August 17, 2009
Okay, I cracked - My .02 on Healthcare
.
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Dr. Adrian Rogers
This quote, now being bandied about virally through the right-wing haunts of Blogovia, represents what I see as typically disingenuous conservative talking points. Full disclosure – I am, as some 12-steppers might characterize, a “recovering” conservative. I have shifted (or more accurately come full circle) to a belief that government is a tool that, when wielded properly, is very effective for tasks that cannot and should not be done for profit. Am I naive in thinking that healthcare should not be done for profit? It turns out a huge chunk, if not a majority, of healthcare professionals agree with this.
Taxpayers already pay for the healthcare of people who are uninsured. If someone without insurance goes to the ER and cannot afford to pay for treatment, then the hospital gets tax money to offset the costs. We partially pay for most hospitals in this country through public funds. If we didn’t do so these hospitals would go bankrupt, and then the next time you or a loved one needs emergency treatment, it had better not require experts, extensive facilities or after-hours care.
We also pay for a number of things for the common good already. Our property taxes help pay for schools, but do we all have kids? I’m sure you get that an illiterate, poorly-socialized mob of kids who can’t get jobs is bad for you specifically, as well as the country at large, not to mention horrible for the kids. We help pay for police and fire service, but few of us ever need to be rescued by a firefighter. Your actual chances of having life or property saved by these services are pretty dang slim, yet conservatives don’t object to this form of socialism (we can all bitch about the taxes). Military, too - we haven’t had a bona fide military attack on our soil since the War of 1812, so the common good is well served through the provision of the common defense (exponentially - we spend more on our military than the rest of the planet combined. I wonder where we could reallocate some of those billions?). Oh, and the above mentioned things have been done successfully for quite some time in a nonprofit capacity.
With our current healthcare system we also pay in ways that are harder to calculate - lost productivity, inefficiency, etc. It is no good for the common good to have a large pool of unhealthy people who only seek medical care when it’s an emergency, work when they are sick with god-knows-what, get no follow-up care, etc. This creates a standing reservoir of disease. How would you like to see TB come back (it’s making a valiant effort)? It also creates an easy vector for some god-awful strain of the flu, or any other pandemic bug, to rip through this country. A healthy society will always benefit society at large. The minority groups who may not derive benefit from this are small and often have ulterior motives that are counter to the common good (*cough* folks sponsoring anti-healthcare reform rallies).
And characterizing the people who can’t afford health care as ‘lazy’ is the worst kind of derogatory nonsense. Millions of people in this country work jobs that provide no benefits, and unfortunately these jobs rarely pay enough for the employee to afford the exorbitant health insurance premiums of an individual policy. Millions of middle class families with both parents working cannot afford $1,600 per month in premiums, not to mention costs for visits, referrals, tests, prescriptions and procedures not covered. Laziness has nothing to do with it for the overwhelming majority of un- or underinsured people in this country. I believe conservatives either know this and have contempt for people who do necessary jobs that simply don’t pay enough, or they are truly ignorant of this state of affairs. In either case I urge them to read widely, challenge their assumptions, go outside their comfort zone, meet people outside their socio-economic niche, travel, etc. Good news - most of these things can be done easily (and cheaply) on the Internet.
It is easier for me to trust people than entities whose sole aim is to gain as much short-term profit for themselves as possible, and which view all else as obstacles, sometimes including the law. If I had to sum up the progressive ideal, I would say this: Progressives seek to do the greatest good for the greatest number while doing the least harm to the least number of people, using any tools that do not contradict the first part and do not abridge individual rights. Yes, the common good is always tricky, always a dynamically-maintained balance that will change over time. There will always be disagreements, abuses and people who are harmed by measures taken to implement it. The trick is to, again, do the most good for the most people. These town hall decriers of healthcare reform being a “systematic dismantling of the American way of life” are just blowing bogus talking points based on fear.
By the way, the late Dr. Adrian Rogers was a Baptist minister from Memphis, TN and is also attributed with this quote:
I can't say that his statement isn't 100 percent true."I feel slavery is a much maligned institution. If we had slavery today we would not have such a welfare problem."
Labels: analysis, facts, healthcare, irony, Lies and Lying Liars, politix, rants
July 01, 2008
2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President – A Response
.
I assume from the cleverly dated heading below that this badly written piece of wingnut fantasy has been mucking up the InnerTubes for at least a couple of weeks. A friend’s client, crossing a line in true rabid wannabe extremist fashion, sent it and she forwarded it for my reaction (it is thus).
Welcome to Toastmasters,
That's right: 2033.
Yeesh, we've got Judge Smales at the Bushwood Country Club narrating
Today Rick Campbell, one of our senior members at age 87, is here to reminisce a bit and give us a history lesson. He says he is so old that he learned to drive an internal combustion engine car (remember those?) with a manual transmission. He once owned a typewriter. He remembers when bicycles had one speed, phones had two-party lines, and cameras had something called film. As incredible as this may seem, he says that when he was young, it was common for people to smoke in restaurants and public places. He is from a different time; almost a different world. Gee, our old
I'm sure all of us are familiar with the tragic events of 2010, so Rick is not going to plow that fertile field again. Instead, he is going to give us a personal look back at the conditions which led up to that fateful year, in a speech titled "2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President."
"2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President"… Okay, got it.
Yes, 2010 was long ago and far away. As we look back on history, it appears that some Presidents had an easy ride; times of growth and stability. Teddy Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding and Dwight Eisenhower come to mind. Those were good years to be President. I can't believe you passed on the Bill Clinton "easy ride" pun, dude.
Others were elected just when the country was facing terrible crises: Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush. They rose to the occasion, even though they were controversial and widely hated while in office. Not such good years to be President. FDR? Perhaps intensely hated by the wealthy but very popular otherwise. And just what crisis was Bush facing when he was elected? The dot.com bubble bursting? Oooohh...
Just prior to 2010, in 2008 yahey, the country began foundering. Began? We were in the sixth year of the Iraqi Occupation excellent choice of words, mon ami and the economy was flat. The mainstream press clearly wanted a Democrat elected. Pffft! What about the PEOPLE?
Although we didn't know it until some years later, oil producing nations had colluded to secretly buy their own oil on the open market, driving oil prices to shocking levels above the true demand price - reaching a high of $162 a barrel in October, 2008, just before the general elections.
Their purpose was simple: to effect a regime change in the
Against this backdrop of weariness of the war on terror, and economic distress, the American people were ripe for a demagogue, and they certainly got one in Barack Hussein Obama. He and his running mate, Kathlene Sebelius, inspired them with vague notions of hope and change; of a world in which diplomacy settled all international problems, of free universal health care, of abundant alternative energy, of peace and love. It was a vision too good to resist. "Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keeps the law is happy." Proverbs 29:18 (great sport, whipping some bible out on the wingnuts)
The Republican nominee was a name you probably haven't heard in years: Anyone? Yes, it was John McCain, a Senator from Arizona who had no clue how to run a presidential campaign, Um, seems he did pretty well with that comeback in the primaries and with a platform nearly as liberal as Obama's. Stop it, you're hurting me!
The selection of former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, as his running mate looked brilliant at first. Puleeze Unfortunately, black voters viewed her as white, and women voters viewed her as one of the establishment guys. How could this be?!!
Even so, the McCain/Rice ticket would have won the election if it weren't for the fact that 16 percent of conservatives (mostly Republicans) voted for: (Anyone remember? 2000? Anyone?) That's right, Bob Barr, another name that's a footnote in history... for having the temerity to eschew a lockstep with the two-party system, especially that liberal platform that McCain was touting.
After Obama's narrow win, thanks to four recounts in
When Congress convened in January, 2009, the 44th President of the
The following three paragraphs are conjecture and bullshit of the mightiest stink - half of it isn't even on Obama's plate and the other half is so off-base it’s laughable.
In Obama's first One Hundred Days, the Congress passed his initiatives; and he signed them into law as he said he would. He repealed the Bush tax cuts, and doubled the capital gains taxes. He enacted a windfall profits tax, and instituted price controls on gasoline and diesel fuel. He passed universal health care, which added an additional 10 percent income tax increase on all working Americans. He signed the Immigrant Amnesty bill which created 12 million new citizens instantly, each with entitlements.
He closed the terrorist detention facility at
He ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [reminiscent of prior presidents LBJ and Carter and Bush II] who wanted to retain bases in
Instead, he went with the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Dennis Kucinich, and ordered all troops back to
Viola! In One Hundred Days, by May of 2009, it was all done, and the initial vision was completed. He did exactly what he said he would do. And so it was in the summer of 2009 that things began to unravel for Obama. Of course, the economy needed a tax cut, not an increase, and unemployment quickly rose to 12 percent. Even attorneys and economists were put in the bread lines. Hard times ensued.
Price controls on gasoline immediately led to shortages and gas lines. The global cooling trend we have seen for the past 25 years first became obvious in 2009, exposing the CO2 global warming fraud. People were justifiably angry. ["See, I told you so," I said, crack pipe still warm in my hand.]
Federal deficits increased massively because thousands of baby boomers whoa, thousands, eh? This guy is certainly no economist (but I'd be glad to see him on a bread line), facing job loss and much higher taxes, simply gave up and took their social security.
The once superb
By February 2010, the
Hold on to your seats, kids. More blatant Fear Mongering coming right up! (Cue patriotic music...)
It was a very expensive undertaking. One month later in March, the gradual Shiite insurgencies from
So there was some surprise by the Administration at the rocket attacks on Tel Aviv on August 14th. President Obama said, "This is not the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew." The Obama Administration decided it would be de-stabilizing to take sides in the conflict, and approximately 29,000 Israeli civilians died during that summer and fall.
American Jews were appalled at the inaction. Yes, in 2010 most American Jews were still Democrats; but because of 2010, they are solid Republicans today, [obediently accepting their lot to be slaughtered like goats at Armageddon.]
As awkward as it was, everything might have turned out all right for the Obama Administration going into the fall mid-term elections of 2010, if it hadn't been for the dirty bomb explosion in the
And so, in the midterm elections, conservative Republicans regained control of both the House and Senate, and the rest is history. Considering the previous 1,431 words we can only hope so
The impeachment proceedings against President Obama for "failure to protect and defend" were swift and nearly unanimous. Once again, the GOP shows the Dems how to git 'er done! Vice President Sibelius resigned. Newly-elected Speaker of the House, J.C. Watts, became the 45th President of the
But you know the rest of the story well. Elected conservatives finished the war on Islamic fundamentalists, largely by aiming ICBM's at
Conservatives have held both Houses of Congress. Correct history of Western Civilization and Economics are now taught in all public schools, and in English only. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. And there are border fences, north and south Marvelous - our transformation into a continental version of
We old codgers remember the ancient Confucian curse: "May you live in interesting times." Well, 2010 was an interesting year, but it was not a good year to be President.
Same as 2008, where certain morons think that a fantastic, simplistic reiteration of a "speech" given 25 years from now creatively and accurately provides insight to where America is/ought to be heading.
This kind of shit is what tends to make me disappointed in Obama's "hands across the aisle/purple state
For You, “Rick”:
.
Labels: analysis, Assholery squared, Bush, fiction, humour, Kucinich, Lies and Lying Liars, Obama, politix
March 26, 2008
McBush
"In remembrance of the 4,000 brave men and women who sacrificed everything for us -and the two men who would continue this great tragedy, despite the cost to our soldiers, our military, and our nation. "
- Nico Pitney at Huffington Post
Senator John McCain looks to be the Republican Party's nominee for president, so in the interest of helping undecided voters who may be considering a pull for the GOP this November, let’s examine some facts* about the Senator’s record on the Iraq war. While McCain has presented himself as a maverick and a critic of the war, a close read shows that his position has consistently matched that of the Bush administration.
Before The War:
McCain said that a policy of containing
“I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN,
McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization that gave President George W. Bush the green light - and a blank check - for going to war with
McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war—repeatedly saying it would be over soon. “But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC,
McCain argued Saddam was “a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make
McCain echoed Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s rationale for going to war. McCain: “It’s going to send the message throughout the
During The War:
McCain echoed Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s talking points that the
McCain praised Bush’s leadership on the war. McCain: “I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he’s done a great job leading the country...” [MSNBC, Hardball,
McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in
McCain defended Bush’s rationale for war. Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, “I don’t think so.” [Fox News,
McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld two weeks after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke in April 2004. Asked if Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: “Yes, today I do and I believe he’s done a fine job. He’s an honorable man.” [Hannity and Colmes,
McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War - voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in
“The terrorists know that this is a very critical time.” [CNN,
“Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in
“We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.” [NBC, Meet the Press,
McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.
McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in
McCain was one of only 13 senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [Vote #98,
McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, repeatedly voting against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq [Vote # 322, 11/15/05; Vote #182, 6/22/06; Vote #181, 6/22/06; Vote #182, 6/22/06; Vote #182, 6/22/06; Vote #252, 7/18/07; Vote #345, 9/21/07; Vote #346, 9/21/07; Vote # 362, 10/3/07; Vote # 437, 12/18/07; Vote #438, 12/18/07]
McCain called proponents of a congressional resolution opposing the troop surge in
McCain has consistently demonized Americans who want to find a responsible way to remove troops from
“I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender.” [Charlotte Observer,
McCain continues to maintain that the occupation of
McCain has been President Bush’s most ardent Senate supporter on
Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure McCain said, “It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it’s clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them.” [Republican Debate,
The Future:
McCain now says he sees no end to the presence of
“Make it a hundred” years in
“A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government.” [Associated Press,
So please, fence-sitters, don't be responsible for bringing four more years of this nightmare to bear. A hat tip to Archer for the link to the mosaic.
Labels: analysis, Bush, dead bodies, John McCain, Lies and Lying Liars, terms of enragement, violence inherent in the system, war
December 21, 2007
The town cryer from hell
Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
The Federal Communications Commission passed new media ownership rules by a three to two Bushco party-line vote this week. This opens the door for fewer and bigger media companies to decide what Americans see, hear and read in the news as the big fish can more easily swallow up local news outlets. The FCC did this despite a HUGE public outcry - in the required public comment period, 99 percent of the respondents opposed media consolidation! This is because they realize that fewer outlets in the media mean less honest oversight of the news, and more bias because of the pressure of large corporate interests and the emphasis on the bottom line over truth and accuracy.
Just a few examples pointed out by Norman Solomon of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:
* ABC, owned by Disney, doesn’t disclose in their relevant news reports about Disney’s stake in sweatshops.
* Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, owned by the same entity - Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp - don’t disclose that the ownership is entangled with the Chinese government to the detriment of human rights but to the advancement of the profit margin of the parent company.
* CNN has a huge multi-BILLION dollar stake in Internet deregulation, and the failure of the Congress to safeguard so far what is generally known as "Net Neutrality." So every time CNN does a news report on the Internet, on efforts to regulate or deregulate or create a two or three-tier system of the Internet, CNN News should disclose that Time Warner, the parent company, stands to gain or lose billions of dollars in those terms.
* Chevron is a funder of key news programming on PBS. They were an underwriter of "Washington Week" last year, and now the massive energy firm currently funnels big bucks to the most influential show on PBS, the nightly "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer."
* The corporate funders of the "NewsHour" now include not only Chevron but also AT&T and Pacific Life. There must be dozens of journalistic reports on the program every week - whether relevant to the business worlds of energy, communications or insurance - that warrant, and lack, real-time disclosures while the news accounts are on the air. Meanwhile, over at "Washington Week," the corporate cash now flows in from the huge military contractor Boeing and the National Mining Association.
* And that’s just "public broadcasting." On avowedly commercial networks, awash in corporate ownership interests and advertising revenues, a thorough policy of disclosure in the course of news coverage would require that most of the airtime be devoted to shedding light on the media outlet conflicts-of-interest of the reporting in progress.
And then there's Solomon's exchange with Glenn Beck, CNN's pinnacle of integrity, who had invited Solomon on his show to point the finger at NBC for its conflicting interests in news reporting that affects its parent company General Electric:
Solomon: A major advertiser for CNN is the largest military contractor in the United States, Lockheed Martin. So when you and others...
Beck: I got news for you, Norman. Norman...
Solomon: ...promote war, when you and others promote war on this network...
Beck: Norman...Norman...
Solomon: ...we have Lockheed Martin paying millions of dollars undisclosed. So I would quote you...
Beck: Norman...Norman...
Solomon: "Promoting but not disclosing is a bad way to go."
Beck: Norman, let me just tell you this. First of all, Lockheed Martin is not a corporate overlord of this program.
Solomon: It’s a major advertiser on CNN.
Beck: That’s fine. That’s fine. Advertisers are different. But let...
Solomon: Well, it is fine, but it should be disclosed.
Beck: Norman, let me just tell you something. If you think that it’s warmonger central downstairs at CNN, you’re out of your mind. But that’s a different story.
Solomon: Well, upstairs, when I watch Glenn Beck, in terms of attacking Iran, it certainly is. It’s lucrative for the oil companies, as well as for the major advertiser on CNN, Lockheed Martin.
So there you have it, the facts that show you’ve got to be careful about where you’re getting your news from (especially that gawldurn LIBERAL MEDIA!). As Solomon said in closing his column, "Wouldn’t it be nice if once in a while somebody came on and said, you know, I don’t really have an agenda except the truth? It’s my truth. If you don’t like it, you should go someplace else."
As Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said in an op-ed response to the FCC vote, "The airwaves are owned by the public, not the mega media corporations. The American people deserve information from many different, independent outlets, with diverse, fair coverage from all sides of an issue, and different points of view."
The last thing our democracy needs is fewer independent media voices. Congress has the power to reverse this rule change, and if you agree that they should, let your voice be heard. Following the vote, a bipartisan group of 26 senators sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, vowing to "immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule." Please give these Senators a stronger voice by also signing this online petition.
For more on big media and net neutrality matters, checkout Freepress
.
Labels: analysis, gummint, journalism, media, politix
December 15, 2006
Happy Birthday, Bill of Rights!
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787
Today marks the 215th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. Every person in America knows it is comprised of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, some more than others. You furrners know, of course, that as the greatest country in the universe we're pretty proud of James Madison's humble little framework. Despite his advanced age, the Bill (or The Billster, as I like to call him) is still somewhat prominent today, though in a conceptual sense. As I understand, the original was destroyed after two copies were made - one by rolling a big wad of Silly Putty over the parchment, peeling it back and mounting it on the ceiling above Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's indoor pool. There it can only be read by keeping totally still and thinking pure thoughts. The other has the words - and man, there's a bunch of them - etched into granite and placed in Antonin Scalia's billiard room, where hyphenated bitch Justices with lead pipes are expressly forbidden from tinkering with it.
Anyway, Libertarian policy wonk Adam B. Summers writes in today's Orange County Register that the poor old BOR ain't what she used to be. He cites TJ himself in maintaining that among the 10 original amendments, Old No. 10 is the most important of them all, not to mention a damn good sour mash recipe.
Jefferson wrote in 1791:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: 'That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."To which Summers adds this analysis:
"The Anti-Federalists (like Jefferson) were, sadly, prescient in their criticisms of government power under the Constitution and the tendency of men and women of ambition to find ways to expand that power at the expense of the governed. The founders must be spinning in their graves. Nearly everything the government does today is unconstitutional under the system they instituted. Governmental powers were expressly limited; individual liberties were not. Now it seems it is the other way around."
What's a poor civilian to do?
.
Labels: analysis, Anti-Federalists, gummint, histoire, justice, riiiiights, TJ
