Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 23, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism






Truthdig Bazaar
Letters of Ted Hughes

Letters of Ted Hughes

By Ted Hughes
$29.70

more items

 
Report

Paging Dr. Paul: The Sickness Is in the System

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

Posted on Oct 19, 2011
AP / Phil Sandlin

By Helen Redmond

(Page 2)

Health care is not a human right, Dr. Paul empathically states on his website. He’s an anti-abortion, former OB-GYN who advocates for the rights of every fertilized egg but not for the right to medical care for fully realized human beings. Hippocratic oath? What’s that?

Paul’s prescription for the millions of uninsured is to leave health care to the magic and mayhem of the market—and if you go bankrupt, it’s your own fault. And bankrupt Americans go. In the United States, the leading cause of bankruptcy is the inability to pay medical bills. It’s so Ron Paul. 

Letting people slip between the cracks is actually official health policy in the United States. According to a Harvard study, 45,000 people die every year because they lack access to health care and medicine. Kyle Willis, a 24-year-old Ohio man, is one such casualty. An ER doctor prescribed pain medication and antibiotics to treat his tooth infection, but Willis couldn’t afford both prescriptions. The antibiotic was more expensive so he bought the pain pills. The infection spread to his brain and killed him. Americans die like this every day—it’s just not front page news. 

The latest U.S. Census Bureau report found that there are 49.9 million uninsured, but that’s a serious undercount. The report counts anyone who was insured for any part of the year as being insured, but thousands of people lose coverage throughout the year. With job layoffs accelerating—some 120,000 U.S. postal workers are currently facing the ax—the number of uninsured is set to increase. In times of economic crisis with high rates of unemployment, it’s painfully evident how linking health coverage to a full-time job is a disaster. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The suffering of the uninsured was on full display when Remote Area Medical, a nonprofit organization that provides free health care, set up a clinic at Malcolm X College in Chicago this summer. Wherever Remote Area Medical goes, thousands of uninsured line up to receive care, but thousands are turned away. In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, more than 2 million are uninsured. Hundreds of people with sleeping bags camped overnight at the college to get medical, dental and vision care. Patients were registered in a wide corridor, a classroom was set up with rows of dental chairs, and pap smears were done in private staff offices in the basement.

Janice Kelly, a middle-aged African-American woman, arrived at 3 a.m. and joined 60 other people in line. Kelly lost Medicaid coverage in 1998 when she started working part time. The right side of her face was swollen from having three teeth extracted. She had calculated that it cost $125 to have each tooth pulled, plus money for X-rays. It was money she didn’t have. For a year, Kelly treated the tooth pain with Orajel and Advil.   

Remote Area Medical provided health care to 2,000 people over three days, the vast majority of whom were poor and black with little hope of finding jobs or affordable health coverage. Every person I interviewed, including a leading physician and one of the main event organizers, believed that health care was a human right and was in favor of a system run by the government. They wanted “Medicare for all.” Kelly said, “Just like they have in Canada and Europe. … It’s something everyone needs because sooner or later we’re all going to get sick and need some help. No one should be denied.” For more than a decade, poll after poll has shown that a majority of Americans support a government-run health program that covers everyone. And in a sea change of attitude, a majority of doctors, fed up with private insurers’ interference with medical decisions, support single-payer plans. Once again, the political consciousness of the public is far ahead of party-minded politicians who live and breathe deep inside the D.C. Beltway infested with thousands of insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists.   

In 2003, then-Sen. Obama supported the single-payer idea. He said at a labor conference, “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer, universal health care program. … I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. … First we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama got all three wishes, but as president he broke his promise to single-payer advocates, locked them out of health care reform discussions, and passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation so ridiculously inadequate in resolving the health care crisis it’s bound to go down in history as one of the cruelest jokes ever played on the American people. The act is a 2,000-page laughable tract written by the insurance industry for the insurance industry. It leaves 23 million uninsured, denies undocumented immigrants health coverage, doesn’t cover abortion unless women pay separately, and mandates that the uninsured buy expensive, high deductible, high co-pay health plans via complicated state insurance exchanges or face a financial penalty. Medicaid is under bipartisan assault and hundreds of thousands of recipients have been cut off and benefits reduced to decrease state budget deficits. The Democrats are proposing $72 billion in federal cuts to the program. The act expands the Medicaid program to cover an additional 26 million people, but does anyone believe the federal government will still pay the entire cost for the expansion as promised? And how can Medicaid expand to absorb the millions who will be eligible for coverage in three years if it is continually being downsized?

Who else is making bank? That would be health insurance industry CEOs and stockholders, who in the midst of one of the deepest recessions have pocketed record profits. America’s top five health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent for a combined profit of $12.2 billion in 2009, the same year that 2.7 million people lost their private health insurance.

They’re laughing all the way to Wall Street—stuffed with taxpayer money—while people die. 


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.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 25, 2011 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

No, I mean liberals like me.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 25, 2011 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

If you mean by ‘liberals’ people like Obama, the Clintons, and their friends, then they are not going to change the system either.  At least, that is what recent history shows us.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 25, 2011 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

The only way to change this system that allows politicians to be
enslaved by corporate funding for elections is to force Congress
to pass reform legislation.  That is not going to happen until
Congress is controlled by liberals.  There has to be a political will
to make the change.  The last Democratic Congress in 1992 were
distracted from this as even being a problem by the recession as
reified by Black Monday October 1987.

In the mid 80s Reagan had a split Congress. But GHW Bush enjoyed
a conservative Congress, Clinton had again a Democratic House and
Senate.  From 1995 to 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses
as a reaction to President Clinton’s impeachment trial.  And even though
from 2001 to 2003 there was a split 50/50 split between Dems and
Repubs in the Senate, it was weighted to conservatives because Dick
Cheney as VP gave the Senate a Republican majority.  a Republican
senator from Vermont switched to be an Independent over the bush tax
cuts proposals, the Democrats took control, briefly.  Enter the lobbyists
and that is what more or less controlled the Senate and still does to this
day.  Who has the most money invested in the pockets of politicians is
where the votes go.  From a Truthout article by Thom Hartman spells out
the history and effects of lobbyists:
http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/unequal-protection-—-chapter-twelve-unequal-uses-for-the-bill-of-rights/
A cut and paste into a browser might be necessary.

Much has been learned about the nature of both parties, and about
the representative politicians in general and if they have not learned
anything, the public surely has.  The swiftness of information
dissemination via electronic media is a huge factor.  A Democratic
Congress would be less lethargic to act since their legislative record is a
matter of blatant public record.  So will be their and Republicans alike
personal record that comes to public attention such as Anthony Weiner,
et al.  The world has changed, and along with it, the sophistication of the
politicians who are now aware they are under the public microscope.

This system is not going to transform into anything other than a two-
party legislature because those who are presently in office will not work
against that formula.  If the sickness is in the system, it will have to
begin to be changed by the changing the mechanisms that determine
the system.  Those mechanisms are more than simply submitting bills
that would change it. It is so complex that it is formidably beyond belief. 
As an easy exercise, imagine even beginning to make such a change,
not forgetting to take into account the Congress and its complexity.  It will
take organization and a huge expensive in terms of money and time
organizing effort with like minds who can work well together to put together
a strategy for change.  Otherwise it is just pissing in the wind.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 25, 2011 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

In the case of medical care, I think most people are convinced they do not know, and cannot know, what is going on, so it is best to trust to authority.  A cooperative HMO isn’t authoritarian enough.  Consequently, it cannot provide what people desire.

The case of automobiles is more complicated by the fact that an automobile is not simply a machine for getting from one place to another, but plays many other roles.  For instance, it is an important vector of information about one’s wealth, status and culture, especially for poorer people.  It is also a large sculptural object with important aesthetic qualities, amplified by advertising.  Then there is the drama of interacting with other drivers, especially in a competitive or hostile manner.  All of these motives are completely irrational from a transportation viewpoint and compound the problems and externalities I have already mentioned.  Thus, no matter what solutions are found, they are likely to be overpowered by the drive to satisfy these irrational desires, which will expand to occupy the space available to it.  The search for automotive solutions has already produced many highly authoritarian practices, for example, the driver’s license has become a kind of internal passport.  Another example is the radical expansion of surveillance.  A more libertarian or anarchistic approach to transportation must await some kind of shift in cultural values.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 24, 2011 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

@ Anarcissie

I think an idea being ignored has as much to do with an inability to relate as with any other factor.  That of course brings cultural conditioning into the equation.  We are creatures of habit, and the sheer logic of an idea is often-times not enough to overcome the resistance that is the result of effective conditioning.

In Canada there are some provinces that offer single payer auto insurance to cover the liability insurance that is the mandatory (by law) obligation of every driver.  The insurance is part of the license.  Your annual fees to renew your license also covers your liability.  If you screw up and cause lots of expense, your fees go up.  If you have a fancy car and want to insure it for all types of theft, fire, act of dog etc.. the same private firms that exist throughout N.America are available to you to provide such.  But your basic fees, regardless of age, experience, chosen car etc.. are more economical, relatively speaking.  If you think about the basic concept of insurance, this only makes sense.  It is a communal trust, in essence.  The maximum efficiency of such a trust is one in which everyone participates.  As soon as you divide it up into various profit seeking factions, well, it doesn’t take a math degree to figure out what happens for the average consumer of insurance, and the numbers bear this out.

Nontheless, in provinces that have never had a public option available, the media dogma succeeds in convincing peeps that a public insurance option is simply anathema to their best interests.  The facts alone gain little traction, but then again we live in a time when facts mean little, because so called balanced journalism doesn’t acknowledge facts, only a neverending parade of two sides to each story.  Nothing is ever decided.  Joe & Sally Public come to see everything as controversial and follow their natural human tendency to stick with what is known vs what is unknown.  Logic is defeated.

There are certainly more equitable and efficient ways to manage required public services than those which are currently available in most sectors of the N.American economy.  That human nature sometimes gets in the way is not a fundamental problem with peeps, it merely points to the abuse that power imposes and demands that larger questions be asked.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 24, 2011 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

cpb—For about 20 years I went around advocating cooperative HMOs as a first step.  Cooperatives are at once anarchistic, communitarian, and even, from some points of view, quasi-capitalistic.  Everyone should love the idea.  However, this suggestion doesn’t meet with rejection, derision or abuse: it is simply ignored.

So it’s the government or the corps, that is, the state on way or the other.  When it comes to medical care, that’s what people evidently want.

Report this

By ardee, October 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

theRightRadical, October 24 at 4:38 pm

You assume much, but then you are the ASS in that word.

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

By ardee, October 24 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

We have an entry in the “stupidest and most moronic posting of the year” award, perhaps even decade:

Propagate on this.
Beautiful Machine you have in your avatar.  I think being such an altruistic guy, especially with other peoples money.  You should run an add on Craiglist, offering your motorcycle to anyone who wants to use it free of charge three days a week, since you are so high, and mighty on everyone paying their fair share.

Propagate on this jackwagon. Your comment bears no relation to the topic at hand, the state of our nation or our planet and serves only to reinforce my exceedingly low opinion of you.

Contest over, we have a loser. Of course he has further entries awaiting our perusal I am certain. No pride, no clue.”“

I knew your simpleton head would explode.  I would say that none of your replies to me ever were related to the topic at hand either, but I won’t.
I will just assume you are one of our under worked, and well paid public servants.  Who’s ox I gored.  I promise not ask for your bike, on one of the guzillion holidays you get. I can guarantee I will be at the post office on or about April 15th.  I guess I will see you behind the counter then.

Report this

By ardee, October 24, 2011 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

We have an entry in the “stupidest and most moronic posting of the year” award, perhaps even decade:

Propagate on this.
Beautiful Machine you have in your avatar.  I think being such an altruistic guy, especially with other peoples money.  You should run an add on Craiglist, offering your motorcycle to anyone who wants to use it free of charge three days a week, since you are so high, and mighty on everyone paying their fair share.

Propagate on this jackwagon. Your comment bears no relation to the topic at hand, the state of our nation or our planet and serves only to reinforce my exceedingly low opinion of you.

Contest over, we have a loser. Of course he has further entries awaiting our perusal I am certain. No pride, no clue.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 24, 2011 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

“And I am glad to hear that you are an opponent of the
state. ...  I think of course we should divorce the
state from most if not all our affairs.”

- theRightRadical

“But to do as well as ‘we’ can, it is clear a tight,
centrally controlled authority is required to make sure
all the pieces interact as efficiently and smoothly as
possible, even if the system as a whole is insane.”

- Anarcissie

HOW, if it can be done, to divorce the state from ‘most
if not all our affairs’?  What might a stateless health
care system look like?  I imagine such is possible.  I
don’t know what it would look like, but I think that
hanging with a bunch of anarchists, giving them this
question, and some cold beer, would make for an
interesting evening. 

Given a reasonable answer to this question, the
subsequent issue is still how to get THERE from HERE. 
Revolution or reform? 

Anarchists and others argue that once we accept the idea
of the state, exploitation and abuse are inevitable. 
Rousseau and others believed that an appropriate “social
contract” would make the compromise (in individual
freedoms) of the state workable for the population.  I
can’t argue forcefully one way or the other, but my gut
wonders if both visions may be possible.

I do know this…

The extreme corporate right would have us believe that
it hates the state.  Why?  It doesn’t really hate the
state, it loves the state - when the state works for the
welfare of the corporations rather than the welfare of
the people.  Corporations, and capitalism more
generally, do not exist outside of the context of the
state, there’s the first hypocrisy.  Yet corps
consistently use anti-state propaganda to gain support
for tearing apart those aspects of the state that
purport to ensure the welfare of the population.  Given
the excesses and inequities at the root of capitalism,
this is like having your cake and eating it too.

Health care, social security etc.. are always lightening
rods in these debates.  These programs are consistently
hauled out as examples of what is so inept and
problematic about the state.  The hypocrisy is massive
and looming, yet corporate forces including the media
choose to ignore it.  In present context let us not
overlook the fact that we are not posting threads from
within individual states so much as within divisions of
a common Empire.  That changes the nature of the
conversation no?  All that money driving Empire isn’t
usually open for discussion on MurdochCorpBlather.

This may be a choice of convenience, but I choose to
hate the effect of the corporations (as they exist and
operate currently) more than I do the state, per se, the
state being, in principle anyway, by the people,
allegedly for the people.  (“We’ve got to Take the Power
Back!”)  Corporations are by their nature psychopathic;
this isn’t a judgement, this is an observation (Google
the book “The Corporation”), it is psych-101.  They are
for profit, and as psychopaths, against anything and
everything else, and that includes us, the people (not
to mention the planet).

As Anarcissie alludes to, any stateless vision is going
to have to answer to some demand for accountability.  A
big question.  Part of that night of anarchic
overconsumption I’m looking forward to.  In the
meantime, what’s a peep to do?

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, October 24 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
Of course many of their desires conflict not only with each others’, but with the laws of physics, geometry and logic as well, problems which no system can solve.  But to do as well as ‘we’ can, it is clear a tight, centrally controlled authority is required to make sure all the pieces interact as efficiently and smoothly as possible, even if the system as a whole is insane.”“

Safe, and courteous driving is a voluntary act.  I would say considering how many cars that are on the road.  It is somewhat astounding that there are not more accidents, and that the number of fatalities have decreased over the years. 
A true case where self interest intersects with public interest. 
Obviously there is not a perfect society, or arlee would be lending me his Harley for the half the month.
Of course pretty much the whole road system is subsidized, which of course creates tons of users, due to the fact that is indeed subsidized. 
I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that given a free medical system one might see a substantial increase in users of the system, and like the bad drivers some for all the wrong reasons. 
Consider also bridges fall down, and highways crumble, since maintenance is considered a “cost” in the free, public road system. Hopefully we can agree that would not be in the interests of the owners, if the bridge was privately owned, and the owners wanted to continue to make profit, and were of course liable for injuries due to their bridge malfunctions.  (yes I am aware of greedy bridge CEO’s)
Has previously discussed there rarely is liability for something publicly owned,(the gov’t doesn’t even insure it most likely) or if it is the cost is socialized on the taxpayers. Like the Bankster bailouts, and lawsuits when the cops beat the snot out of someone without cause. 
That being said if Aunt Susie doesn’t hear being approved by the bureaucrat overseeing her surgery, and she dies because of it, will the GS-8 be liable for the erasing of her medical files with said bureaucrat?  Will they even get fired?  I think you know the answer to that already. They will ask for more funding for more “training”, and promise it will never happen again, but of course it will. 

I also ponder if we had never had the Interstate Highway Act, would there have been urban sprawl?  Certainly Levittown NY (one of Americas first suburbs) came into being long before the L.I.E., so undoubtedly there would have been some. 
Although I tend to doubt it would have happened to quite the extent that has developed in modern America.  Perhaps less gentrification, a less stratified society, and more unity and community that everyone seems to long for. 
Maybe freedom really does bring everyone together no?  Certainly if nothing else it proves that ideas (and actions), do have consequences.
Free the system, end the cartel. Good health for all.

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

By ardee, October 24 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

theRightRadical, October 24 at 5:38 am

The return of GRYM if not in actuality then certainly in sad and untruthful propagandized nonsense. You belong in the “ignore” bin and there you shall remain, large ego, small mind and all. “”

Propagate on this.
Beautiful Machine you have in your avatar.  I think being such an altruistic guy, especially with other peoples money.  You should run an add on Craiglist, offering your motorcycle to anyone who wants to use it free of charge three days a week, since you are so high, and mighty on everyone paying their fair share.
You could even “means” test the recipients of your largess if you like.  Of course as the tax load increases on the average American. I fully expect you offer it for five or six days a week, with free gas as well. 
Undoubtedly this will make your head explode, but charity does begin at home.  Just let me know where I can sign up.  Clear enough now?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 24, 2011 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

I don’t see how you would get the tort system to do what most Americans seem to want the automobile system or the medical system to do.  For instance in the case of automobiles, Americans seem to want to race around at high speed in shells which protect them from all harm while threatening others, across elaborately prepared raceways, without suffering any form of pollution (exhaust, ground tire rubber, noise, accidents, danger to bystanders, and so forth), or suffering intrusion into their own residential neighborhoods.  Of course many of their desires conflict not only with each others’, but with the laws of physics, geometry and logic as well, problems which no system can solve.  But to do as well as ‘we’ can, it is clear a tight, centrally controlled authority is required to make sure all the pieces interact as efficiently and smoothly as possible, even if the system as a whole is insane.

Similarly, ‘we’ demand that medicine be practiced under very strong authority.  Given that authority, there is no possibility of a quasi-free market.  It’s big corporations, big government, or possibly big guilds of practitioners.  A field of variegated, unsupervised practitioners is simply not going to be tolerated.

I’m not advocating it; I’m just pointing it out.

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

I’m not a fan of the state.  I’m more anti-state every
day.  However I do not hold out much hope of a
replacement of the state model anytime soon.  Given
that, one must acknowledge that within the context of
the state there are many different ways to do things.
Status quo bad, much in need of improvement.

Your angry reactions so far as peeps pointing out some
possible improvements to your written communications
would be more appropriately directed at the system that
failed you in this regard.

Peace.

I certainly not angry.  And I am glad to hear that you are an opponent of the state.  I am trying to write more coherently. 
I think of course we should divorce the state from most if not all our affairs.  Again Canada being a “normal” country, as I said before allows it to practice it’s state run health care system better then we would in the US of A.  As I have noted before there are just to many bad outcomes from the US Federal Government. 
Of course as you noted one could get the knock on the door in the middle of the night.  In fact there could be one of the Nat’l Security Apparatchiks monitoring this site right now, and Truthdig would be bound via the (un)Patriot Act to turn over information about any of us.  With so many laws on the books.  We are all just unindicted co-conspirators, just one step from joining the poor fellows held at Guantanamo, of course it could deemed by the Star Chamber that we be droned.  Such a sad state of affairs.

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, October 24 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

Both automobile manufacturing and medical care create numerous externalities.  How do you plan to deal with them? “”

The negative or positive ones?
 
In a competitive market setting with strong private property rights, this is done through the enforcement of contracts, additionally if one causes economic damage to another’s property via say pollution, then through tort action. 
As you are probably aware most regulatory statues shield many large players from tort liability either completely or provide limited liability (more evidence of corporatism, no?). 
So in our current corporatist (of which health care is one) model many industries don’t even have to consider external costs nor price them into their product.
Perhaps if you want to find the “evil” CEO’s. (Especially the guy who wants a “War on Bad Food”, complete with the Food Enforcement Agency) 
One would look into the industries with the most REGULATION.  I am sure most of them CEO’s are statist Republicans.  Go ahead hang em high.
Of course Federal agencies like the FDA, and their employees (bureaucrats)are exempt totally from financial, as well as criminal liability. Since this monopoly can always claim to be acting in “Good Faith” and in the interest of the public.  How would one prove otherwise? 
As I sit here I try to think of the positive externalities associated with all the trillions in Federal Spending in my life time. And that would be: Teflon.
Free the System, end the cartel.  Good health for All

Report this

By ardee, October 24, 2011 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

theRightRadical, October 24 at 5:38 am

The return of GRYM if not in actuality then certainly in sad and untruthful propagandized nonsense. You belong in the “ignore” bin and there you shall remain, large ego, small mind and all.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 24, 2011 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

“Since according to you the state is the only thing that
makes modern life worth living.  Although I am sure
there are some folks in North Korea that would beg to
differ with you.”

- theRightRadical

Actually, I never said anything about the state making
life worth living.  You’re being more than a little
presumptuous; extrapolating way more than you should
about someone else’s big picture perspective based on a
few sentences or paragraphs here and there.

For the record:

State control of day to day life in Canada is, post
Patriot Act, likely less than the same on your side of
the border.  Either way it is pretty close, our
countries are not that different, regardless of how you
want to misinterpret the word socialism.  Neither
country is a good place to protest the state right now. 
That said, my rights haven’t been removed to nearly the
same extent as yours, post 911, so if one of us has more
worry about jackboots breaking down the front door in
the middle of the night it is you.

The Canada Health Act, which created the single payer
system, was passed by a conservative government.  Old
school conservatives, before they became tied to the
interests of large corporations as the end all and be
all, were about responsible spending.  As has been said
many times - SINGLE PAYER IS CHEAPER.

I’m not a fan of the state.  I’m more anti-state every
day.  However I do not hold out much hope of a
replacement of the state model anytime soon.  Given
that, one must acknowledge that within the context of
the state there are many different ways to do things. 
Status quo bad, much in need of improvement.

Your angry reactions so far as peeps pointing out some
possible improvements to your written communications
would be more appropriately directed at the system that
failed you in this regard.

Peace.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 24, 2011 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

Both automobile manufacturing and medical care create numerous externalities.  How do you plan to deal with them?

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

By Psychobabbler, October 23 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

This country has an entire history of market based “health care” to look at. The results have been in for ages.”

Good Lord what planet are you living on?  Medicare, Medicaid, HIPA laws, the whole HMO thing was nothing more then full blown fascism, creating a government cartel for the insurance lobby.
Everyone of the 50 states “regulates” (ie limits competition to keep prices high, and gives subsides too) nearly every aspect of the Medical Industry.  The AMA is nothing more the a guild for Doctors, and here I thought progressives detested the gilded age? 
Again. Look at the Auto industry if we had the “evil free market”. Would we have domestically, just three rotten car companies?  If the barriers to entry were low, ie laws that restrict competition via bureaucrats with guns, and the threat of prison.  Would we not have 10 or 20 times the number of auto manufacturers?  We might even have well PROGRESSED beyond the internal combustion engine by now, and the whole messy petro-chemical industry.  Negating the need for the United State Global Petroleum Protection Service, aka Defense Department.
Sitting here with my daughters lovely little dog. I wonder why no one complains about the pricing and services provided by Vets? (And Dry Cleaners, and Supermarkets, and Hotels)
Could it be that perhaps, unlike human care (and the airlines, and the utilities, and the car business) The ugly hand of the state is in only finger deep, whereas Congressional Medical Complex is has not only the hand but the whole upper torso as well?

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

By Psychobabbler, October 23 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

This country has an entire history of market based “health care” to look at. The results have been in for ages.”

Good Lord what planet are you living on?  Medicare, Medicaid, HIPA laws, the whole HMO thing was nothing more then full blown fascism, creating a government cartel for the insurance lobby.
Everyone of the 50 states “regulates” (ie limits competition to keep prices high, and gives subsides too) nearly every aspect of the Medical Industry.  The AMA is nothing more the a guild for Doctors, and here I thought progressives detested the gilded age? 
Again. Look at the Auto industry if we had the “evil free market”. Would we have domestically, just three rotten car companies?  If the barriers to entry were low, ie few if any laws that restrict competition via bureaucrats with guns, and the threat of prison.  Would we not have 10 or 20 times the number of auto manufacturers?  Ask yourself is it easier to collude with just three people?  or 30, or 300 or 3000?
We might even have PROGRESSED well beyond the internal combustion engine by now, and the whole messy petro-chemical industry. And be not employing the Dept of Defense as a global petroleum security service. 
Sitting here with my daughters lovely little dog. I wonder why there are few complaints about the outrage of prices charged by Vets?  (Or Dry Cleaning or Supermarkets or Hotels for that matter) 
Could it be that perhaps, that unlike human care. The ugly hand of the state is in only finger deep, whereas Congressional Medical Complex is has not only the hand but the whole upper torso as well?
Free the System, end the cartel.  Good health for all.

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

I’m directly related to a doctor and I’m quite well
versed on the realities of health care.

“Government controlled wonderland of peaches and
cream.”????

All those years your government was aiming missiles at
the Soviet Union and if they’d only listened to you
they’d have been aimed at The Hostile Commie Threat of
The Great White North!!  You’re hilarious.  You should
come and visit sometime, grab a little dose of reality,
direct experience style.

And capitalism as “the liberator of mankind”?  Oh I get
it, you’re telling jokes!  Very funny!!

Hope you have a good health plan!”“”“

Talk about a riot.  You and your doctor should just go back to feudalism.  We can all live on the Manor with our twenty acres, and a mule.  You do realize that trade, and commerce.  Came before your little dreams of a social welfare paradise? In fact even today, the “evil” capitalists underwrite all your little social schemes.  Someone has to be the milk cow, for big government. 
Speaking of missiles.  You probably think the neocon drivel of the “Reagan” military build up, brought down the USSR.  Another falsehood.  That workers paradise, was nothing more then concrete jungle Bangladesh, with ICBMs. You know what their problem was?  The lack of “greedy” capitalists?  Of course America, being the Soviet Union with color TV, suffers for the same malaise. 
I will admit. I don’t know much about Canada.  Been there a few times while in the service.  Pretty good beer, some nice bars. How was I to know they were the products of the Canadian state?  Since according to you the state is the only thing that makes modern life worth living.  Although I am sure there are some folks in North Korea that would beg to differ with you.

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 24, 2011 at 5:38 am Link to this comment

By ardee, October 22 at 3:37 am Link to this comment

By theRightRadical, October 21 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee
and any other lightened Progressive.

theRightRadical x 8.

Perhaps, after you take a remedial English class,learn how to post a coherent response, one that can be succinct to further debate, we might chat some more. “”“”“


Blah, blah, blah.

You have no argument intellectually, to defend your insane, error by rail, bankrupt both morally and financially ideology. So you pick on my syntax, so weak.
Your great hero FDR put America on the road to full blown fascism, with a mixing smiling face socialism, and you have nothing to offer but more of it. 
Look out the window fool it is in full blown melt down, but according to you if we just print up more FRB notes, build some more prisons, and crack some more heads, everything will be just dreamy.  Look at where you Keynesian falsities have lead, to an increasing coarse society, which celebrates the ghastly.  Nope, there is nothing wrong with my syntax, the problem is the dead short between your ears.

Report this
Psychobabbler's avatar

By Psychobabbler, October 23, 2011 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

This country has an entire history of market based “health care” to look at. The results have been in for ages. What you get with a system that is based on profitability is a bunch of Porsche chasing plastic “surgeons”.

People in large numbers are having their delusional self image problems satisfied thanks to a selfish serving materialistic media marketing movement that has no useful purpose to society.

Anyone who supports a system that is aimed at profiting from the suffering of it’s citizens is a monster.

I am not advocating open ended access to peoples physical and emotional needs, because I myself have something that cannot be cured (as we all do, at least sometimes)

This is not the way that responsible people do things in a civilized society.

People with serious life threatening illnesses need to be identified at their request and dealt with, if possible in a way that doesn’t indebt them.

What a shame that it gets crucified onto the alter of ideology.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 23, 2011 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment

If words have lost meaning, Egomet Bonmot, then why are you
still using them?

Well, drbhelthi, your post does not neutralize mine.  It only claims
a change is needed if you are right.  Your few references are not
sufficient.  So for the present, you have not supported that your
perception is correct, you’ve only expressed a personal opinion. 
Ways to make significant changes would need to be found and
legislated, since this is a democracy whether you accept its current
embodiment or not.  To get the best legislation that reflects the
will of the people requires a body of representatives who actually act
on the people’s behalf and not the Corporatocrats, which is precisely
the sickness that needs an antitoxin.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 23, 2011 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

” will write anyway I goddamn feel like you little
authoritative creep.  Did I ask for your “sensible”
opinion?  I have to talked to plenty. Why don’t you talk
to your nurse and doctor friends.  I know you in your
government controlled wonderland of peaches and cream,
everyone is going to be happy and healthy. Why don’t you
ask a Dr friend that after years of Med School, and
residency if they look forward to the salary cap that
your socialized scheme will bring?  Go ahead deny that
the cap will happen, and it will just show your
ignorance of economics, and quite frankly of logic.”

- theRightRadical

Well you’re definitely to the ‘right’, but you’re not
nearly as radical as you might think.  Speaking to me
the way you have is entirely unnecessary.  I asked some
questions, made some points, and politely asked you to
consider “THE READER” when composing your posts.  This
would make your posts more readable and thus improve
communications, which is THE POINT.

I’m directly related to a doctor and I’m quite well
versed on the realities of health care.

“Government controlled wonderland of peaches and
cream.”????

All those years your government was aiming missiles at
the Soviet Union and if they’d only listened to you
they’d have been aimed at The Hostile Commie Threat of
The Great White North!!  You’re hilarious.  You should
come and visit sometime, grab a little dose of reality,
direct experience style.

And capitalism as “the liberator of mankind”?  Oh I get
it, you’re telling jokes!  Very funny!!

Hope you have a good health plan!

Report this
Egomet Bonmot's avatar

By Egomet Bonmot, October 23, 2011 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

“Taking personal responsibility for one’s own health is an artful dodge.”

I suppose that’s true—when words cease to have any meaning.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 23, 2011 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

What is it about the idea of fairness that escapes the intellect of tyrants?  Shenonymous

Reviewing the history of the Bush family reveals that tyrants can spread the “idea” of fairness and
the “idea” of democracy broadly, and with great self-confidence.  The “idea of fairness” versus
fairness is a matter of propaganda.  The former MI5 intelligence officer did not define Gadaffi as
a tyrant, but rather those behind the NATO debacle. 
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-middle-east/nato-bombed-libya-back-into-stone-age-.html
One female, middle-aged, former MI5 intelligence officer knows the difference between propaganda and valid information. 
As does CIA whistle-blower, Susan Lindauer.
As does FBI whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds.
As does Robert D. Steele,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLT7Hk-B2wk&feature=related

Similarly, the difference between the “concept of democracy” that the USGOV has been peddling
for many years in the conquest of oil reserves, and genuine democracy.  Attaining democracy has
not been the goal of the C.I.A. in overthrowing any of the governments “they” have overthrown.
Nor, has it been attained IN ANY.  http://wn.com/JOHN_AND_THE_CIA

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 23, 2011 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

You can’t imagine someone’s nurse, responsible for one’s health,
would say anything negative about their patient?  Your references
are feeble.

Again for clarity’s sake…and I do not spin the facts but are from
published sources.

A more detailed timeline is found on Wikipedia – The Libyan civil
war and military intervention where 152 references are used as
support.

The rebellion began February 15 and 16, 2011 with the arrest of human
rights activist Fethi Tarbel starts a riot in Benghazi.  By February 24, anti-
government militias took control of central coastal city of Misrata,
expelling those forces loyal to Gaddafi.

The UN Security Council soon after imposed sanctions on Gaddafi, and
his sons, referring the severe repression to the International Criminal
Court (ICC).  The EU governments approve the sanctions.

In early March the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) in Benghazi
declares itself Libya’s sole representative and the UN Security Council
approves a no-fly zone over Libya and military action, specifically to
protect civilians against Gaddafi’s army that was shooting them
indiscriminately.

This can hardly be a prevarication from partisans since it was real time
recording on electronic media and made public as it happened.  By late
June warrants were issued for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and
intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi on charges of crimes against
humanity.  By late August, the rebels overran Gaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziya
compound in Tripoli. 

On September 1, Libya’s interim rulers met with world leaders at a
conference in Paris to discuss and plan reshaping Libya.  Obviously
the efforts of the people of Libya long had in mind a coherent but
democratic government, and were not simply a ragtag anarchic
revolution.

While the U.N. Security Council eased sanctions on Libya, including those
on its national oil company and central bank, the U.N. General Assembly
approves a request to accredit interim government envoys as Libya’s sole
representatives at the U.N., which effectively gave authority and
recognition to the NTC.

It was September 20 that President Barack Obama called for the last of
Gaddafi’s loyalist forces to surrender and announced the return of the
U.S. ambassador to Tripoli to a taunting Gaddafi in a speech broadcasted
by Syrian-based Arrai television station.  By that time Syria was having its
own civilian rebellion.

Close to the end of September NATO said Libya’s interim rulers had
taken full control of the country’s stockpile of chemical weapons and
nuclear material.  Probably to a huge sigh of relief by the Western world
as well as some Middle Eastern countries.

October 17 - NTC forces celebrate the capture of Bani Walid, one of the
final bastions of Gaddafi loyalists.  And although a late announcement, a
Syrian television station confirmed Gaddafi’s son Khamis died in fighting
southeast of Tripoli on August 29.

The US though the voice of U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton who
arrived unannounced in Libya mid October, urged the militias on and
to unite their forces.

On October 20, the NTC fighters capture Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown,
ending the two-month siege and capturing the last major hold out of
troops loyal to the deposed leader.

It is reported that Gaddafi was widely loathed, hated.  The revolution
was for rational as well as emotional reasons.  What did the rebels want
to begin with?  Free and fair elections that would support a democratic
society are what they gave their lives for, thought worth dying for. 
Fairness seems to be the common strand through all the protests from
the Middle East Tunisia to those in the European West and the American
OWS.

What is it about the idea of fairness that escapes the intellect of tyrants? 
It is the concept of democracy and what that would mean to the power of
despots.  Well, that is another dissertation.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 23, 2011 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

@ Anarcissie

Additional revealing information.
Gadaffi was cleared of all connections with the PAA Boeing 747 blowup over Lokerbie,
Scotland, by a former C.I.A. female agent, who became a whistle-blower.  Susan Lindauer
does not reveal the family behind the scape-goating of Gadaffi, which family influenced the
NATO destruction of Libya, and the murder of Gadaffi, as a personal, hate vendetta.  Nor is
it a wonder that the Scherf-Bush family do not include Dr. Ron Paul in their list of
Republican “hopefuls” for the 2012 POTUS “slot” election.  This link provides the
background.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=8252175042329977626#

For truthseekers who consistently press for the underlying, supportive, basic information,
and who are not satisfied until they have the basic facts, the following link:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/21-Jan-2006.html

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 23, 2011 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

@  Shenonymous
It is nice to talk about reality, when one is spinning jargon.  Especially, when one intentionally ignores available, accurate information.

Gadaffi´s Ukrainian nurses say they do not know how anyone in their right mind could say such crazy things about how mean he was.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/03/ukraine.gadhafi.nurse/index.html

Most of us know that the group manipulating the USMilitary machine are not in their right mind. Nor are the shills who display their inhumane ignorance by supporting them.

Another woman, former MI5 intelligence officer, calls the invasion of Libya by NATO, “rank hypocrisy.”  She provides revealing information of how he had elevated the average life style of Libyan women and families, required education for women and children, etc, etc. 
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-middle-east/nato-bombed-libya-back-into-stone-age-.html

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 23, 2011 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

The reality was more like the foxes being eaten by the wolf.  And
why would it make a difference to you if the rabble rebels had or
did not have any help?  They clearly were out weaponized or didn’t
you watch the tanks Gaddafi sent it?  Nor were they disciplined as
as a warring force, unlike Gaddafi’s highly trained military.  Is there
some intentional blindness going on?  Seemed NATO and company
waited until a plea for help was made.  And still, as proof of Gaddafi’s
military power, even NATO forces had a grim and difficult time against
the slippery Tyrant of Libya.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 23, 2011 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

I was hoping the Libyans would be able to get rid of Qaddafi without help.  Inviting NATO in is like calling the wolf to get rid of the fox, as the saying goes.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 23, 2011 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

drbhelthi, October 22 at 12:51 am- ”This singular reason is consummately adequate.” 
Possibly, but to think so shows myopic thinking. Shenonymous

Neither your excellence with verbosity and slant, nor that written by pimps of the US
administration or shills of AIPAC, which are essentially identical, are replacements of
factual information. 

Such blogs are similar to a quarter-back with tendonitis sent by the losing coach into a
football game in the final quarter. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVlU2jHT70&feature=related

As far as Gadaffi having been a “terrorist” during the “Bush” administration - a German
friend asked me, “- has there ever been a greater terrorist than the Bush family?”

Report this

By Textynn, October 23, 2011 at 12:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now, let’s talk about how many Superfund sites are in the average city.  Around 50 -100.  Look it up at the EPA.  Not only that but the gov buys these properties and puts schools and post offices in them.  I bet you don’t believe me.  Well guess what, it’s true.  Who controls the government?

  I know it happened to me. I worked in a school and found after years of terrible health issues that advanced until I was an invalid that I had been working in a site that had been a refinery for 70 years and what looked like harmless tanks out back of the school were part of the oil pipe line called a tank farm that smoked under cover of darkness every night.

The government protects polluters, buys their dirty properties, makes it legal to pollute and then lectures us about health care and blames us.  Then when you’re too sick to work, you lose your health care and can’t even collect unemployment.

Who started the Health care insurance industry as we know it.  That would be Edgar Kaiser.  YOu know, Kaiser mines international polluters.  Yep that’s the one. Who jumped out from under a Rock to make sure people didn’t get single payer. Oh yeah, that would be KOCH brothers. 

Pay attention. Your cancer is money in the bank for the ONePercent. Polluters, and not by accident, owners of our HCI.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 22, 2011 at 9:43 pm Link to this comment

Just for clarity’s sake.

http://www.mycontinent.co/revolution-Libya.php

Libya and its oil that made it a very wealthy country indeed.  It
is frivolous to imply Gaddafi shared the wealth with the common
people of Libya. He didn’t all that much.  He kept most of it for
himself.  He acted the deranged dictator for forty years.  The fact
that he was in the circle of the West is irrelevant to the fact that he
was a gargoyle who made the typical mistake of being cruel, unjust
in his use of force, and brutal to the people of Libya.  It had a lot to
do with his ending a nuclear weapons program. But the Libyans will
recover if they don’t fritter their victory away by allowing corrupt
politicians to be Gaddafi’s replacement.

http://www.economist.com/node/18231320
and
http://www.economist.com/node/18239888

The irony is his shrieking the most unlike pairing of al-Qaeda and
America was responsible for the uprising.  Except he was the reason
and the only reason.  He had organized one of the most despotic
police states in the world.  The Tyrant of Libya paid mercenaries to
shoot his people in the streets like “rats” and “cockroaches.”  Gangs
of soldiers roamed Tripoli, the capital, in open-backed trucks search-
ing for people to machinegun. Snipers fired indiscriminately from the
rooftops and helicopter gunships terrorized the townspeople.  The
Times of Malta iterated in their October 21 editorial exactly what in
an earlier post I had said, “Libya, and the world, is a much better
place without him.”

After coming to power in 1969, his RCC government initiated fund-
ing education, healthcare and housing for all.  Public education in the
country is free and primary education is compulsory for both boys and
girls. Yet he frequently described his own people as backward.  Under
Gaddafi in the 1970s, medical care was provided to the public at no
cost.  Housing for all never did materialize. In 1977, Gaddafi renamed
the Libyan state to Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, where
Jamahiriya is a term coined by Gaddafi, translated as “state of the masses.”
At that time, under Gaddafi, per capita income in the country rose to more
than US $11,000, the fifth highest in Africa.  However,  the increase in
prosperity was accompanied by a controversial foreign policy, with increased
political repression at home.  Also under his regime, corruption was unbridled. 
Dissidents were brutalized and ordinary citizens could not even say his name
in public or in private out of fear of prosecution Gaddafi style.  One of the
strangest things is that one of Gaddafi’s sons, Seif founded the “Qaddafi
International Charity and Development Foundation,” which supposedly
sought

to promote human rights and fight the use of torture in Libya and across the
Middle East except the money collected was not used for that purpose but to
buy a ship to break an Israeli blockage of Gaza.

In spite of huge investment in education and basic facilities, unemployment
recently was at 30 percent. People who did have jobs frequently worked only
part-time.  Basic staples such as rice, sugar, and gasoline had to be
considerably subsidized by his government.

The fact that Libyan society is still tribal, clan allegiance is said to come first
and love of nation second most likely accounts for the tenacity of the rebels.

An article that seems to clearly presents what happened in Libya, with a brief
history and current events, is MotherJones, Aug. 20, 
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/whats-happening-libya-explained

http://shabablibya.org/news/justice-satisfies-a-deeper-desire-than-revenge

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, October 22, 2011 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

For such a popular uprising, the Alliance of White Countries sure had to blow a lot of people up! But Khadaffi was Evil, and sometimes you’ve got to fight fire with fire.

I admit, if I were Libyan I would be happy to see him go, but at what cost? And that variable, the price for Libya, is as yet unknown.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 22, 2011 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think Gowans is sacrosanct at all; I just thought it was worthwhile to have another view besides all the NATO cheerleading.

I have read that Libya had the highest per-capita median income in all of Africa, but I have no way of verifying it.  If so it would make the revolt against Ghaddafi rather mysterious, although I have heard that Islamists (al-Qaeda, for example) didn’t like him.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 22, 2011 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

Belhaj was a terrorist during the Bush administration.  Times change
and enemies become “friends” and “friends” become enemies.  When
Canadian communist political activist Gowans says Gaddafi insisted
“foreign investment be turned to the advantage of Libyans,” the fact
is that Gaddafi turned it to his personal advantage “as he ratcheted
up the vicious oppression on his people a notch or two” more than he
had already imposed.  The Libyan people did not benefit much but
Gaddafi’s own wealth grew fat, which was how he afforded buying allies in
Sub-Saharan African bully countries thereby “expanding his oppressions”
in the broader worldwide perspective. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-cannot-hurt-his-people-any-longer-2374248.html
Special Report From Libya:  ‘Gaddafi cannot hurt his people any longer’ and
Kim Sengupta sees the body of the Libyan dictator Saturday, 22 October 2011-
The Independent/Africa

Western oil interests would always have a hand in whatever would
secure their positions.  Gowans, sympathizer and apologist attitude
for Islamist sovereign states regularly accuses the West of demonizing
Middle Eastern Arab is accused of making demonstrably inaccurate
and misleading statements, by Stephen Zunes, Prof of Politics and
International Studies U of San Francisco.  I’ve read a few of his articles,
and as more than a leftist he would not call himself a liberal, Gowans
has an agenda that colors objectivity in his assessment.  Just because
someone calls themselves a communist doesn’t make their views
automatically sacrosanct.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, October 22, 2011 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

Confusing the means with the ends is what you do, creating straw dogs to make your
anger at others seem reasonable, rational. Anecdotal statements prove nothing, and
are just what the are. Some one’s story…

So here we are millions uninsured, health insurance companies making record profits,
record bonuses for their CEO’s…Doctors Not making enough to pay off their student
loans…Pharmaceutical companies charging hundreds of dollars for
A pill that costs 10 cents to make…Premiums going throughout the roof for insurance
you can’t afford to use, due astronomical deductibles, getting treatments that will kill you
Becuase the FDA approves them even though they know the manufacturer submitted
fraudulent data…More admissions to ER’s for prescription meds than street drugs…..

This is what the corporate crook Inusrance companies have brought, until they are gone
it will continue…

Report this

By JDN, October 22, 2011 at 7:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The great irony of Redmond’s tirade is that she is (pretty much) accusing Paul of corporatism—which he alone (among the candidates) decries, and which is the true sickness of the healthcare system to which Redmond refers.  The insurance companies will not be the big winners under Paul but I suppose you could follow their money to see who would suit their purposes.  Paul’s money comes from the little guys, not corporations. 
Paul is the only candidate who is not an Interventionist, Corporatist, Military-Industrial Complex-ist, owned-by-AIPAC (or aspiring to be—“Israel is our greatest ally”) shill. 

How can medical care—a service that another individual supplies—be a right?  How, Ms. Redmond, is it a contradiction of the Hippocratic oath to eschew “rights” language here?  What an absurd muddle!

Mr. Scheer!  Where is your editor’s pencil?!  (or scissors)

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 22, 2011 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

Here is a different opinion about Qaddafi:
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/gaddafi’s-oppressions/

Gowans seems to be a Marxist so he is not fond of Qaddhafi’s ideology, but does perceive the campaign against him as an exercise of neocolonialism and imperialism.  ‘From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.’  As for cheering mobs, mobs cheered when the U.S. army marched into Baghdad, too.  Throw flowers and sharpen knives; it seems to be a Middle Eastern thing going back a long way.

Once again, the boss media are playing their usual games.  Where’s Emmanuel Goldstein?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 22, 2011 at 6:10 am Link to this comment

drbhelthi, October 22 at 12:51 am- ”This singular reason is consummately adequate.”  Possibly, but to think so shows myopic thinking. 

It is absurd to think that Gaddafi was scape-goated.  He was a consummately evil man and all the blame he is given for the misery he set against people including his own countrymen is deserved and the world is better off without him, especially the Libyans who are ecstatic he is gone and the rest of the Arab world is jubilant.

Report this

By ORAXX, October 22, 2011 at 5:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s astonishing that so many of the people on the right who make way too much noise about their “Christianity,” are also so openly contemptous of all human life but the fetus.

Report this

By ardee, October 22, 2011 at 3:37 am Link to this comment

By theRightRadical, October 21 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee
and any other lightened Progressive.

theRightRadical x 8.

Perhaps, after you take a remedial English class,learn how to post a coherent response, one that can be succinct to further debate, we might chat some more.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 22, 2011 at 12:51 am Link to this comment

Besides there are more reasons Islamists hate Americans than America’s alliance
with Israel.  Shenonymous

This singular reason is consummately adequate.
The scape-goating of Gadaffi by the NATO follow-on to the WWII Hitler entourage
only strengthens their resolve. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVlU2jHT70&feature=related

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 21, 2011 at 11:09 pm Link to this comment

cp whatever
Dude, listen…  I am not gonna be a dick and speculate about who you know, or how large or small is your peer group.  I’m guessing that your peer group doesn’t waste a lot of time debating health care options?

I will write anyway I goddamn feel like you little authoritative creep.  Did I ask for your “sensible” opinion?  I have to talked to plenty. Why don’t you talk to your nurse and doctor friends.  I know you in your government controlled wonderland of peaches and cream, everyone is going to be happy and healthy.
Why don’t you ask a Dr friend that after years of Med School, and residency if they look forward to the salary cap that your socialized scheme will bring?  Go ahead deny that the cap will happen, and it will just show your ignorance of economics, and quite frankly of logic. 
Then of course there will be the concurrent storage of nurses and doctors, because of the salary cap, and fact that if you subsidize something people will use more of it, further overloading the system. I know to you they are just a bunch of greedy Doctors, et al, but we are by nature all greedy. 
I know everyone that doesn’t think like you “hates the poor” or is a “racist” because you feel some kind of guilt about actually living well or something, and they don’t.  So instead of doing something internally about this, you feel the need to dump it on the collective.  You feel this “social progress” will make you feel so good.  It’s why you bounce around, and are happy every April 15th. You feel like you done your thing for “society” You are totally exposed for your phony altruism.
Maybe some kind of spiritual connection for you? God perhaps? Lord forbid you couldn’t be one those people. Besides you idolize the state in all it works. Despite all the evidence to contrary, you think it is the engine that has driven modern progress. 
Not I brother. I know that capitalism, and the industrial revolution, along with western liberal thought were the liberators of mankind.  But the rulers could not have allowed that, they just couldn’t stand the thought of all us little people being free and being fed. Lord have mercy what if it spreads to the subcontinents? Brown, black and yellow people? How can they have rights? So they have done everything to discredit it, while they live well off it’s production. 
So go on. Long for your fair, equal, and tolerate (as long as everyone thinks like you that is) society imposed at the barrel of a gun. Talk about utopia? Try and square that circle my friend.  All of history is against you of course, and everyone is broke.  So much for the progressive, social welfare state! It’s communist model died 20 years ago, and it’s fascist offspring is on it’s death bed, if you have noticed the protests already. 
I shall continue too long for my stateless society, perhaps it is utopian, but it is a hell of lot closer to real then yours, and if it is anything it is certainly not phony. Furthermore I might not be around to see it, but it is coming soon. 
Free the System.  End the cartel.  Good health for all.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 21, 2011 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment

Lazy is lazy, what can I say?  Duh is
adequate.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment

“There are lots of polls showing public sentiments about single-payer..”

- Sheno

And I fall into the guilty category of ‘too lazy’ myself in this case, clearly.  Faith in others is somewhat compensatory.  Feels good too.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 21, 2011 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

There are lots of polls showing public sentiments about single-payer if one isn’t so unbelievably too lazy to google for it.  Good grief!

Kevin Sack and Marjorie Connelly. “In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health”. The New York Times. Published June 20, 2009.

New York Times/CBS poll showed 78% of people saying that the “government should guarantee medical care to everyone,” 1987.

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
Western PA Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare working for passage of the “United States National Health Insurance Act”, also known as, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act” (H.R. 676) from 2003 to 2010.

A 2007 Physicians for a National Health Program report, “New polls on universal, tax-supported health care,” CNN Poll, Opinion Research Corporation, May 9, 2007
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/new_polls_on_univers.php

Dec, 2004
Health care survey: 2 out of 3 Americans now favor government-guaranteed coverage
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6366/is_6_16/ai_n29141381/

and on and on and on and on…..

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 21, 2011 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

”In last Tuesday’s debate, Paul said his Restore plan would cut aid to Israel - the only politician that sees that support to Israel is what makes us hated in the Muslim world.”  Possibly, but with the number of Jews in Congress Paul will have about as much chance at stopping support to Israel as Obama has in passing any jobs bill that without a doubt and indeed would create jobs with the lock-step obstructionist Republicans.  And the beat goes on.  So Paul’s is just another PITW politician’s campaign promise.

The Doctor is a millionaire, a several times over.  An Air Force veteran and ob-gyn who often champions the cause of the “little” guy, but not women’s ownership of their own bodies (just the opposite, he is quite congruent with the Religious Right), Paul disclosed 41 separate financial holdings that have a combined value of between $2.29 million and $5.3 million. Disclosure statements are required of officeholders and political candidates to disclose “a range of values” for their holdings which accounts for the rather fuzzy precision of the report.  His personal investments are bearish and conservative with money invested in gold mining companies such as Barrick Gold, Vista Gold, Kinross Gold, and Apollo Gold Corps.  He wound up with somewhere around $5 million of the $34.5 million his followers donated to his campaign in 2008 (LA Times article).  And we could wonder why he wants the country to go to the gold standard???  Oh yeah…

Whatever is his true worth, it is certain his offering to take reduced politicians’ pay (which all Congressmen ought to do so his is not entirely without merit) is nevertheless mitigated by his personal wealth.

Besides there are more reasons Islamists hate Americans than America’s alliance with Israel.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 21, 2011 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

Part of the general picture of medical and pharmaceutical care is that it is authoritarian.  Most people prefer it so, believing themselves safer under authority, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.  However, an authoritarian structure is easily captured by powerful organizations.  Hence, an actually libertarian model of medical and pharmaceutical services is unlikely to arise.  I know I have been unable to interest anyone in cooperative models in twenty years of talking.  That being the case, the choice seems to be between government control and corporate control.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

“Quite Frankly I have never met anyone that wanted a single payer system. To be honest I have never seen an opinion poll on it.”

- theRightRadical

Dude, listen…  I am not gonna be a dick and speculate about who you know, or how large or small is your peer group.  I’m guessing that your peer group doesn’t waste a lot of time debating health care options?

Never seen an opinion poll on it?  BANG ON YOU HAVEN’T!!  And there’s a reason for that.  Someone so hip to the hypocrisy of the gov shouldn’t need schooling on the media; what you’re getting, not getting, who owns who and who greases palms.  There’s an endless list of opinion polls that have been conducted that you’ve never seen.  The results of the poll have more to do with whether or not you hear about the poll than does your choice of MSM.  That isn’t a conspiracy theory.

One word of advice, a request actually…  This is a forum, not a private chat room.  If you’re going to post and quote prior posters within that post, please try, please, to make use of some punctuation; may I suggest quotation marks, to differentiate within your text the peep you’re arguing with from yourself?  Your input would be so much easier to appreciate (read).

Peace.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

“Less regulation would allow cheaper and possibly better care.”

- Artsy

Less regulation of what type?  and within what broader context?  A thought experiment…

Let’s say the Libertarian perspective that Ron Paul stands for on health care were to come to pass?  What might that look like?  Is there any room for ‘cheaper and possibly better care’ in any of the answers to that question?  Can we even imagine, from our perspective of ‘current status quo’ what such a reality would be?  Who can extrapolate into such a future with a keen enough sense of required evolution to paint a clear picture of how we might actually get THERE, from HERE?

From a status quo perspective some thoughts….

Since BigPharm, BigHMO, BigMedicine etc.. all seem to be quite profitable and reaping rewards from the status quo, and the status quo sucks for the average Sally & Joe, and since this situation exists, to no small extent, because BigBusiness is partly running things and otherwise being catered to, by among other things, the level of regulation that currently exists, how would a simple reduction in regulation of the health care industry improve the lives of Sally & Joe?

Better care?  The rich in America get the best care that the world has to offer.  And by rich I mean the full 1%, and maybe including the top 8-12$, or however many percent.  Those who can afford it are not the ones motivated for change right now.  This system has them covered just fine, they’ll thank you very much.  Again, from where we are, to where we might go tomorrow, just what form of decreased regulation is going to improve the status quo, for Sally & Joe?

SINGLE PAYER IS NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATION

SINGLE PAYER IS GOVERNMENT OPERATION

THE GOVERNMENT, REMEMBER THEM?

SUPPOSED TO BE YOU AND ME, US, TOGETHER

FOR YOU AND ME, US, TOGETHER


MAKE NO MISTAKE

IT’S OUR TAX MONEY

Well, sadly, the government of the status quo, it ain’t you and me, for you and me.  And that’s too bad.  So, what would Paul actually do?  How do we get from corrupted corporate empire to libertarian health utopia?  And in the meantime, while we wait, likely a good while, for a sensible answer to that question, which direction you wanna go?

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 21, 2011 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

Dude you are really not that articulate, and engage in nothing but demagoguery.  So I am done with you.  If you can’t answer my questions, about placing your health and trust in the same institution (the American Executive State) that gave us the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. This will be my last word to you. 

You don’t know what I am talking about go right young man, because that’s what you
always do confuse the ends and the means….

Yes I want results.  I would rather, there be as many insurance companies as there are restaurants.  As many Doctors are there are government bureaucrats. (10-20 million) and more hospitals then there are dry cleaners. 
As far as Pharm goes. As I do with the auto industry.  We are bailing out two of the three car companies right?  Why are we not asking why there are not 30 car companies, or 300 or 3000?
Yes I know there are lots of evil CEO’s out there according to you that want to kill us all, as too dilute their customer base and reduce sales and profits, but in a market of 10s of thousands there has to be a few good apples in the bunch.  Hopefully I can find one before I an struck down.  I mean even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. I know Paul Krugman doesn’t believe it, but I really think increasing and decentralizing the Health Care business by freeing it up, will cost nothing to taxpayers, and bring could affordable treatment, and insurance fairly easily and dramatically. So even the poor waiter he abused at lunch today, and left his customary poor tip for, could afford treatment and insurance.
Health care is not the post office, or the department of defense or about any of the other
red hearings you threw in..
It’s not a Red Herring at all.  You want to trust the same institution the American Executive State to run the Health Care Industry.  It’s insane given their track record, but it’s your right to go the well one more time.  I know I know, the IRS is a customer friendly agency, with only my best interests at heart.
Single payer is what the people want, and it’s the people who call the shots in this
country…not murdering corporate CEO’s with blood on their hands and multi million
dollar bonuses made off people dying from cancer because they suppressed cures….
Quite Frankly I have never met anyone that wanted a single payer system. To be honest I have never seen an opinion poll on it. I wonder if the people got confused and thought the pollster was talking about the single wing offense?  Furthermore it is estimated that the FDA kills thousands by untimely delaying new treatments, and drugs from getting on the market.  But hey their trying right?

S.Africa was destabilized by divestment, and the insurance crooks can be
to..encourage..all to divest themselves of any investment in insurance company
stocks…bring them down….
I have no clue with what you are saying here.  I do remember in the great gashing of teeth that was the issue of divestment in the mid 80s.  It was mainly the American left that demanded American institutions to divest as a protest against apartheid regime in S. Africa.  I remember there were some sit ins and stuff on some college campuses about divesting endowments, etc.  I really don’t know where you are going with this quite frankly.  Sounds like some whacked out conspiracy you would hear on Alex Jones.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, October 21, 2011 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

You don’t know what I am talking about go right young man, because that’s what you
always do confuse the ends and the means….

Health care is not the post office, or the department of defense or about any of the other
red hearings you threw in..

Single payer is what the people want, and it’s the people who call the shots in this
country…not murdering corporate CEO’s with blood on their hands and multi million
dollar bonuses made off people dying from cancer because they suppressed cures….

S.Africa was destabilized by divestment, and the insurance crooks can be
to..encourage..all to divest themselves of any investment in insurance company
stocks…bring them down….

Report this
Artsy's avatar

By Artsy, October 21, 2011 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Slanted article.

Ron Paul has a LOT of terrific ideas and the writer is obviously clueless. If insurance companies, FDA, and government regulations, would disappear, the system could evolve to be more inclusive and affordable. Face it, the health care system is bankrupt already in more ways than one.

Less regulation would allow cheaper and possibly better care. The cancer industry may have better reason to let go of the cures they have. The way the corrupt sickness system is now, almost everybody gets cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. sooner or later and it costs more and more. My friend’s insurance just paid $14,000 per chemo treatment for breast cancer and she had several weeks of them plus thousands in co-pays. After all that, she needs a $100,000 worth of shots. The costs are ridiculous. This is not counting surgeries, hospital stays, etc…. Truth is, none of it may even help extend her life. Multiply numbers like that by 10’s of millions and thrown in another 20 million illegal aliens and there will be no more decent healthcare for those who can pay either.

Ron Paul is right on this and many things and he is honest. He may win on common sense and truth alone. All other candidates on both sides are nothing but puffed up liars who work for corporations. I am so sick of lies that I would overlook what I do not agree with Ron Paul on and vote for him to have simple truth in government.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

“As far as a single payer system goes.
Could you please comment on the following.
The performance of the United States Post Office, and performance of the United States Department of Defense.  From my seat here those are the most visible examples of a “single payer” system of an “industry” run by the federal government.  Do you believe they are run efficiently?  Are they run in the best interests of the American People? “

- theRightRadical

Your distrust of the posties and the current War Dept is irrlevant to the single payer question.  The answer is yes, a single payer system can be run effectively, as examples around the world demonstrate. 

Would such a system be run in the best interests of the people?  It is in the best interests of the people to have such a system.  If “The People” were ever to effect sufficient change in the first place, the type of electoral change that would be required to allow a single payer system to be implemented, then I think we can all safely assume that Rumsfeld and Cheney won’t be around to run it poorly.

They aren’t impossible to run, and they are relatively efficient, provided appropriate funding.  Compared to the status quo US model, that efficiency is leaps and bounds superior. 

OVERALL EXPENDITURE COST PER PERSON - IT’S CHEAPER - ALWAYS HAS BEEN - ALWAYS WILL BE - IF YOU STILL BELIEVE OTHERWISE THEN DO THE RESEARCH AND THEN ASK WHY YOU’VE BEEN SO CALLOUSLY MISINFORMED

Funding is always under attack where right wing elements make themselves heard, even in countries such as Canada where single payer already exist.  The right likes to point out the flaws that do exist, conveniently overlooking the question of appropriate funding and how the status quo of funding came to be. 

I am not overly concerned with Ron Pauls attitude towards health care.  It would be a fascinating experiment to see how a Paul Presidency would go down.  The guy is one of how many genuinely honest folk on the hill?  To the extent that there’s still some remnant of democracy left to preserve, Paul believes in it and wants to strengthen it. 

If he could End The Fed and achieve only a handful of some of his other reform positions it would be worth giving him a shot.  He’s not going to get the keys to the white house and suddenly morph into an executive-order dictator and start up the death panels. 

The argument is somewhat mute regardless, the man isn’t going to achieve power, honest men typically don’t, and in These Times there’s not a hope in Washington of such taking place in 2012.  I’m just content that such a man still exists and despite the walls built up around him, still gets his message out on occasion to remind us where we are and what might otherwise be.

Cheers.

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

No Mr. Right, you don’t get to frame the discussion, by attempting to confuse the ends with the means.
What the hell are you talking about?
Are you a progressive or ?

Getting to the end is do able, not impossible.

For exampple, we need to end the Pharmaceutical, companpanies and corupt political collusion into inflating the price of medications. Yet another political subsidy to corporations.
I agree with you here.  Of course the only way to cleanse the system is to get rid of the regulatory agencies subsidizing them by repressing their competitors, and ending patent laws. 
Ban Corporate workers from working at regulatory agencies, like FDA, USDA, FTC, on retirement.
Why not just get rid of the agencies totally?  You must be naive to think the regulators won’t get around this?  Can’t hire me? How about my wife?

Allow importation of cheaper medications from overseas, which Big Pharma has blocked, via the politicians they own.
I totally agree here.  I don’t know why you would think I wouldn’t. 
And stopping, the corporate owned USDA from allowing agri buisness to destroy the health of people in this country by letting them sell toxic food. Food filled with sugar, GMO’s, and wood, that is destroying the health of everyone.
Well naturally end all subsides, and the USDA while we’re at it.  I am not interested in building new prisons for the food police though.  The War on Bad Food?  LOL “A house was raided last night by the Food Enforcement Agency. Three cases of Twinkies were seized, along with cash, and a hoard of a Hershey bars”  No thanks.

Without doing this no amount of health care can save us. But corporate crooks crontrol things and they literally kill millions for profit.
I don’t know if it is the interest of any company to kill their customers.  I will agree the Pharm business, doesn’t want to see you cured from cancer but not dead.  I mean wouldn’t they run out of people to sell stuff to, if they killed off their customers?  Government(politicians) on the other hand.  They’d drone your ass and wouldn’t think twice if they could get a two point rise in the polls from it.

And lastly we need to restore the rule of law to the corporations. For example no settlement with the banks, prosecution instead.
Let them go bankrupt.  If your saying to put Lloyd Blankenfeld in jail.  I am in total agreement.

Report this

By omygodnotagain, October 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

Anarcisse I agree with you and though I disagree with some of his views I agree with many

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, October 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

No Mr. Right, you don’t get to frame the discussion, by attempting to confuse the ends with the means.

Getting to the end is do able, not impossible.

For exampple, we need to end the Pharmaceutical, companpanies and corupt political collusion into inflating the price of medications. Yet another political subsidy to corporations.

Ban Corporate workers from working at regulatory agencies, like FDA, USDA, FTC, on retirement.

Allow importation of cheaper medications from overseas, which Big Pharma has blocked, via the politicians they own.

And stopping, the corporate owned USDA from allowing agri buisness to destroy the health of people in this country by letting them sell toxic food. Food filled with sugar, GMO’s, and wood, that is destroying the health of everyone.

Without doing this no amount of health care can save us. But corporate crooks crontrol things and they literally kill millions for profit.

And lastly we need to restore the rule of law to the corporations. For example no settlement with the banks, prosecution instead.

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee, ardee,ardee
and any other lightened Progressive. 

Since I am a self serving, selfish SOB. I am hoping to get some answers on how I could be more enlightened.  I sent these questions to the author. Perhaps you would like to take a crack at them?  Again your honest answers would put me straight on put down the path to righteousness. 

Does President Obama’s plan; direct public taxes, and monies into the hands of corporate interests linked to medical insurance industry ie companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, and AmeriHealth,  via mandatory taxation?
I didn’t think Progressives were fond of these types of government-industry partnerships, am I wrong?
Could this be defined as Corporatism aka “Fascism”?
You do know it is fascism, that was the economic system that underwrote the Nazi, and Italian War Machines, with all their death and destruction during the 1920s through 1940s?
It is not the Americanized version of Corporatism, that girds our very own Imperial War Machine, with all it’s excesses, and violations?

As far as a single payer system goes.
Could you please comment on the following.
The performance of the United States Post Office, and performance of the United States Department of Defense.  From my seat here those are the most visible examples of a “single payer” system of an “industry” run by the federal government.
Do you believe they are run efficiently?
Are they run in the best interests of the American People?
Do they normally have good and moral people running them? ie Casper Weinburger, Dick Cheney, Robert McNamara, Robert Gates, et al?
If we had a single payer system in the United States.
How would you feel about Donald Rumsfeld, or Robert McNamara running that Department of the United States Government?
Perhaps Christie Todd Whitman or Janet Reno would be more to your liking?  Please let me know.
I have met Dr. Ron Paul a few times.  I can’t speak for him.  I know he voted against the Health Care Act purposed by President Obama.
From most of my understanding though.  He does not like the current way the medical industry is carried about in the United States. I know you didn’t mean to imply that he does, although it kind of comes out that way in your editorial. I also believe that he doesn’t want to see people dying on the streets.  I know I don’t.
I believe, and again I can’t speak for him. I do believe he is for deregulation of the current system.  I myself call this the ‘Freeing of the System’ or end of the “Medical Industry Cartel”, since the word “deregulation” is anathema to many people in the “Progressive” camp.
Normally in the freed up economies, such as the consumer electronics, retail, and hospitality industries. Consumers have a wide range of products, and price levels, which lower themselves through economies of scale. This of course makes many products affordable for even the most modest of income levels of people living the US.  If you have a theory as to why the same freedom couldn’t be applied to health insurance, and widen the number of consumers at continuously lowering prices, especially the uninsured.  I would love to hear that?

Other then seeing the social safety net in the country narrowed.  I have no interests in the Health Industry.

Thank you for you enlightenment
Regards

Report this

By Basoflakes, October 21, 2011 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

I think this article needs to rethought and republished.

Ron Paul is the only honest candidate running on the GOP side - make it both sides if Obama is running.  Paul never stepped away from his Constitutional views, one of which is that medicine has no business being a part of government.  Paul’s exact position about Medicare should be flushed out, for sure, but you cannot condemn a man who sticks by the Constitution as origianally written.

Let’s say we dissagree with Paul on social medicine issues.  Paul’s ‘Restore America Plan’ is a plan that will shave $1 Trillion from the budget the first year and balance the budget in three years.  Everyone wants this, but only Paul laid out a plan.  Yes, he gets rid of 5 federal agencies, but cutting government spending when it serves no purpose is good.  Paul is also cutting military spending - who, besides Barney Frank and maybe Kucinich, has ever dared to do that?

Paul, in the many debates, has never backed down from his positions that make him less than popular.  For instance, in the California debate, Paul listed America’s support of despots(in Saudi Arabia, and Hussein, Ghaddafi, and Mubarek), America’s occupation of Muslim lands and America’s support for Israel as the reason for 9/11 - the only politician to tell the truth.

In last Tuesday’s debate, Paul said his Restore plan would cut aid to Israel - the only politician that sees that support to Israel is what makes us hated in the Muslim world.

Paul will stop all useless wars and bring our troops home so they are not subsidizing Germany, Korea and the other 120 countries that our troops are present in.

Nope, the country could do a lot worse than elect an honest man.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 21, 2011 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

The big, seemingly unanswerable question about Ron Paul is what he’s doing in the Republican Party.

Report this

By ardee, October 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

After all George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were libertarians, are you saying you wouldn’t want them having your back at a bar fight?

What a complete fabrication.

Payson, October 21 at 1:42 pm

While you accurately portray certain tenets of Paul’s Libertarian politics you forget to include some rather important others; the ending of ALL entitlements, including Welfare, Medicare et al. The complete redacting of all regulatory powers of the Federal Government is another juicy morsel that the great majority simply will not swallow.

I see Libertarians as selfish, white, Ive got mine screw you types. Perhaps you see otherwise.

Report this

By Payson, October 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul is more honest than all the other candidates combined.  So he is a
strict-ish libertarian?  The media’s portrayal of Ron Paul as some sort of
confused old man is just as telling as their refusal to report very much about his
campaign.  Ron Paul doesn’t believe in anarchy, but he believes government
should not harm its citizens.  If you focus on the tidbits of his beliefs fed to you
by the media(legalizing drugs or the negative aspects of Affirmative Action), I
think you are missing some greater points that, I hope, most regular Americans
believe, too. 
Ron Paul believes the defense industry and its endless wars pose a real danger
to our country.  He believes that the Patriot Act is eroding civil rights.  He
believes the mind boggling growth of domestic spying networks and government
agencies is compromising our freedom.
If we focus on smaller issues, however important they may be, we fail to see the
big picture, the threats that could rob us of ALL civil liberties.  The U.S. is quickly
seeing the growing power of agencies within government that could ensure a
virtual police state with no privacy, civil liberties or actual freedom.  At that
point, arguments over legalized drugs or the rights of minority groups will seem
quaint.

Report this

By RyanChurchill, October 21, 2011 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

Obama blames republicans. Liberals blame the tea party. Redmund blames Ron Paul and the tea party and Obama. Maybe you need to clean house and start over? Sort of like what the good Dr. Paul is suggesting. Perhaps you might agree with Dr. Paul on bringing the troops home and a non-interventionist foreign policy and saving trillions of dollars that might enable a healthcare system not unlike the one you are suggesting. But no, you’ll probably just keep ripping the right and vote for Obama again, hoping that the people can’t see through your thinly veiled hit piece.

Can truthdig hire some more writers like Hedges that at least care about writing an intelligent article? This is getting pathetic.

Report this

By LegalizeLiberty, October 21, 2011 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s sad that Redmond would demonize the only honest candidate because he has an ideological perspective that differs from your own. Paul supports OWS, unlike other Big Government Republicans running for president.

That Paul would volunteer to take a $39,000/yr salary as president (the average American income), among other things that may not appeal to honest leftists, with whom I sympathize, proves that he is genuine.

Maybe if Redmond actually, and sincerely, tried to objectively understand Paul’s ideas about free markets and healthcare then she would appreciate him much more. I doubt she will; but I’m hopeful.

Exercise: Truthdiggers, would you expect FOX to give a fair analysis of your beliefs? Then don’t expect someone vehemently opposed to Paul’s beliefs to give a fair analysis of his.

If you believe what you say, then Vote for Peace. RP2012!

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 21, 2011 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Ms Griffith

“Just like the Americans were (barely) not too proud to ask the Dutch for advise about building dikes and levees, so can they ask the Canadians, the Germans or the Norwegians about running a social democracy. There probably will be a bit of polite laughing but nothing Americans can not deal with.”

The American Bourbons, err I mean the Elites, are going to seek out, and take the advice of other socially run democracies? 
The same ones that haven’t apologized or compensated American slavery?
They don’t even acknowledge their fault for the slaughter in SE Asia from 1959-1974. 
These people are some of the most arrogant people to ever walk the face of the earth, and you honestly think they will ask anyone how to do anything?
They don’t even feel they have to ask permission do whatever the hell they want.
I don’t mean to sound mocking, but I think you’re being hugely naive. If you think the American elites would ever inquire for “help” from somewhere else.  They don’t even listen to their subjects, err I mean the American people.  (2008 Wall Street Bailout)
Thanks but no thanks. I don’t know about you, but I would rather not put the health of my children in the hands of the people that run the American Government. 
Free the System, end the cartel.  Good Health for All.

Report this

By KarlDV, October 21, 2011 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul, if he truly takes his beliefs from the so-
called Austrian School of economics, is opposed to
intellectual property. Now I wonder what that would do
to the price of prescription drugs alone in the US?

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 21, 2011 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

prisnersdilema

The post office, is indeed in trouble, do to the constant malignment of the right…Maybe if it wasn’t forced to subsidize the corporate crooks who run things it would have no problems.. it could start by charging full price for those idiotic mailers sent out by so called buisness, which is really a buisness subsidy…”

Indeed it is.  My question to you is. 
How are you going to prevent this in an American Run Socialized Medical System? 
Everything is a political football in the good ole’ US o fA.  After every election one group of cronies leave, and another comes in to take its place. 
Do you really want a Donald Rumsfeld in charge of the Dept of Single Payer Health Administration?
I am not even a democrat and I shutter at the thought of that.
Is the government going to employ millions of doctors, and nurses?
Are you going to draft them?
If they don’t want to work for Rumsfeld are you going to put them in prison?

Now I know you can write a whole bunch of laws to try to prevent these things, but of course with laws come loopholes, and you know the vultures that compromise the 1%.  They’ll twist themselves like pretzels, in order to drive a truck those loopholes, so they can do little work or no work, for outrageous pay.  They love to write checks,  that they can’t cash, but they will certainly make sure we do.
Free the System.  End the cartel.  Good health for all.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

“Of course that all is predicated on Americans accepting
that they are living in a society that has a certain
degree of responsibility for the wellfare of their fellow
human beings.”

- M.G.

Yes, doG forbid.  The thought of the US Gov. looking to
other nations to get advice on social policy is also
hampered by the fact that to believe anything other than
that the US is the best country, with the best health
care, etc.. etc… is profoundly unAmerican.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

“...the utter backwardness of our Dept of Defense, which
hasn’t upgraded it’s theories since the Civil War, and
hasn’t won a war in sixty years.”

- theRightRadical

I’m with you in the spirit of your post, but I must
rebut the above.  The Dept of Defense should not be
understood as anything other The War Dept., which I
believe is a label it had once.  It should also not be
thought of in isolation; it being merely a directive and
lobby branch of the MIC.  The MIC has access to and
regularly recruits the brightest minds that money can
buy.  Our culture times things such that the(typically
male) young mind, at that point where it is sufficiently
trained to be very valuable, is still awed with things
that go boom boom in new and unique ways, but hasn’t yet
developed any reasonable moral compass.  What’s a video
game zealot MIT advanced physics trained robotics
specialist to do?

As for not winning any wars…  Give your head a shake
and consider the industry again.  Starting a war is
victory.  From there forward it’s just a matter of how
long you can keep the home fires burning, and the
profits rolling in.  The “real” anger about Vietnam
wasn’t about a loss, it was about a foreshortened
economic cycle.  Damn hippies!

Thus the brilliance of the war on terror.  A false war
against an enemy that is at once the invisible face of a
suicide bomber, and at the same time a complete mirage. 
A war you can fight forever, with yellow, orange and red
“alert levels” to keep the population cowered, and
compliant in the face of rising defense budgets that go
dogmatically unquestioned while social security and
other “entitlements” are attacked.

It’s psychopathic.  And very well thought out.

Report this

By chip, October 21, 2011 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

You forgot to mention Ron Paul would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring all our troops home from the other 130 country’s we have bases in.

He would end the pay off to Israel and decriminalize drugs.

He would take a nuclear first strike off the table.

He would also end the Un-Patriotic act.

I also believe he would not attack Iran unless the public and congress wanted it.

He would also aggressively prosecute the fraud that Wall Street seems to be immune from now.

Report this

By Marian Griffith, October 21, 2011 at 11:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@theRightRadical
If Americans are so inept at running social institutions (and I would certainly never claim that to be the case!), there are plenty countries in the world that have not made such a hash out of it.
Just like the Americans were (barely) not too proud to ask the Dutch for advise about building dikes and levees, so can they ask the Canadians, the Germans or the Norwegians about running a social democracy. There probably will be a bit of polite laughing but nothing Americans can not deal with.

Of course that all is predicated on Americans accepting that they are living in a society that has a certain degree of responsibility for the wellfare of their fellow human beings.

That acceptance might well be the greater challenge ahead of any movement aiming for meaningful reform.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, October 21, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Yes Mr. Right, we do want a public, option..because what have now, the corporate option is cold blooded murder.. every national survey in this existance has shown that fact.

The post office, is indeed in trouble, do to the constant malignment of the right…Maybe if it wasn’t forced to subsidize the corporate crooks who run things it would have no problems.. it could start by charging full price for those idiotic mailers sent out by so called buisness, which is really a buisness subsidy…

Conservatives seem to forget, we are living in an economic collapse, that was caused by the very policys they put into place for the last 40 years, you know the deregulation delusion… and yet they seem to offer up more of the same insanty as a solution to problems the first insanity caused…

They seem to have no problems sending jobs overseas, or bailing out Wall Street and the Banks with Tax payer money…not exactly free enterprise…

Or using agencies like the FDA, USDA, to destroy the competion for large corporations..

Their next idea will be to give Visas to all those who come here fom China to buy homes over $500 thousand dollars…

Report this

By theRightRadical, October 21, 2011 at 9:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From weak hands to strong hands. A progressive push for America.
Why oh why, do we keep trying to pound little rocks into big rocks and call it progress?
President Obama’s plan, like the Medicare Plan D of Bush the Lessor, is nothing more then a Corporate rip off.  It directs public taxes, and monies into the hands of connected, corporate interests of the medical establishment, and probably to many of those entities, and corporations. Progressives are not fond of.  This of course is “Fascism” And as you know it is the economic system that underwrote the Nazi, and Italian War Machines, with all their death and destruction. It is the one that girds our very own Imperial War Machine, with all it’s excesses, and violations.

Why do you people like this? 

Why do you think it the American state (US gov), when it gets it’s long arm on any industry. Where you want “fundamental fairness, and regulation” won’t pervert that industry into a corporate controlled orgy of corruption? 
How many slow motion car wrecks do you have to witness, until you finally recognize that’s all they do, which is run things for their own selfish, self interests?

Yes, yes I know you really, really want a single payer system like in Canada, or Europe.  Of course in the US that would be the medical industry equivalent of the Post Office, or our Defense Department.  It would be nice if we could run our socialized systems as well as they do in those places, but it just ain’t in the DNA here. 
Just witness the American ineptness in practicing socialism.  Look at our Post Office losing billions per year, and the utter backwardness of our Dept of Defense, which hasn’t upgraded it’s theories since the Civil War, and hasn’t won a war in sixty years. Ain’t state run monopolies grand?
So if the goal is really to increase the health of American society.
Why not just embrace a freeing of the system?
We do we not want to have more doctors, more hospitals, more and different types of treatments to treat the aliments that inflict us all? 
Why would we not want to increase the number of insurance carriers, so magically even the self employed, and “poor” could afford policies? Without having to wake the Animal Spirits.
Is this not social justice?  Assuring that medical care is affordable for all?
Of course the out of pocket expenses would be low for society in all this, and if it fails.  You progressives will have a huge campaign issue to ride on afterward in the decades that follow.  And all of American society will be in awe of you, unless it is just the means you really want, and not the ends that matter.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

“Now do we understand how 48% of American voters in the
mid-terms could elect these Neanderthals to the Congress
because of our own political apathy?

It’s whose fault? Ours, theirs, the Koch brothers and
their kind?

Ours, I say. We get the sort of Congress we deserve if
we do not have the slightest sense of Civic Duty.”

- Lafayette

Let me see now, where is my opportunity for civic duty
today?  How can I participate so as to better the
community and the world around me?  Hmmmmnnnn…

I am employed and pay taxes - check.
I participate in the exploitative upward sucking money
vortex that is the economy - check.
I voted at last opportunity - check.

I am surrounded by peeps who have no clue as to what
else beyond the above is expected, entertaining
themselves, struggling to maintain some sanity and for
many, raising children or otherwise contributing to
their family.  Civic duty?  I think a street level
survey would elicit a lot of blank stares, and for good
reason.

This is a product of the dominant culture.  As such,
whether by thoughtful conspiring decisions of a star
chamber cabal or more organically as a result of the
ongoing machinations of the economy, it is for all
intents and purposes BY DESIGN.

The machinations of the economy is certainly by design. 
So too the evolution of those machinations.  Big media
certainly makes a lot of money dumbing us down and
teasing our base desires.  Big Pharma is happy to
overlook cause, dismiss prevention, and sell us as many
pills a month as they can concoct new diseases for.  Big
Oil - I don’t have to talk about Big Oil do I?  And
serving all this Bigs, BigGov.

I watch children growing up entirely absorbed in the BS
of pop culture, doing what they are told, being trained
to conform.  Teens and 20 somethings who believe that
Life is a Party, because that is what their culture has
told them.  Manipulation of wants and desires, never
ending.  We live under a barrage.

If I have to confront a young person who wants to know
why the animals are dying, the seas are dying, the
planet is heating up…  why our economy warehouses old
people, demands greater and greater time sacrifice,
determines that paying monthly rather than doing it
yourself is the appropriate way to raise children,
treats the symptoms but not the problems, economically
displaces millions of brown people whenever they are
found to be living on top of something the economy
wants…

Well I’m better educated now.  I can tell that young
person that it is the fault of the citizen.  It is their
fault.  Because they don’t understand their “civic
duty”. 

Thanks for the Laff.

Report this

By Fibonacci65, October 21, 2011 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

I’m pleased that other Canadians are concerned about our healthcare system—and more than pleased at the anti-Harper words (he must go), but I do want to point out the reality between national health care and private for-profit health non-care in the US.  My sister has a US policy worth $3,500 per month, but still has co-pays, etc.  She had a successful partial lung removal last year, is still well, thank god BUT was tossed out of hospital after 3 days with lousy pain management and wept in pain for several more days at home—with no care, no respiration or physio-therapy.  In Canada a friend undergoes identical operation—she has 5 or more days as needed in hospital, with excellent pain meds (we don’t panic about drugs as much) and weeks of therapy—all for taxes she pays.  Americans are patsies is what it comes down to and Canadians better watch out—look at what the idiot Tories are doing to England’s NHS.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 21, 2011 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

The psychology of hatred has ascended to the social emotion du jour and
Lafayette’s acute observations keenly addresses the condition into which the deleterious character US politics has descended.

Civic duty is defined as the social force that binds one to courses of action demanded by that social force, meaning it is what the society says it is, just as are its morals and crimes; John D.Rockefeller, Jr. declared “we must instill a sense of duty in our children”; “every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.”  Seems right. 

But what exactly are the responsibilities of a citizen is not something that is regular conversation fare at the dinner table.  Well, the fact is there is no longer a conventional dinner table and kids have six and seven parents, adopted parents, step-parents, and surrogate parents of one type or another these days and the philosophy of civic duty is a very fluid concept.  What is civic duty according to a conservative, a liberal, an anarchist, a libertarian, or an indifferent.  These five are exactly what children are taught one way or another during the day. Since there is no solid ground on which to base what is civic duty or responsibility, then children are left to the vagaries of whoever it is that assumes their rearing, whatever that might mean.

So where will the public learn a coherent idea of civic duty?  Schools?  You would think but there are forces who would deny objective and comprehensive education.  Certainly not self-serving churches who intrude on civic operations.  Only confusion rules the collective minds of the citizenry.

Report this

By mikehell, October 21, 2011 at 5:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a piece of crap hit piece this is. Couldn’t even read past the first page. Maybe Robert Scheer and this author can duke it out?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/let_them_eat_keller_20111020/?ln

Report this

By Fearless, October 21, 2011 at 4:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A lot of people are becoming libertarian after witnessing the obvious over the past 10+ years: that our government cannot be trusted with power, particularly the powers it has granted itself (and its corporate funders) with no Constitutional basis whatsoever.

Admittedly, I know a few self-proclaimed libertarians with the “I’ve got mine” attitude. And I’d guess a lot of Tea Partiers fall into this group. Ron Paul, however, does not. We all have different ideas on how our society should function. Within each philosophy you’ll have “assholes” and “decent people.”

Even with a non-septic government, and constitutional authority, the issue of universal healthcare should moot. We simply can’t afford it. First things first, let’s figure out how to cut the $400 billion in military (defense not included) spending each year and make a sustainable economic recovery so Americans can afford to pay taxes. Then talk about universal healthcare.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 21, 2011 at 2:51 am Link to this comment

@ Lafayette
Apparently, not only Canadians are smarter, since “we” rank below thirty other countries.

Spending a few trillion less on genociding and colonizing the 3rd world, and more on civilized, international deportment, would help.  However, the historical pattern, of the tail wagging the dog, is a well-established habit that usually does not change swiftly. In the U.S., especially.

Report this

By freedom, October 21, 2011 at 2:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@mrfreeze: It is most likley you hav’nt a clue what a libertarian is. A libertairian believes that you are entitled to the fruits of your labor and are against income tax. Libertarians believe every individual has the right to personal freedom, to do whatever they want so long as not to impose their ways on anybody else. They believe if you get into any war it should always be declared. They are not against socialized medicen, but only if it is iposed by the state and not the federal gov’t. They are in favor of competing currencey and sound money. They are mostly about personal freedom for every individual and are willing to die for freedom. After all George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were libertarians, are you saying you wouldn’t want them habing your back at a bar fight?

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 20, 2011 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

THE US VERSUS THE CIVILIZED WORLD

Writing from Europe, it behooves me to point out to those interested this description of how Health Care systems here - here.

This development, European-wide, did not happen overnight - but it was prompted by like minded people who became attached to progressive principals of a Social Democracy.

Note also that in the World Health Organization study mentioned in the article of world-wide systems, not shown, was that the US scored 36th. Why?

Because the scoring gave very heavy weighting to the ability of its citizens to access health-care.

It was on this criteria that the US scored so badly since, at the time, 16% of Americans had no health-care insurance. These are the people who throw themselves upon the mercy of ER facilities in hospitals - when, in too many cases, it is already much to late for remedial help.

The damage has been done by inattention to the illness much earlier in its development.

OBAMACARE

ObamaCare attempted first to install a prototype National Public Health Care option that the Congressional Replicants refused adamantly to consider. Then, the administration managed to get health care insurance as mandatory - and is now defending that requirement before state courts (headed by Repub governors).

The adamancy of the troglodyte Right-wing in the matter of Private Health Care, and its profits-spinning operations, is as strong as ever.

And who suffers the consequences mostly? Jack ‘n Jill America, where an Obesity Pandemic
is wreaking havoc upon our population.

POST SCRIPTUM

If truly interested in following this subject-thread, following the link given above, click on Universal Health Care to understand how it is delivered in various nations. Give particular attention to that of Canada.

Why Canada and not the US? Because they are smarter than we are about it ...

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 20, 2011 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment

CIVIC DUTY

The T-Party (T for Troglodyte) is being shown for what it always has been - a group of marginals with mental disturbances leashed upon the body politic by means of people like the Koch brothers.

Now do we understand how 48% of American voters in the mid-terms could elect these Neanderthals to the Congress because of our own political apathy?

It’s whose fault? Ours, theirs, the Koch brothers and their kind?

Ours, I say. We get the sort of Congress we deserve if we do not have the slightest sense of Civic Duty.

Report this

By Matt Emmons, October 20, 2011 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Helen Redmond’s criticism of Paul’s service in government shows how little she understands his philosophy. He is both a democrat and a republican, in the traditional American sense of those terms. He fervently believes in a representative democracy, and has served honorably and consistently for many years, despite the best efforts of the leadership of his own (very corrupt) party. I would love to see a national health care system, but to demonize Paul, and to misrepresent his positions in a straw man argument, is not helpful. He is actually the only candidate, including Obama, who deserves a careful consideration, given the thoughtfulness and constancy of his positions.

Report this

By ardee, October 20, 2011 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, October 20 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

So, do y’all party-politics types think it would save the system to restrict payments (direct or indirect) to candidates, politicians and officials?  It would require a Constitutional amendment in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech includes bought speech.

Yes, I absolutely believe that free elections, with the media obligated to run ads and debates for all legitimate candidates would indeed save the system. It is certainly no accident that a Senate race costs a candidate around ten million dollars currently and the race for the White House will see an estimated one billion per candidate. Keeps the politicians subservient to the check writers.

Admittedly our current Supreme Court would probably block such a step but I remain unconvinced that this would be necessary to take to that Court. I also remain unconvinced that we can bring this sort of free election to fruition with only two parties in Congress. Another reason to vote and help build the Green Party.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 20, 2011 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

So, do y’all party-politics types think it would save the system to restrict payments (direct or indirect) to candidates, politicians and officials?  It would require a Constitutional amendment in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech includes bought speech.

Report this

By ron paul, October 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another foul attempt to skew the truth about Ron Paul?

Can’t say I’m surprised, its getting old.

If you can’t even bother to research the guy then why are you writing an article about him?

If you had, you would know that he takes only a base salary for his congressional work, refuses to take pension/benefit money and gives any bonuses to the US treasury.

Also you forgot to mention that as president he would CUT HIS OWN SALARY from $400,000.- down to $39,000.-


Health care in the USA is more expensive that in most countries around the globe. Ever wonder why? Because government, health care providers and pharmaceutical companies are all in cahoots working to rip you off as much as possible.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, October 20, 2011 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Try and understand….health insurance has nothing to offer…because in order to make
exorbitant profits the have destroyed medicine…

They have put millions of medical professionals out of business, to the point where you
can’t find one to see you, and even if you do it may take months to get in…

So what to do, go to the ER…for help, and that’s what hour insurance company will tell
you to do because in many instances they can’t find anyone for you to see either.

Lying about their infrastructure is a game to them, and with huge profits they can easily
absorb state fines, if the get caught. Now they are moving their infrastructure overseas..

Report this

By ardee, October 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

“    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.    ”

I wonder how to define that which I emboldened?

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have gone against the desire of the public for Single Payer, and their candidates keep getting reelected to Congress and the Presidency.  Ergo, no Single Payer.  No use blaming a bunch of outliers like the Tea Party or Ron Paul.  ‘The story is about you.’

The blame, Anarcissie, lies with a system that allows politicians to be enslaved by corporate funding for elections. A major reason we have an uphill climb towards single payer, and the reason we as a nation are ranked 37th in the providing of said care, is the huge sums the Health Care Industry pours into the coffers of both parties.

Health care is a trillion dollar industry and those within it are determined to keep it that way. I have mentioned my recent hip replacement surgery before, but in today’s mail I received a number of forms from my provider. Among them I found the total expenditure for my procedure and rehabilitation; a shocking $186,835.33! That I have, to date, paid a total of $150 dollars only means that I am very fortunate to have such complete coverage from my employer. There are 50 million or so not as lucky and having no health insurance whatsoever.

Yes ma’am, the burden of this horribly exclusive and horribly expensive system does indeed lie with the voter. But to fail to admit that we the people are trapped, to a large extent, in a system which has been corrupted over time while we slept is to alienate when we need desperately to come together.

I will continue to register and vote Green Party, and I will continue to suggest that everyone take a long hard look at their platform prior to casting ones own ballot.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

Among the Democrats, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel were unambiguously against war and empire (or so they said).  None of them ever got out of the single digits in polls or percentage of delegates.  I believe they were all at least nominally favorable to Single Payer or Public Option, too.  So what were the Democrats voting for, or favoring?  Beats me.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

Chiming in as a Canuck from north of the ‘49th…

Our ‘Universal’, ‘single-payer’ system is, by all
accounts superior to the nightmare that is national
health policy south of the 49th.  You get any health
economist to come forward and state the facts,
documented time and again in study after study, single
payer is by far the most economical way to provide care. 
Carve out the profit taking middle-men and things get
cheaper - Duh!

That said, our system is under attack by the same right
wing proponents arguing in favor of higher private
profits.  Personal rights and responsibilities are straw
men, but those arguments don’t come to the fore so much
up here.  What we hear about all the time is about the
flaws and problems with our system, and the promise that
private capital can address them.  Certainly, for those
that have the wealth, access to private care would be a
superior situation on either side of the border.  As it
is our rich zip down to the US (or India even!) for care
as required, all the time.

The fact is that Reagan wasn’t an influence unique to
the US, nor was Thatcher unique to Britain.  The
neocon/lib doctrines were a disease that recognised no
national boundaries.  Here in Canada they’ve been
cutting programs in the name of lowering taxes (still
waiting for my boat to rise with the tide) for many many
years.  The promises are hollow and hopefully OWS
represents peeps finally waking up to this fact.  In the
meantime the flag wavers for privatisation point to the
problems and gaps in the system, largely created and
worsened to due continuous cutbacks, as evidence that
private capital and/or public private partnerships
should be called upon to save the day. 

The NHS (National Health Service) in Britain is an
example of an in-between system, partially privatised. 
If you’re poor, you’re better off getting sick in London
than in NewYork, but you’re even better off in Canada
still, thank dog.  That said, you’d be even better of in
a nordic country, or France, or Germany.

Phuck You Stephen Harper.

(the idiot is following 20yr old US policy advise on
prison reform, despite many Repubs from Texas having
seen the light to some extent and advising us not to go
down that road; he’s a pretty determined policy wonk as
it turns out)

Report this

By Big C, October 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m left with the feeling that this article is rank
with equivocation.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, October 20, 2011 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

Crustrim- Typical libertarian….....

1) Libertarians are just Republicans who like to smoke dope.
2) Libertarians are the Neanderthals who, after the cities, infrastructures and all the other good things have been built and cultivated by everyone else, get pissed-off when they’re asked to contribute to the good of the tribe.
3) Libertarians are the jerks who show up at your pot luck, eat like pigs and don’t even bother to bring an appetizer.
4) Libertarians (just like most selfish brats) confuse their “talent and genius” with luck.
5) Libertarians are the kind of people I wouldn’t want watching my back during a good bar fight.

There are plenty of other dismal, ugly places in the world that could use the values and principles of libertarianism…....the U.S. isn’t one of them.

Report this

By gerard, October 20, 2011 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

The worst epidemic in history has hit this country.  Contagious mental and physical pain and suffering have spread from coast to coast—a disease called economic injustice, meaning vast differences in the availability of food, clothing and shelter.
  Until recently the disease has remained more or less incipient in the U.S., with only occasional and limited outbursts of epidemic proportions which, treated with half-measures and tinkering, temporarily cause the disease to subside, only to re-emerge later.The situation is worse now because the disease has spread internationally and has become unbearably painful.
  The germs of economic injustice, once having attacked a political system, are hard to eliminate or control because a majority of people fear change of any kind, their own personal existence being perilous at best. Thus, whether the offending bacilli are called “capitalistic” or “authori- tarian”, “greed” or “irresponsibility”, once having taken root in the body politic, they tend to multiply. Too often they are ignored in favor of doing nothing.
  People supporting the system insist that “there are not enough doctors” or “it’s too expensive” or “there’s no cure” or “it’s not my fault if you are suffering.”  The end result is political and intellectual chaos and death.
  As is the case with all disease, the cure is to eliminate the cause. Getting control over these epidemics requires passing laws that discourage and/or eliminate the spread of economic injustice and vast differences between a few rich elites and huge majorities who live lives of hopeless desperation.  So, speaking of universal health care, what else is new?

Report this
Robespierre115's avatar

By Robespierre115, October 20, 2011 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul makes some sense when it comes to ending the wars, non-interventionism in other countries’ affairs…but the truth is he would have us all live in some Ayn Rand nightmare.

Report this

By CrustyRim, October 20, 2011 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you believe in a National Healthcare System, Ron
Paul is not your candidate. At the same time Ron Paul
wants to bring every troop home from every corner of
this planet, and end the wars. This is will save us
Trillions of dollars. Ask Obama, Romney, will they
continue to kill our own youth, fighting a war that is
making companies rich and growing hatred for the United
States? Where is the Lefts version of this? Ron Paul is
the only candidate saying this, and he is the only
candidate I will vote for. -Former Raging Liberal
Turned Libertarian.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 20, 2011 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Okay, but what does this have to do with the Tea Party?  Both the Republican and Democratic parties have gone against the desire of the public for Single Payer, and their candidates keep getting reelected to Congress and the Presidency.  Ergo, no Single Payer.  No use blaming a bunch of outliers like the Tea Party or Ron Paul.  ‘The story is about you.’

Report this

By Carl Quinlan, October 20, 2011 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

True about the healthcare perks our “public servants” receive. And I remember reading about a member of the Supreme Court who, during a “routine full body scan” discovered she had a pancreatic tumor. Fortunately, it was early stage, and removed.

I’d like to see what would happen if I visited my GP and asked for a routine full body scan, just to make sure I don’t have any early-stage tumors. And I’d like to see what my insurance carrier would say.

Report this
 
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.