Al Franken Slams Supreme Court: “This could lead to the creation of a high-speed lane for wealthy corporations and transform the Internet from an open playing field into yet another place where powerful economic elites have a bigger megaphone than the rest of us. Some of the same people who were instrumental in the Federalist Society’s effort to change our legal system are now working to help corporations increase their control over the flow of information. If you control the flow of information, you can control the conversation. . . . If you can control the conversation, you can change this country.” (Think “Waterboarding in the Media” and “Torture Is. . . .”)
The Fate of the Internet — Decided in a Back Room: “This is what a failed democracy looks like: After years of avid public support for Net Neutrality – involving millions of people from across the political spectrum – the federal regulator quietly huddles with industry lobbyists to eliminate basic protections and serve Wall Street’s bottom line.”
Yet, Obama to Expand Broadband Internet Across U.S. (??)
Interesting timing, considering what is happening behind closed doors at the FCC. And, if Net Neutrality is quashed, expanded broadband will be essentially meaningless (unless you are a controlling interest corporation). (Remind anyone of the Mandate/Public Option setup/sellout?)
The Worst Thing About the Health Care Law That Passed?
It Bootstraps the New Homeless (An Open Letter to Michael Moore):
To Michael Moore, a (former?) champion for the commoners (03/22):
“Thanks to last night’s vote,” an Individual Mandate without even the slightest of a Public Option is a Reality. “Thanks to last night’s vote,”
it will be a Criminal Act if we do not buy a private policy from a corporation – whether or not we can afford one. “Thanks to last night’s vote,” during a Second Depression, we will have to spend 8% of our income toward coverage. But, we are not allowed to call that a new TAX (for those making less than $250,000). Yes, “It’s truly a banner day for these corporations.” As a result, many millions of us who were cheering you on for years are wondering why you are so enthusiastic over the flogging we (regular people/progressives) suffered on Sunday evening? This was not a “Canadian-loving,” “independent,” Victory. As written months ago, this was something the last administration would have rammed through. Remember those “13 problems with the current health care bills” you and Rose Ann DeMoro organized last September? The list remains – unfulfilled. Remember calling this bill a Joke? It still is (while a more proper term would be “Hoax”). What happened to you? Is this the answer? : “Pass it because, if President Obama takes a fall on this one, I don’t know if he’ll be able to get back up.” Now, you toe the party line — for politics’ sake? “A good night it was — important little steps were taken to bring our country into the civilized world.” Mr. Moore, most of the other “steps” within were not “little,” and they set us a major notch toward a total corporate state. Is that (accepting another broad redistribution of the bootstraps-mentality for the commoners by way of fascistic coercion) what you are presently considering as necessary modes of becoming more civilized? Before Rep. Kucinich succumbed, he also had a list:
“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?”
As opposed to yours, his is only inches away from being fulfilled (“Thanks to last night’s vote”).
Regretfully,
Update: You and MoveOn.org are teaming up to promote “Capitalism: A Love Story.” 03/25: “MoveOn.org is launching a huge new campaign to take back democracyfrom the corporations and lobbyists.”
Considering the last two posts, and the timing of this letter/association, my head is still shaking.
MoveOn.org organized against Rep. Kucinich. Why? Because he [was] standing up to this administration’s/the corporate democrats’ insurance company giveaway (unneeded bailout). View “Is This The Best We Can Do?” – and, remember the following statement, for it is one which should ring in every American’s ears: “If a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house.”
MoveOn allied itself with a (sold out) center (NDC) – so far to the right that it would be considered republican/conservative in the year 1996. They are now agents/actors of/for the elite establishment (status quo). Any waves their organization purports to make will henceforth be highly projected – yet, only result in ripples (as intended). MoveOn asked ‘Which Side of History Will You Be On?‘ We responded: “May as many members of that organization as possible wake up to what this revealed, then renounce their associations – in Droves.” “Kucinich [wasn’t] holding out for a boondoggle, or a minority vendetta. He [was] staking a claim for a policy most people [wanted]” [the Public Option]. If a majority of the Majority had as much spine . . . ?
(The same reactions apply to any of the other groups who threatened those of us who were fighting against this Health Care Sham.)
Update(it’s over): On 03/17, Rep. Kucinich’s switch marked the end. There will be an Individual Mandate – without a Public Option. We supported people like him and Sen. Sanders for standing out. They failed us by not following through. Soon, people “will be herded like rebellious cattle into a ‘mandated’ slaughter by way of corporate pens (Policies).”
POLITICS (The Democrats Need to Call This a WIN!):
(Even) Michael Moore: “Within days, the House of Representatives will vote to pass the Senate health care ‘reform’ bill. This bill is a joke. It has NOTHING to do with ‘health care reform.’ It has EVERYTHING to do with lining the pockets of the health insurance industry. It forces, by law, every American who isn’t old or destitute to buy health insurance if their boss doesn’t provide it. What company wouldn’t love the government forcing the public to buy that company’s product?!” Yet, “Pass it because, if President Obama takes a fall on this one, I don’t know if he’ll be able to get back up.”
Response to Miles Mogulescu: Your work reveals what should be Front Page news, nationwide – resulting in a long-term scandalous exposition. Yet, of course, it won’t. Since the Reagan era, objectively independent and investigatory journalism has been erased so far from the mainstream that the few controlling conglomerates would finally proclaim victory, openly – if the internet (and alternative venues like Democracy Now) were somehow quelled. This confirmation of another grand, secret deal (in a series) exposes the sheer level to which the public was “bamboozled” and “punked.” On stage: “I’m a champion for the common people. Corporations, lobbyists, and power brokers will not tell me what to do.” Backstage: “Ladies and gentlemen (of the corporations, lobbyists, and power brokers), tell me what you are wanting to do. Then, after a selling period (mixed with some populist posturing) I will make that happen.” Norman Solomon, Zero Public Option + One Mandate = Disaster: “a stunning, deeply structural transfer of humongous power and wealth that would greatly boost the leverage of an already autocratic corporate state.” Exactly.
Bob Cesca: “I’m pissed off at health care reform.” (Well, maybe it’s more like frustration?) “I’m pissed off that President Obama ‘thanked’ the independent senator from Connecticut even though the senator nearly killed health care reform this week.” (But, I won’t go any further in criticizing the President — who campaigned on “If a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house” — even though he set the stage for this outcome with sabotaging statements, after the election, like “the Public Option is just one sliver,” has refused from the beginning to stand up for anything remotely progressive, and, was still coddling other corporate sellout senators after they repulsively propagandized the entire nation with “Death Panel” assertions.) “I’m pissed off at the Senate,” “cable news,” “Rahm Emanuel,” and “the Republicans.” (Yet, I’m not going to allow my positive view to be swayed by reality.) “I’m pissed off that I can’t, in good conscience, allow my anger to coerce me into believing that we should ‘kill this bill.’” (Unlike Rep. “Is This the Best We Can Do?” Kucinich, Dr. Howard Dean, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, and Michael Moore, I refuse to make a “final straw” stand – no matter how far this goes.) (Like the former Single-Payer champion Rep. Anthony Weiner, who transformed into a dissembling preacher for the administration,) “I have no other choice but to settle for what is. For now.” (True, I could make other choices, like not putting lipstick on pigs. Regardless, I will hold out for anything that passes, and call it a win.) “Lack of insurance,” “medical bankruptcies and deaths” will be overcome. (How? By mandating that everyone buy private policies [“it makes them criminals if they don’t”] — which they cannot affordNow — or, especially Later). Let us not accept pure spin, while we’re being sold out, as “the good.” Let us not forget that what was absolutely possible — in a present tense, is now referred to as “the perfect” — in a past tense.
Partial Reality: Howard Dean: “This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.” Corporately-Compromised Response: Sen. Durbin: “I disagree with Dr. Dean. I think if he would sit back and look at 31 million Americans who would have health insurance as a result of this bill. How do you say to them: ‘Sorry you can’t have health insurance. We think this bill can be better.'”
Yes, “31 million [additional] Americans . . . would have health insurance” – because, as voiceless and powerless serfs, they would be Compelled into buying Private Plans/Coverage. Right now, you could say to them: “Sorry you can’t have health insurance” – because you cannot Afford it. And, when we are done, it will cost even more. Yet, that’s not a problem with the Corporately-sponsored Senators or Representatives. That’s your problem, “because, hey, [they’re solving] the health care crisis! Everyone will have health care!” No Single-Payer. No Public Option. No allowance for people between 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare. No competition for private insurers. No re-importation of drugs from Canada (because of another secret White House deal with Big Pharma). Then, finally, Senator “I can be bought, often” Lieberman and his allies can be pleased with the outcome. “Is This the Best We Can Do?” Again, no. But, since a majority of the New Majority have revealed themselves for what they actually are, and who they really serve, we can take a step back and see more Truth of how “the meek” and their circumstances are regarded by the elite. Mantra: Kill the Health Care Bill, Save 31 Million. Kill the Health Care Bill, Save 31 Million.
Postscript (as an Open Letter): Senator Lieberman: “I think my colleagues know . . . that I’ve been opposed to a government-created, government-run insurance company.” Why do you hate Medicare, Sen. Lieberman? Is it because of the “Socialistic” focus on providing medical insurance as well as prescription drug coverage for people who are older, and/or those who have certain disabilities – like Veterans? Would you prefer them to be subject to “personal responsibility” mandates – even if the result was exponential agony on the streets? Does this quote from Darwin often ring in your mind? : “We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.” Why do you love private (corporate) insurance monopolies – whose focus is not on providing health care, but on denying as much treatment as possible and on canceling policies – according to a Wall Street profit model? Did you also envy Enron? Further, did it bother you that so many lost their life savings in that worldwide scam? Or, was the latter plundering their own fault for not being the fittest at the top of the chain in a dog-eat-dog survival game (pyramid)? Why do you hate regular people (us)? Is it because we did not pull up our bootstraps far enough to have stored $3 million in the bank for medical emergencies? Or, is it because our stature in life was preordained – according to you and your kind (the elect, prosperous, and chosen), whose laws are sealed within Social Darwinism?
“Aetna Forcing 600,000 to Lose Coverage in Effort to Raise Profits”: “Officials at Aetna announced that in an effort to improve on a less-than-anticipated profit margin in 2009, they would be raising prices on their consumers in 2010” (“ensuring that each customer is priced to an appropriate margin”). Thank you, President Obama, Sen. Majority Leader Reid, Speaker of the House Pelosi, Corporate Blue Dogs, and all other appeasers, for what we can now look forward to – on a never-ending basis. Thank you for, during a Second Depression, delivering us right into the hands of these vultures. Thank you for giving us an additional (mandatory) monthly bill – and basing the yearly cost on spending up to 8% of our income – while still proclaiming that no new taxes will be imposed on those making under $250,000. Thank you for, like the “Healthy Forests Initiative” and the “Patriot Act,” making “Affordable” the first word of the “Health Care for America Act.” Thank you for all the faux posturing, then purposely taking us “from Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option (‘Opt-Out’) to a Trigger” (or even further, to a “Hammer”). Thank you for, with a new Majority, accomplishing exactly what the republicans under Bush would have rammed through – had they been on a mission to “reform” health care (you know, just like they “reformed” overtime and the Justice system?). Thank you for proving to us that, especially in the U.S., corporations rule and control policy – regardless of who holds the greatest number of seats. But, most of all, thank you – for helping those of us who still had Hope to be able to finally see the True Light.
Update: Not even a “Hammer.” Not even a buy-in to Medicare if you are 55 – 64. Since there will mainly, and only, be an Individual Mandate – citizens can be assured that businesses all across the nation will take advantage of this by dropping their coverage as a means to push them toward their new “responsibilities” (while further solidifying bottom lines).
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.”
“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.”
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 mandatoryspending (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.
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).”
President Obama’s NYTimes editorial: Not a word about “Public Option[s]” (or, heaven forbid, Single-Payer). “But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary – truly risky – is the prospect of doing nothing.” What’s truly atrocious – truly regressive – are (corporate) democrats (and your administration) selling out every progressive/liberal aspect, resulting in the uninsured being handed over to the private insurers as “fresh meat,” – then, spinning it as Reform. “First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage. . . .” These are typically vague (hyperbolic) assertions, discounting the new weight (Mandate) about to be forcefully imposed on regular people – conveniently sidestepping all the uproar over Big Pharma/insurance company and neocon giveaways. “Affordable” is the never-ending catch phrase. It succeeds in putting everyone below the median income in bootstrap modes – because soon, there will be “no excuses.” The health care crisis is about to be solved (since we will all have to have policies – or get fines)! “Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings. . . .” That would be “savings” – like in the hidden deal where Pharma agreed to just “lock in their doubling of prices.” Furthermore, would someone grossing $28,000 consider a new monthly $200 bill as “savings”? “Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies.” In other words, if insurance companies are not satisfied with the mega-billions they are about to reap from these fifty million new “cash cows,” then, they must be “too big to fail” and/or too big to satisfy. “Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections. . . .” Since there will be no Public Option (or enough 100% subsidies), once we are herded into lines at the likes of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, what are the chances that those previously uninsured will feel newly protected? Additionally, if our president wanted to undeniably stand up and out, regardless of monied powers, for a Public Option – wouldn’t he threaten to Veto any measures that came across without it? Good news: “Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan. ‘We’ll have the same number of people uninsured,’ she said. ‘If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they’d be insured.’” Truthout: “Any health care legislation that does not include a public option is a fraud.” With these realities there is a final question: how many millions of people will find themselves weighing the “options” of paying that yearly Fine – and being able to survive, or, buying a policy – and getting a second job? This is a call-out to the truly brave Progressives in Congress: If fifty-three or more in the House of Representatives, and twenty or more in the Senate, vow to kill the entire health care proposalby voting against anything submitted which maintains the current sellouts, or, at least the “Mandate,” they could show the nation what it means to be honorably brave and genuinely principled.
“It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government’s leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.” Why am I not shocked? “Obama is walking a tightrope here. He wants to keep PhRMA from opposing the bill. . . .”
“Keep PhRMA from opposing the bill?” Oh yeah, we wouldn’t want to have a bill that PhRMA opposed – not with a Majority in Congress – and, a President who was going to champion Change through Reform. Instead, PhRMA is investing $150 million for a media blitz – in Favor. After step-by-step revelations of this variety, how much REFORM should rational people expect? This is the same “appeasement” mentality which has kept the disgraceful republicans empowered, as evidenced by their ongoing and concerted campaigns, polluted with the escalation of the most scandalous (“Death Panel,” “Nazi”) and vociferous Lies. It leaves us (Progressives, commoners) trapped in a (worsening) status quo- while the other sides continue notching victories, though outnumbered 70% to 30%. Seeking bipartisan support and consensus can be valuable in bringing together ideas toward solving certain problems. It is in how far one (or a group) goes with that aim in mind that the original goals may evolve from advancement to insignificance, from welcoming to intrusive. Leaders who propose major revisions regarding a cause are also expected to teach, from a solid, sustainable viewpoint – while being able to discern the quality of shared lessons. If only unreasonable or regressive alternatives are offered as replies from an audience that is shut off from learning, or unyielding to progress, a leader with conviction will not give in and diminish the results of the revisal to such a level that a skeleton remains of an initial objective. Moreover, in an adversarial debate, if one side is mollified to such a degree that the other loses its core, the adversary does not become an ally – since it triumphs at the giver’s overwhelming expense.
Greg Palast: “The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices. Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices. Got that? In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs. . . .”
No confrontation. No hard-fought battles. No standing up, regardless of outcome. No glory. (We have seen the same scenario with respect to Wall Street (repealing the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?”), unchallenged Machiavellian bankruptcy laws, nothing immediate in credit card legislation (or even capped rates), torture as “policy” differences, various other war crimes overlooked, nationalized propaganda campaigns deemed legal, etc.) We were sold on a warrior for change. What did we get when it came to fighting for what was promised? Yes, he still gives soaring speeches. However, there will be no “Red Badge of Courage” given – if all the proletariat are left bleeding in the trenches, without ever seeing their leader elevated – beyond words.
No Reform. No Single-Payer. No (Meaningful) Public Option. No 100% Subsidies (for those under the median income). No Price Controls. Then, Take Out The Mandate That We All Have To Buy a Policy. PERIOD.
Update: “The Obama administration sent signals on Sunday that it has backed away from its once-firm vision of a government organization to provide for the nation’s 50 million uninsured and is now open to using nonprofit cooperatives instead. Kathleen Sebelius . . . said on Sunday morning that an additional government insurer is ‘not the essential element’ of the administration’s plan to overhaul the country’s health care system.” “The health care industry prefers that format. . . .” Of course they do, “cooperatives would not have as much sway over the prices Americans pay . . . !” A “Robust Public Option” was an element our president and Majority in Congress supposedly would not back down from. “The majority gives, gives in, and gives away – until there’s nothing left” – Except a Mandate for Us to Buy Policies. We are about to be delivered, defenseless, right into their anticipating hands.
Posted by WindHarps 
Awakenings 