Obama and Dean are first

If we are all brothers and sisters..........why are there nation states? Some based purely on their own religion?  Why does one brother keep his brother neighbors childrens starving? Why does one brother threaten others with nuclear annialation.why dos one brother fear another brother to the point of pre-emptive action?  Why does one brother murder his fellow brother just to posess his brothers land?

shortcut

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23959...

Neither Obama nor Clinton has a good plan, neither can get past benefitting the status quo industry.

the least they could do is propose making the entire medical insurance industry non-profit, by law, with limits on CEO salaries. That alone would do a lot.

Universal health care, socialized or not, should be the goal. It does not have to involve insurance companies.

Clinton might seem to have a better plan than Obama, to some, but neither one is good. Obama does indirectly offer more hope, by virtue of the fact that he seems much more open to changing his view based on an open forum on the issue.

repost from bottom of last thread:

Regarding the silly argument abpit the single-payer plan health coverage, when will you all understand this:

A single-payer plan by any candidate could be a kiss of death next Nov. What a great time the Republicans would have with this. Though they know, as we do, that it would be the best of all plans, I can hear it now about "socialized medicine" which of course it isn't but that makes no difference when it comes to winning the WH.

The answer lies here: Give the Obama presidency a super majority Congress and you will see a single-payer plan that everyone, including our very observant and intelligent Obama, understands is the least expensive way to go.

So instead of whining and complaining and attacking candidates, go out in your state and district and get those good Democratic representatives and senators elected, throw out the Republicans and Dem blue dogs, and let's get moving toward single-payer health care.

But of course many of you won't do that, especially those few here who only pretend to be Democrats or at least are not very good ones.

Please recommend

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23962

5.

Joan* In*Florida
Sat, 02/23/08

Reply to this

repost from bottom of last thread:

Regarding the silly argument abpit the single-payer plan health coverage, when will you all understand this:

A single-payer plan by any candidate could be a kiss of death next Nov. What a great time the Republicans would have with this....

==============================

Good point.

But after the election, maybe we should start calling Medicare and Medicaid, and S-CHIP "socialized medicine" and ask whether people would not want these?

Instead of coward from it like a "dirty word" we should define the meaning of the term, and define the terms of the debate, for a change, like the neocons have been doing for decades.

The term "Universal healthcare" is more digestible than "single payer" for which many people do not have a definition, but everyone knows what "universal" means.

Nice NYT story about Richardson. He would indeed make a good S of S, but so would many others. I always liked his demeanor, always polite and thoughtful IMO.

Exactly Fred. After the election, many things will change. No plan will ever be implemented exactly as written. But we should avoid the single-payer references until after next Nov.

Hopefully a supportive Congress will agree with single-payer plans. Or perhaps we will have to wait until a new stronger lobbyist/campaign financing bill is passed so insurance companies will not be able to wield their influences in the decisions.

 No plan will ever be implemented exactly as written. But we should avoid the single-payer references until after next Nov.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

candidate as artful dodger? I couldn't disagree more, but we in the progressive community should very much have a discussion right now as we elect National Delegates who will adopt a National Platform that our Presidential and Congressional candidates can commit to and be proud of. If single payer socialized medicine is the best plan let us argue out some of the details. None of us speak for the candidates, but I had a role in writing the platform in Iowa which the candidates read and understood as a grassroots sentiment.

Don't worry the heavyweights will have their say

11.

Phil Specht
Sat, 02/23/08
No plan will ever be implemented exactly as written. But we should avoid the single-payer references until after next Nov.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

candidate as artful dodger?

==================================

Not artful dodger, but rather educator, becuase education is something that cannot be done during a campaign with, millions of $ worth of negativity/distortion jumping on every word you say.

To change this country for the better people need to be de-programmed from the neocon brainwash, through education. I think they are ready to listen.

10.

Joan* In*Florida
Sat, 02/23/08

No plan will ever be implemented exactly as written.

============
That's the ironic beauty of Obama's dispostion/plan - it is most "unwritten" - it is abstract.

Hillary knows what she wants to do. She is more positive structured. Ironically that is a turn-off, and more likely to fail.

fred

The people are way past the politicians on many things. Just think of how many months the experts were saying the economy was in great shape as public poll after poll showed that the true state of things was well understood outside the beltway.

If we are all brothers and sisters..........why are there nation states? Some based purely on their own religion?  Why does one brother keep his brother neighbors childrens starving? Why does one brother threaten others ........................

Mike, you must be a single child, mmhh?

it would be cool if all the Obama fans at the Oscars - nominees included - dispensed with the glam outfits and all wore Obama '08 t-shirts instead.  they could cut always off the mike if they endorsed him during their acceptance speeches, but they can't keep them from taking the stage in their t-shirt...  lol!

I'm intrigued by the possibility that the Democrat's national nominating convention this summer might be forced to actually perform the function it is designed for, namely, select a party nominee. 

I don't think any delegates should be certified against any rules, I don't think any superdelegates should be dictated to in contrast to their duties under the rules, and I don't think committed delegates need to vote as they are pledged on the first ballot, since the rules don't provide for it, although I certainly hope they do.

This isn't an endorsement of the rules, by the way, but a suggested that they be abided by, and a discussion about their efficacy be joined to do away with them if they're useless, antiquated, or otherwise inappropriate.

What I think should happen is the pledged and superdelegates should vote their consciences, based on their beliefs of who will best represent the party in November, at the prospects of that candidate for success, in light of the results of the states' delegate selection process.  If one vote doesn't sort it out, there should be debates in a public forum and ensuing votes to accomplish the task.  If the results are a scam, a la 1968 or 1984, party leaders the convention delegates should speak out, and the party faithful should practice their own civil disobedience to publicize it. 

Rats, my editing is shitty.  "but a suggested that they be . . . " should be "but a suggestion that they be" and "at the prospects of . . ."  should be "and the prospects of."  Sorry.

well at least at this point Tom the general public understands that what they were voting for was an allocation of the pledged delegates to a nominating convention

we may yet get to an understanding that a Party couldn't exist without Rules

I want to share a great quote from Robert Redford in the current Spring 2008 Nature Conservancy magazine.

"The fully elucidated definition of poverty includes voicelessness,powerlessness and fear."

This fun chart shows the trendline for Bush's popularity during his second term:

Got left behind on previous thread--

Single-payer is a misnomer since we will all pay, even as we all pay now.  The central issue is whether the collection of the funds and the disbursement will be centralized.  It's not a matter of who pays, but of how payments are disbursed.  Which is why I say:

SOCIALIZE THE FUNDING--PRIVATIZE THE CARE

The second half is not, actually, a prerequisite.  But, if we want to improve quality of care, then some of our segregated delivery systems are going to have to be integrated into the private sector.  We are already fully aware that the injuries produced by modern warfare and battlefield response is producing a lot of care needs to which the VA is not able to respond adequately. 

Consider this, just to get real about the problem--the nation's ANNUAL health care expenditures are over $1.2 trillion.  The total federal annual budget is only $3.1 trillion.  The war in Iraq, so far, after five years and lots of mismanagement and false accounting still hasn't reached one trillion.  So, what we're asking is that the federal government take on responsibility for the expenditure of, at least, 33% more money than it handles now.  This is a tremendous challenge at a time when we know that the professional cadres of the federal government have been gutted and replaced by incompetents and cronies.

I am not arguing that we shouldn't do it; just that we need to be aware of the challenge it represents.

Considering the poor job Hillary Clinton has done in managing her campaign,it's not surprising that she's not keen to take responsibility for the nation's health.  Husband Bill took on welfare and we know how that came out.

... there does seem to be a tide, well maybe closer to a tsgunami, that a bunch of superdelegates couldn't miss - that is if they can still remember basic math.

The Texas and Ohio primaries should finish this question if close or an Obama lead. The reality is the volume of the democratic primary voters... it is about time too.

When the choice is clearly between McCain's 100 year war, his affairs with the MIC and lobbyists' 'attention', his temper, his likelihood to let the right-wing maraude more to secure a second term ... or, even, a newbie brave enough to be for the people's wellbeing - is won't even be close

... in August or November. (and i'm no O fan.)

Well, Tom, Bush's popularity would be significant if it meant anything to him.  His significance, or rather, insignificance is all in his own mind.  He's disconnected from reality.  Can't make the connection between the idea and the real.  He's like the denizens of Plato's Cave, incapable of taking in information that's not within his range of vision.

"The fully elucidated definition of poverty includes voicelessness,powerlessness and fear." 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Coming together as a movement to stand for change and say "Yes we can."  then is the answer to the two Americas.

Edwards needs to acknowledge that he and Obama are on the same team.

Bush is holding up the farm bill because of increases in spending for conservation and feeding programs and it isn't just in third world countries like the debate in the Nature Conservancy magazine, where there is perceived conflict between food costs and conservation. Hunger is a hallmark of poverty. Food security in the long run demands conservation. It is a poor country, a poor people that can't provide both. The "richest nation on earth" is a myth if it can't provide an adequate diet for all on a sustainable basis. I trust Obama to change that.

limited multiple pooling of risk with socialization of the cost of catastrophic events kind of like we historically have done natural disasters?

Well, Michael, aside from the fact that the Bible tells us that of the first two brothers one killed the other, I guess the answer to your question is that brotherhood is a social designation.  It's not something the individual experiences independently.  Somebody has to tell you that you're a brother, or a sister, or a father, for that matter.  Only mothers know from their own experience that they are mothers.  Children don't know their parents--parents are a social construct.

I'm willing to hypothesise that genes are more likely to recognize each other than siblings.  We now have cases in Britain of adopted children being attracted to an marrying siblings that they didn't know they had.

Children that are the product of forced intercourse may well inherit the conflict and end up being at war with themselves.  Males convincing themselves that the females aren't sincere in rejecting them are probably fooling themselves and end up validating that "the sins of the fathers are expiated by the sons."

The human brain seems to get a lot of satisfaction out of controlling the behavior of other people and, like most things that are satisfying, is liable to become an addiction.  So, we end up with power addicts.  But, people directing the behavior of others and following directions is not only a critical social skill (necessary to make society function) but essential to the survival of the species since humans can't survive to reproduce the next generation as solitary organisms.  

We think of bees as highly socialized in the hive.  Did you know that there are solitary bees who only meet to mate and then go their own way?  The female drills holes in dead wood and lays her eggs and inserts some sort of waxy plug which the young eat through after they hatch.  There aren't nearly as many solitary bees as the other kind.  Around our house, they've managed to turn the eaves boards into sieves, with the help of the wood-peckers who come along every year after they've laid their eggs and ream out the plugs to get at the eggs.  In a couple of years, we'll have to replace the boards. LOL 

14.

Phil Specht
Sat, 02/23/08

Reply to this

fred

The people are way past the politicians on many things.
========================================================

on current events and political spin you are correct, but the health care debate is one of academic education. Definitions, terms, focus, standards. This is where Hillary failed.

People need to participate in the formulation of universal health care, with plenty of time for feedback. Obama's disposition makes this implication.

Obama is noticably gun-shy on his putting forward "his" plan. This may be seen as weakness and ignorance of the issue by some, but in the perspective of anticipating the spectrum of possible citizen reactions, and with deferrence to it of one's own ego, it may be the best way to go at this point, albeit skittish.

Monopoly.  That's the enemy.  It's the enemy of diversity, fair competition, equality.  The monopolists' instrument is power.  But the goal is to have a monopoly.  To be the one and only; the beginning and the end.

Consider the hubris.  The Creator was satisfied to have made the world.  The monopolists will not hesitate to destroy it, if that's what it takes to demonstrate their preeminence.

Remember the story of the women who each claimed a child as her own?  The false mother was willing to have it cut in half.  Our false leaders are those who are willing to nuke the earth in order to "save" American honor.

Whether or not nuclear power is a good source of energy without the risk of contamination, what we need to resist is the use of nuclear energy as an excuse to make and maintain nuclear weapons.  Never mind non-proliferation; the goal should be elimination. 

26.

Monica Smith
Sat, 02/23/08

SOCIALIZE THE FUNDING--PRIVATIZE THE CARE

The second half is not, actually, a prerequisite. But, if we want to improve quality of care, then some of our segregated delivery systems are going to have to be integrated into the private sector.

==================================

What Americans need is UNIVERSAL health care with incremental contribution (based on income) and substantial write-off (but not total write-off) for those who choose private insurance.

Keep it simple:

(1)Everyone without their own private insurance is covered by the Federal Government. Private insurance is optional, never mandatory, regardless of income.

(2)All wage earners get the same psycheck percentage-based deductions

(3)Refunds are incremental at tax time, depending on AGI, from total refunds for very low income, to no refunds for very high income

(4)However, anyone with their own private insurance, who wishes to forego government coverage, can have a substantial write-off and/or partial refund at tax time. People can choose to have both private and government coverage, without write-off and/or refund.

(5)For profit insurance companies much be phased-out, and/or convert to non-profit being companies.

I don't know, Phil, about dignifying one percent of the population that's consumed by a lust for power as one America as opposed to another.  An elite cadre is not really an American ideal, though it may be a long-standing reality.  People who trick others out of their assets and make it hard for them to survive are crooks.  Every society has crooks.  But dignifying them as a separate and autonomous class serves no purpose.

To a certain extent, Edwards' effort to divide things into opposites (standard procedure in the litigator's trade) worked against him because it didn't ring true.  Part of the popular disgust with our judicial system is a consequence of the dissatisfaction jurors almost inevitably experience in a trial (and why litigators try to avoid them).  People know that fights in court aren't fair.  Edwards was offering to do more of what they've had enough of.  Clinton, too.

Somehow, "I will fight for you," is not an attractive promise.  Sort of neaderthalish, don't you think? 

Fred, I appreciate your specifics.  But, private insurance is an oxymoron.  Not to mention that insurance does not equate health care or medical services.  Insurance is a third-party payment system that takes a cut for providing no (as in zero, nada, nix) service.

Would you want to have the fire insurance company decide whether the fire department puts out the fire, or not?  Would you want to pay them for making that decision?

Hey, even if you've set your own house on fire, the neighbors aren't going to want to rely on the fire insurance company to decide whether it should be put out. 

The sequencing seems fine when there's hardly anyone here.  LOL

BTW, our phone went out Thursday evening.  Since we've got DSL and the internet part still worked, we had to conclude that the problem was in the switching station. 

Trying to negotiate the Verizon web pages to file a problem report was frustrating.  I finally discovered that although they offer support via email, what they are really offering is help in sending email--not getting the phone fixed by sending a request by email.  

Finally, I managed to log a request for phone repair ("repair" is the magic word) and had the opportunity to schedule an appointment for Friday between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM.  Then here was a web page that gave me the status--which didn't change from problem being forwarded to technician all day.  By 6:00 PM nothing had happened, but the web page informed me that if I FELT the problem hadn't been solved, I could schedule another appointment for Monday.  I sent them feedback that this was unacceptable.  About an hour ago we got a call asking if we still had a problem and telling us that they'd fixed it in their office at 2:00 AM.  (We already knew the phone was back since somebody called the Town Councilor at 8:00 in the morning).

presumably, if I was on some sort of watch list, my phone would have gotten fixed before I knew it was out.  so, the whole thing was slightly reassuring, especially since I hardly ever use the phone anyway.  LOL 

There's a new thread in case any one is 'left behind.'