpetrated against low and lower
classes.
[recall, please, rich people never fell for it—they kept on eating very well and exercising because
they never worked, thus had lots of idle time on their hands]
but thank to my goddevil, i eventually did start thinking and was because of that mightily
ashamed for having been had.
==
and now we hear over and over again: get your constitution, geneva conventions, bill of rights,
fatherly declaration of independence, get back to laws, etc.
is this just another big lie? another pill, jesus, allah, dalai lama, vishna, MLK, ghandi?? time will
tell us!! u can count on that!
i dare say, nevertheless, that this would also turn out be a huge delusion/illusion. thanks,
bozhidar b., vancouver.

Report this

By balkas, April 10, 2012 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

US structure of society and governance, founded on the thought that a person has an inalienable and holy
right to control/own and command another person even to kill another at home and abroad, ensures that
some school children and adults will always [yes, for an eternity] be left behind, maligned, condemned,
belittled, without healthcare, equal protection of the law.
and it is not just the Dems or Repubs who swear an allegiance to or accept such thought as infallible, but
also most liberals, progressives, teachers, clergy, and nearly all posters/columnists.
this dogma causes enactment of “stand your ground”, legislation that some people will never get proper
healthcare, education; jobs, needed safety at work place, etc.

Report this

By Korky Day, April 10, 2012 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

“Aquifer”, on 2012 April 9 4:20 pm, misunderstood my comments.  Ron Paul was never my favourite.  I’m still an active, loyal Green.  Nevertheless, I encourage people to vote for Paul in the primaries to open up the possibilities, including for possible Paul-Green co-operation.

“Aquifer” wrote here directed to me, ‘you still seem bent on getting folks to vote Rep to “make the Dems more progressive”!’  Actually, no.  Rather, I was telling people who believe in that strategy that the proof is in the pudding.  They should start a pledge drive at http://www.pledgebank.com  if they really want to succeed.  Then if they see that such a strategy is not going to accumulate enough supporters to work, they can switch to another strategy.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, April 10, 2012 at 4:29 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, Chris Hedges:

“It is the very sad legacy of the liberal class that it proves in election cycle after election cycle that it espouses moral and political positions it will not pay a price to defend. And since we have no fight in us, since we will not punish politicians like Obama who betray our core beliefs, the corporate juggernaut rolls forward with its inexorable pace to cement into place our global neofeudalism.”
__________________

Hedges correctly places the blame for this sick society getting sicker with every election. It is the (D) dedicated liberals who ensure that evil always wins.

We have a society that has no actual care for the health of its people because the corporate party’s (R)s and (D)s reliably flock to the polls to vote in solidarity together to provide 99% popular vote mandates against Single-Payer and for perpetual war.

It’s a most peculiar set of “principles” and “logic” that liberals have, which habitually compels them to vote for far more of the evil they’ve said they opposed… and then claim that they’ve lessened the evil that they have so obviously made greater.

The “Principles” of Liberal Voters:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1

Dr. Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Report this

By tony_opmoc, April 10, 2012 at 3:33 am Link to this comment

Americans can’t have a Universal Health Care system,
for one simple reason - they are trying to bump you
off. I know this might sound daft, but look at the
evidence. There has been an exponential increase in
cancer and obesity over the past 30 years due to
changes in food, lifestyle and pollution. Also many
of the drugs mass consumed, are not just unnecessary,
but harmful to the body’s immune system. Whilst they
bring measurements such as e.g. cholesterol and blood
pressure into what is now stated are safe limits,
their documented side effects are real, and in many
cases they shorten lifespan.

The pharmaceutical, medical and insurance industry is
a massive scam intended to maximise profit at the
expense of unhealthy people. They perceive no profit
in a healthy population, because healthy people don’t
buy drugs and have repeated medical interventions.

In trying to get the balance right of course, they
are in danger of killing off the golden goose - ie
most people drop dead when they get to around 45 when
they are too fat to wobble to the doctor. Dead people
aren’t profitable either - but at least they got
their money’s worth out of you before you popped your
clogs.

This might sound a bit cynical, but most of the
Western World is moving in the same direction. The
basic problem is cultural. People are stopping to
care about others. Compassion and Love is rapidly
disappearing. Greed and Profit for the richest few
are becoming endemic. The poorest are an
embarrassment and can go to hell. Many people are now
even giving up on themselves. They see the corruption
and greed of those in authority, and as they observe,
they subconsciously take on the same immoral values -
like a bad parent and child. The fish rots from the
head down.

So what can you do about it? Switch off the TV,
change your diet to largely fresh food that you cook
yourself that comes from a natural healthy source
rather than a death factory. Do a lot more exercise,
and get just enough sunshine, such that you don’t
burn. Its wonderful for building up your Vitamin D,
which provides a massive boost to your immune system.
You also need to find someone to really love, and
develop a common interest such that you meet nice
people who become good friends.

If you work hard on changing your life, you can be as
healthy as people were 50 years ago, and the chances
are, you won’t actually need to see a doctor unless
you are unlucky or have an accident. The body
naturally heals most illnesses without artificial
chemical intervention. Sometimes drugs are necessary,
but currently they are massively over prescribed and
causing more harm than good to an exceedingly large
number of people.

Your quality of life is far more important than
money, and much of that is directly connected to the
people you surround yourself with and adopting a
positive attitude. Sure the World is going to hell,
but you don’t have to go with it. You can’t stop it,
so avoid and ignore it. Don’t be a victim of the
propaganda. Do something useful to maybe help someone
else out instead…

And again

Do Not Watch TV. It is both making you depressed and
brainwashing you. Go for a walk in the Countryside or
go and see a Rock Band and Dance instead.

They are all liars anyway. Don’t trust any of them.
They just want your money and your life. They don’t
care about you. They don’t care about anything except
their own bank account. Ignore them.

Tony

Report this

By CanDoJack, April 10, 2012 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

By CanDoJack, my comment at: April 9 at 3:02 pm

correction
“How many people will because of the following?”

should have the word ‘die’ after the word ‘will’

sorry

Report this
Mona's avatar

By Mona, April 9, 2012 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

My family will achieve certain important protections with the bill, as far as I understand it.  I am a single payer supporter, but I am sure the USSC and the Republicans challenging the law have no interest in supplying such an alternative to the nation, either.  If it’s a matter of life and death, people will choose the health legislation, even though they want single payer.  And this is how they always get everyone by the cajones.  Consider that 65 million Americans will go under Medicaid, and although that program is sorely needing, it will protect many people from bankruptcy should they be carted into the ER.  But the fact that we even need to quibble about these “details” is obscene.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
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