Health Care Sham: “Is This The Best We Can Do?”

October 29, 2009

Headlined as “History In The Making” and “Historic: House Releases Health Care Bill,” Ryan Grim promoted a tone of celebration – as if we should be overlooking facts/fates – and rejoicing: “The ceremony . . . marks the greatest progress toward the Democratic Party’s top domestic priority goal in more than half a century.”  How much more insult are we to endure – even from our (supposedly) progressive (and objective) press/media?  As written previously, we went “from Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option (‘Opt-Out’) to a ‘Trigger’” (still not enough for the likes of Sen. “Money Talks” Lieberman).  Once the final combined bills are stripped further – in order to placate a minority –  there will be nothing “robust” left of what the (True) majority wished, fought, and voted for.  Under the guise of needing 60 votes (with spines, 51 votes would have sufficed), we have been “bamboozled.”  (Remember Obama using that term last year?)  This constant watering-down has already set us up for realizing “the cost of health care” as  “increasing” – in direct opposition to what would have resulted from a Single-Payer focus.  Consequently, the “Affordable” reference in the “Health Care for America Act” is just as Orwellian as the “Freedom” in McCain’s “Internet Act.”  Does this sham of “reform,” which mainly just mandates us into private insurers’ hands, really equal “the greatest progress” that could have been made?  No.  But, the answer as to why is explicit in another HuffPost title from today: “Big Pharma Ready For ‘Hand To Hand Combat’ To Defend White House Deal.”

Congressman Kucinich: Is This the Best We Can Do?

“Is this the best we can do?  Forcing people to buy private health    insurance, guaranteeing at least $50 billion in new business for the insurance companies?

“Is this the best we can do?  Government negotiates rates which will drive up insurance costs, but the government won’t negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies which will drive up pharmaceutical costs.

“Is this the best we can do?  Only 3% of Americans will go to a new public plan, while currently 33% of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured?

“Is this the best we can do?  Eliminating the state single payer option, while forcing most people to buy private insurance.

“If this is the best we can do, then our best isn’t good enough and we have to ask some hard questions about our political system: such as Health Care or Insurance Care?  Government of the people or a government of the corporations.”

Bookmark and Share


Re: Health Care Bill May Cut Employer Mandate

October 26, 2009

Again, health insurance will become a requirement – by mandate.  At this point, will it be a requirement for the government to Provide coverage?  No.  Employers (big business)?  No.  Yet, for individuals, they must soon Provide for themselves (bootstraps) – you know, like in “personal responsibility,” just like they have since the corporate bailout, eight years of rampant Enronesque collusion, and more than a quarter-century of deregulation via the setup of Reagonomics.  Yes, “It would expand coverage to millions who lack it. . . .”  However, that expansion is coming – by force – and, will be based on mandatory spending (up to 8%) of income toward a policy – sold by Private insurers (a new major tax – especially on those making under $250,000, and an endless cycle of the same abuse these “providers” are known for: Rape is a pre-existing condition.  Your baby is overweight/underweight, so, your policy is canceled.  Your cancer treatment, or liver transplant, or brain surgery, etc., is too expensive, so, we’ve decided to no longer cover those procedures in your state.  Further, once we have 50 million new customers, we are going to raise rates by more than 100% – because there will be no article against it).  If there is a Public Option, “states would be permitted to drop out. . . .”  Won’t that be wonderful for people who are at the mercy of Governors like Rick Perry, who serve their corporate masters’ vulturous ideology?  “Feingold: No Public Option A ‘Strong Reason’ Not To Support Reform.”  Exactly.  Step by step: From Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option (“Opt-Out”) to a “Trigger.”  This was planned, from the beginning.  “It’s just politics” – without morals or souls.  The president sold us out, from day one (just like in other areas).  He is not a Progressive, though he promoted himself as one.  In fact, he is closer to the obstructionist republicans than those blue dogs.  While witnessing a national con job, we must now prepare for those second and third jobs.

Bookmark and Share


Re: Obama Not Demanding Public Option

October 19, 2009

Re: Obama Not Demanding Public Option

A New York Times editorial, “The Public Plan, Continued,” stated that “All versions of the legislation would require these people to spend specified percentages of their income toward the premium and a government tax credit would then pay the rest.”  Let us correlate these facts with previous assertions: “White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said . . . that President Obama would be unwilling to sign a health care bill that raised taxes on those making under $250,000.  But Gibbs would not draw a similar line in the sand when it came a bill that lacked a public insurance option.  ‘The president … believes we should have choice and competition for people entering the private insurance market. . . .’”  As written earlier, for people below the median income who do not currently have coverage, being “Mandated” into buying an insurance policy without a 100% subsidy – and, basing the difference on forced spending of 10% or more of income – it will be the same as having their Taxes Raised, considerably.  During these times, where 10% of the population is unemployed, and wages along with hours are getting slashed, how many of us would be drastically affected by a new requirement (do it or get fined) that we spend 10% of income on a bill we did not have before?  Consider the FICA tax rate: 7.65% (1.45% = Medicare) for employees and 15.30% for the self-employed.  Along with the upcoming “Mandate” to buy policies from (as of now) Private insurers, wouldn’t it only be logical to add 10% to each of the latter figures – since we will have to spend that much of our income before receiving any subsidies?  As a result, might citizens react in outrage at new required “deductions” from earnings of 17.65% and 25.30% – as if the promise of no new taxes for those making less than $250,000 was a blatant lie?  Final questions: The Social Security portion maxes out at $106,800 of earnings.  Does that mean a Health Care CEO grossing $10 million has the same SS tax weight as one grossing $106,800?  If so, wouldn’t the scenario be as repulsive as it is regressive?  Also, remember speeches promoting a changing of those terms as a means to solve so many disparities and shortfalls?  Of course.  But, that was before millions had a realization of getting “punked.”  “Without (at least) a Public Option, there will be No Choice or Competition (and the insurance companies will have the biggest ongoing celebration they ever imagined).”  Again, “With these types of ‘solutions,’ one could swear to God that we are the middle of the last administration (and former majority).”

Bookmark and Share


McCain/Palin: Cold, Political Calculations & Winning Combinations

October 11, 2009

McCain/Palin: Cold, Political Calculations and Winning Combinations

McCain (October of 2008):
“As a cold, political calculation, I could not be more pleased.”

Bookmark and Share


Re: Conservative Bible Project

October 5, 2009

Conservative Bible Project Cuts Out Liberal Passages: “As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible. . . .”  (“Liberals will oppose this effort. . . .”)  “[T]he insane hubris of this really staggers the mind.  These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture?”

Bookmark and Share