A Day to Honor President Jimmy Carter

This ninth of November is a historic day. East Germany has announced that, starting immediately, its borders are open to everyone ~ Unknown Moderator speaking for the West German television channel, ARD (11/9/1989)

Short-circuiting the long-established principles of patient negotiation leads to war, not peace ~ Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States (1/20/1977 to 1/20/1981)

I hope everyone enjoyed the holiday yesterday. I would have posted on this topic then, but I was too busy celebrating. I am talking of course about the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and also the day we recognize how President Jimmy Carter, by ending the cold war, made it all possible.

It would have been, however, President Walter Mondale who uttered the historic phrase, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", since that challenge was issued in 1987, which would have been several years after President Carter completed his second term. Everyone would have, however, rightly acknowledged that it was President Carter who set things in motion.

Alas, it was not to be. President Carter did not win a second term, and instead credit goes to a senile B-movie actor who was probably the worst president our great nation has ever known. Reagan's October Surprise was just the first of many acts of treason he would commit after stealing the presidency from Mr. Carter.

A day to celebrate, or a day to mourn what might have been? The words preceding the "tear down this wall" line crafted by Saint Reagan's speech writers was "...if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate". He was, of course, talking about the bad kind of "liberalization", which has nothing at all to do with the Liberal, or Progressive wing, of the Democratic Party. "Most often, the term is used to refer to economic liberalization, especially trade liberalization or capital market liberalization".

The Reagan Presidency started us down the path to ruination, and every president since Saint Reagan has bought into the lie that sending our middle class manufacturing jobs to China is a good idea. Luckily the united German people did not buy into Reagan's hogwash. They moved to the left along with the rest of Europe, and thus were not hit as hard by the worldwide effect of the bush recession.

If you read my previous day's post, you know I was obviously not celebrating, but mourning. For 28 years we've been following Reagan's advice to seek economic liberalization. As I pointed out with my 9/6/2009 post, all the Republican - and, unfortunately, a majority of Democrats PLUS our current President still have not realized we can't survive as a first world nation by relying primarily on the Service and Financial sectors while creating nothing of value (because we've outsourced virtually all our manufacturing).

See also: The Myth of the Gipper: Reagan Didn't End the Cold War by William Blum, Strategy Page 4/29/2004.

SWTD #28

It's Everyone Else's Fault

The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English Logician and Philosopher.

I'm becoming disheartened. In regards to political discourse in this country... and in regards to blogging. My last post received ONE lousy comment (7 actually, but the other six I posted myself by way of sock puppets). Man, how pathetic. Meanwhile, Conservative bloggers are getting 100 PLUS comments! Maybe I should hang it up.

I have less than a half-dozen readers, and (by my estimate) only three people (or less) who actually ever comment. Why am I wasting my time? Just like the radical Righties disrupted the town halls they're dominating the blogosphere. At least, as far as dinky one-person run blogs go. These morons are mad and they want everyone to know it (I'm talking about the people who have commented on the blog I just linked to, and others like them, not the blog proprietor specifically).

The sad thing is that the corporate-funded astroturf organizations have them deluded to the point where they think the majority of Americans are with them. Their idiotic worries regarding socialism, the President purposefully bankrupting the government, and health insurance reform being akin to Hitler's final solution ARE TAKING CENTER STAGE!

(for the record, Republicans are the ones who are purposefully attempting to bankrupt the government. "Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.)

Witnessing this, the "independent" voters may jump ship in 2010 and 2012, not realizing that to actually make progress they should pick an ideology and stick with it. Saint Reagan and bush-the-stupider (whom I have dubbed "President Doofus") proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservatism is NOT the way to go. We'll be f*cked royally if Barack Obama is not re-elected in 2012.

I guess it's "cool" to be independent though, and vote based simply on your feelings. GWb was president when the economy crashed? Conservative economic principals aren't to blame, just the man. Maybe McCain can fix the problem. No matter that his "solution" would be more of the same, HE'S A DIFFERENT GUY! Plus, Hillary voters, he has a woman VP! No matter that she's clearly not that bright. Who, when asked which news periodicals they read, would say they read them all, but then not be able to name ONE?

BUT... then McCain made the mistake of "suspending" his campaign and rushing back to Washington to "fix" the crisis. And he screwed that up. By canceling on David Letterman to chat with Wolf Blitzer.

That made him look stupid, so the Independents were pushed towards Barack Obama. Not because they agreed with Democratic economic principals. Because he offered "hope" and "change". I'm not knocking Hope and Change, because they were more than a slogan. But the slogan is all that a lot of Independents (and Democrats) heard.

So now they may be ready to swing the other way. No matter that reversing course 100 degrees back to a plan of action which has been proven disastrous is idiotic in the extreme. They may do it anyway! Why?? For no other reason than they're "independent", apparently.

And the Democrats may stay home. Because Barack Obama isn't changing things quickly enough for them. No matter that the primary agenda of the remaining Republicans in Congress is to obstruct. Also, even though Democrats gained a bunch of seats in the last election -- and I'm sure it has something to do with demographics and who they're representing -- why does it seem like the Republicans who are left are the craziest of the crazy?

Virginia Fox and Michelle Bachmann are loony toons. I apologize ladies; there are some crazy dudes as well. Joe Wilson rudely called out "you lie" as the President spoke before a joint session of Congress, then immediately afterward lied about having worked as an immigration lawyer. In a vain attempt to stop people from voicing their suspicions that what he really meant to say was "You lie, boy". And John Boner claimed that the public option was a popular as a garlic milkshake, even though a majority of Americans support it.

And of course we have Joe Lieberman, who was for Universal Coverage before he was against it. Apparently he saw all the attention that Olympia Snowe was getting and wanted the media to fawn all over HIM. So, even though he caucuses with the Democrats he'll stand with the Republicans and single-handedly be responsible for health care insurance reform getting shot down. He gets to feed his ego and collect some big donations from the health care insurance lobby. As Stephen Colbert pointed out recently, the party he formed after he lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut was called "Connecticut for Lieberman", NOT "Lieberman for Connecticut".

If the Republicans are given another shot at destroying this country it will be because the moron electorate allows them two. Yes, Republicans are the masters of election fraud, but when people turn out in high enough numbers they can overcome that fraud.

People were so disgusted with George W. bush at the end of his presidency that they turned out in record numbers and pushed Barack Obama over the top. Next time around they may say to themselves, "this guy was not as hopey and changey as I was lead to believe, I think I'll vote for the other guy... or stay home". What they fail to realize is that the President is not a king. There is only so much he can do. He's up against the power of big money and their ability to buy off our elected officials.

Low information voters fail to take this into consideration. Which is why we may be doomed. If so it's everybody else's fault, not mine. I've done a lot of things that were stupid, but I'm not a moron. A blogger I follow who calls himself "Truth 101" recently posited that the morons shall inherit the earth. I'm worried that he may very well be right.

SWTD #27

Live or Die, The Free Market Will Decide

Freedom of enterprise was from the beginning not altogether a blessing. As the liberty to work or to starve, it spelled toil, insecurity, and fear for the vast majority of the population. If the individual were no longer compelled to prove himself on the market, as a free economic subject, the disappearance of this freedom would be one of the greatest achievements of civilization ~ Herbert Marcuse, a German-Jewish philosopher, political theorist and sociologist. Celebrated as the "Father of the New Left".

Instead of creating yet another monstrous government bureaucracy, what about mandating that health insurance be provided by nonprofits? I mentioned the idea at the end of my 10/19/2009 post. Oddly enough, a couple of bloggers I thought were conservative seemed to think this was a good idea.

This is decidedly not a good idea Conservatives! If you don't understand why, well... maybe you're not as Conservative as you thought you were.

It should be obvious that not for profit health insurance companies would eliminate the profit incentive! Paying health care insurance CEOs tens of millions of dollars ensures you get the cream of the crop (talent wise). So what if people have to die in order for those CEOs to make their millions? Those who die are lazy good-for-nothings (or, if they are children, then their parents are). They don't deserve to live - that is, if the reason they died is because they couldn't afford insurance.

If they died because they had insurance but the insurance cartel refused to pay... I don't know what the rational is. I'm going to guess denial. That could never happen, because in the world of the "free market" contracts must be honored. If you signed a contract agreeing to arbitration when you're gang raped? The contract must be honored. Why involve the authorities? What the hell do we even need "authorities" for? Privatize the police. Those who have contracts with the private police companies will get protection. Those who do not pay (for whatever reason) have only themselves to blame. The free market provides for those who provide for themselves.

If an insurance company does deny coverage? The contract will address this type of situation. It must be because the "sick" individual is trying to cheat the insurance company. The scammer failed to disclose that he had a "pre-existing condition". Or the type of treatment the sickey is seeking is "experimental". The insurance cartel death panel "profit protection" panel will set you straight on that. "Experimental" treatments are not covered. Cheaters with pre-existing conditions are not covered.

If you're a right-wing Christian Conservative you should acknowledge the fact that a pre-existing condition is a sign from God that you don't deserve medical care. If God favors you he'll provide a sign by making damn sure you are not cursed with one, or provide you with enough money to pay for treatment out of your own pocket. Prosperity theology "implies both that people who are favored by God will be materially successful, and also that materially successful people are successful because God favored them".

Does this not dovetail nicely with the idea that the Bible can be used to justify homophobia? It can be used to justify greed as well. Certainly this is proof that Jesus believes in the free market. If you're a sickey whose treatment has been denied, or whose insurance policy has cancelled - or worse yet, if you can't afford to purchase insurance - you must acknowledge that the free market has spoken. You must acknowledge that the free market has decided that you should die. Sacrificed for the profit of others - those who have been blessed by God.

Free markets equal free people, after all. People who are free to die, that is. Those who live by the market must also die by the market. That's the way Jesus would want it.

.........................

I don't believe that converting the current insurance cartels into non-profits is within the realm of possibility. I support opening Medicare to whoever wishes to buy into it. And providing subsidies to those who can't afford the to pay the Medicare rates by increasing the premiums on those who can afford to buy in by a nominal amount, and raising taxes on individuals making more than $250,000. Such a plan could easily be deficit neutral. And it could be passed with 51 votes through budget reconciliation.

If that makes me a socialist, then so be it. I find the Republican plan, "Don't get sick, but if you do - die quickly", morally reprehensible. As someone who considers himself a progressive Christian, I don't see how conservatism and Christianity are compatible.

SWTD #26

Faking Fiscal Conservatism

Republicans used to be, once upon a time, for fiscal conservatism, and there are a few of those left, and they're starting to murmur more, and, you know, people forget Ronald Reagan raised taxes, you know, he cut taxes, but then he raised taxes. George Bush, the father, raised taxes ~ Evan Thomas (DOB 4/25/1951) an American journalist and author who currently teaches journalism at Princeton University.

That the Republican Party is socially conservative can't be denied. Examples of Republican "social conservatism" include their homophobic defense of "traditional marriage", their phony claim that American is a Christian nation, that Christians are discriminated against and that there is a "War on Christmas". These socially conservative Republicans, represent the morally superior "Religious Right" (or "Culture Warriors", according to Bill O'Reilly). Liberals, on the other hand are godless "secular progressive" atheists whose moral decadence is responsible for all of society's ills.

As far as their political agenda goes, however, enacting their fiscal policies are paramount. The "social conservative" nonsense is simply a means to achieve that end. The socially conservative issues are how they motivate the poor, ignorant and gullible to vote against their own interests (these saps are often described as "misinformed" or "low information voters" by those wishing to be polite).

George W. Bush ended up the fall guy for some of them. Others blame the Democrats who controlled the Congress during Bush's final two years in office. They let Fannie and Freddie get out of control and the Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop them. I'm sure that if you asked any Republican that they'd blame social programs. Even though corporate welfare dwarfs the money we spend on social programs it seems to be completely off the radar of most self-identified Conservatives.

According to Conservatives the patron saint of all things fiscally conservative is Ronald Reagan, but they conveniently overlook the fact that it was Saint Reagan that increased the national debt more than all the administrations that came before him combined. Conservatives may attempt to assert that it was Congressional Democrats that ran up the debt, and poor Saint Reagan couldn't stop them. Or that Reagan needed to drive us deeply into debt to "win" the cold war.

Neither claim is true. Saint Reagan requested $29.4 billion more in spending than Congress passed. His tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and increase revenue. The nonsensical "supply side" theory was a "Trojan horse to bring down the top rate" - this according to Reagan administration Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman.

Ending Communism through an arms race that would cause the Soviets to go bankrupt when they futilely attempted to keep pace was a scam for funneling billions to the military industrial complex. Revised CIA estimates indicate that "the Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures". And Saint Reagan's military buildup actually prolonged the cold war.

To pay for the increased military expenditures - including the ridiculous boondoggle dubbed Star Wars and the inane "trickle down" economy stimulating tax cuts for the wealthy - Saint Reagan raised payroll taxes (the largest tax increase in US history) and raided the social security trust fund.

Is this fiscal conservatism?

Disciples of Saint Reagan currently bemoan the "fact" that George bush Junior strayed from the path, becoming a "Big Government Conservative". But Junior was following the Reagan playbook! First on his agenda was cutting taxes for the wealthy (and getting rid of President Clinton's surplus). Next he ignored the numerous warnings of a potential terrorist attack and was rewarded with the "new Pearl Harbor" that the "Project For The New American Century" had been praying for.

The "war on terrorism" replaced the "cold war", two illegal wars were launched, and the money flowed. A former attorney who filed dozens of civil "whistleblower" lawsuits against Iraq war contractors, Congressman Alan Grayson concluded, "The Bush administration doesn't give a damn about contractor fraud in Iraq". The reason they didn't care may have had something to do with the fact that a lot of the contracts went to bush administration cronies like Halliburton - whose stock tripled in the 2 years after the invasion.

"Fiscal conservatism" is clearly code for running the government in order to benefit the wealthy and spending as little as possible on social programs. The only problem is that people like social programs, and will vote for politicians who provide them (and vote against those who threaten to take them away). The "fiscally conservative" solution is to outsource these programs to their private sector cronies. Apparently there isn't any job the government can do for less (since anything the government does involves no profit for CEOs or stockholders) that they don't think should be outsourced at greater expense to the private sector.

One example of this during the bush administration would be the never fully funded "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB), which took a multi-million dollar testing industry and turned it into a multi-billion dollar industry. Beneficiaries of NCLB include Bush brother Neil's Ignite!, and former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett's K12 Inc. -- that would be the same Bill Bennett who wants public schools "to fail so that they could be replaced with vouchers, charter schools, religious schools, and other forms of private education". Would you hire someone to help students in public schools succeed if they had a publicly stated desire to see public schools fail?

I could go on, but this article is already running long. Instead I'll again ask - is this fiscal conservatism?

The theory of crony capitalism states that, "since businesses make money and money leads to political power, business will inevitably use their power to influence governments". Republicans (and some Democrats) call it fiscal conservatism - I call it theft.

Further Reading
[1] Was Ronald Reagan an Even Worse President Than George W. Bush? by Robert Parry, Consortium News 6/5/2009.
[2] Bush Budget Would Inflate Corporate Welfare, Slash Social Programs, The New Standard 2/8/2005.
[3] The Myth of the Gipper: Reagan Didn't End the Cold War by William Blum, Counter Punch 6/7/2004.

SWTD #25

The Republican Plan To Boost Health Insurance Profits

Business is looking at the Democrats and Republicans and saying, how can we make them one party? ... How can we create that? Well, we pay off everybody... What we're seeing in the United States is ... a takeover of the federal government by business ~ Thom Hartmann, on his radio program (10/19/2009).

The Democratic plan is to mandate coverage while putting in place zero regulations ensuring prices don't spiral out of control. Millions of new customers and hundreds of millions in subsidies sounded good to the health insurance cartels, and for a while it looked like they were on board. Then the Finance Committee scaled back the penalities for not buying and the health insurers got scared. Sure, their profits would still soar under the Baucus plan, but was this the MOST they could get?

They are already doing quite well gouging the American public on their own. Plus, if they can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions anymore what will stop people from going without coverage, paying the fine, signing up for coverage when they needed it, and then dropping it when they no longer did? That is the argument I've heard. It may work for a lot of medical issues, although I doubt someone without insurance can wait for the paperwork to be processed if he has a "pre-existing" broken leg. It is a flaw nonetheless.

Clearly a threat was in order. So a report was commissioned a report to warn the Democrats by how much they'd jack up rates if they didn't get what they wanted. Which I'd assume would be the best aspects of the Democratic plan - which is all good except for the flaw I already mentioned, plus the best aspects of the Republican plan.

What is the Republican plan to raise the health insurance cartel's profits you may ask? Do they even have one? Business as usual is the answer you may have already guessed, but that is not all there is to it. There are two other methods I hear mentioned frequently that could boost profits. Not as much as if coverage were mandated, but mandates aren't consistent with the Republican Party's "individualist" image. Plus they certainly can't - even if their goal of boosting the health insurer's profits is the same - cooperate with Democrats.

Buying health insurance across state lines will increase competition and drive down prices. Or, more accurately, that's how they're selling deregulation this time around. Contrary to the Republican claim that deregulation will lead to lower prices and better service as companies compete to win our business, all it really does is allow participants to "come to an understanding" regarding a minimum amount of gouging. With deregulation also comes consolidation, which makes this all the easier.

This is known as a "race to the bottom", meaning that whichever state regulates the health insurers the LEAST will become their new base of operations. Which is why all the credit card companies are located in Deleware. And, don't forget that it was the deregulation of the banks that precipitated the sub prime mortgage crisis that crashed our economy. Do the Republicans really want to go down this road again? I don't know. But talking about it can't hurt. It gives the impression that they have good ideas - the Democrats just aren't listening.

The second "cost lowering" talking point Republicans continually push is tort reform, or limiting settlement in personal injury cases (this includes medical malpractice). According to trial lawyers tort reform is "a movement to tilt the playing field in the courts towards the defense so that big companies are more insulated from lawsuits by individual consumers". It makes sense that Republicans would want to protect their (real) constituents - corporations and the wealthy - by limiting the little guy's ability to sue. Call the lawsuits "frivolous" and mention the woman who sued McDonald's because she spilled hot coffee in her lap and you've got a sound argument.

Except that personal injury lawsuits only make up a small percentage of cases filed in a given year - 10 percent or less, according to Stephanie Mencimer, author of "Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and its Corporate Allies are Taking Away Your Right to Sue".

Medical bills, insurance companies who refuse to pay, living the rest of your life as a disabled person - these things cost a LOT of money. Not going for as large a dollar amount as you can get really wouldn't be wise, especially since many of these settlements are later reduced. These cases should be decided on an individual basis - juries shouldn't be straight-jacketed by arbitrary caps.

The 2009 CBO analysis reports that, even if "stringent" tort reform were adopted, total national health care spending would be reduced by a mere 0.5 percent.

In my opinion the potential harm that could come from limiting an individual's right to seek legal redress is not worth the savings. There are much more effective ways of saving money, such as allowing anyone to buy into Medicare or mandating that private health insurance companies operate on a not-for-profit basis (as they do in Switzerland).

SWTD #24

An Arguing Idiot's Perverted Common Sense

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives ~ John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) English philosopher, political economist and influential liberal thinker of the 19th century.

Program: Countdown with Keith Olbermann 9/24/2009.

Subject: World's worst person.

Winner: Lonesome Rhodes Beck. Referring to The Constitution, Article One, Section 9...

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person".

Glenn Beck Says: That's right. The founders actually put a price on coming to this country: $10 a person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants - including that they abide by our laws.

Keith Olbermann Responds: A clause requiring the continuation of slavery, he thinks is about immigration. He may be the dumbest man on the planet.

My Commentary: Shouldn't Glenn Beck's new book be titled "Arguing with Myself", instead of "with Idiots"? Or "My Arguments Prove I'm an Idiot"? Is Glenn really this dumb, or does he just think his fans are? How was he even able to write a book, let alone four (since November of 2007). Clearly the guy has problems simply READING. I Googled "Ghostwriter" and "Glenn Beck", but all I found was a headline concerning Sarah Palin hiring a ghostwriter for her memoirs.

Before the self-proclaimed book czar's latest anti-Obama screed he had the gall to write a book "inspired" by Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Apparently Beck was inspired by the title and obvious (to Beck) anti-government polemic contained within. When Mr. Paine writes, "society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness" and concludes that government is a "necessary evil" (because it restrains our vices), this translates for Beck as a warning against the dangers of "big government".

But the government Thomas Paine was railing against was the monarchy of Great Britain, not one of, for, and by the people. When Mr. Paine wrote Common Sense the notion that the people of a nation could govern themselves was unheard of. Which is why fellow founding fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson referred to our new representative democracy as a "liberal experiment".

Thomas Paine may have said, "government is best which governs least" (a quote conservatives appreciate), although he certainly wasn't a conservative or a libertarian (as Beck claims to be) by today's standards. Some of Mr. Paine's revolutionary ideas included a progressive income tax targeting the wealthy "to give the poor bootstraps by which they could pull themselves up", a fund to provide housing and food for the poor, a pension for all workers in their old age, public employment and a 90 percent reduction of armaments by all nations to ensure world peace.

Do these sound like ideas that would be championed by the Republican Party of today? Or, would their response to such suggestions be that redistribution of wealth by governmental theft is socialism - and that if we're weak on national defense we may as well surrender to the Socialist Marxist Commies and/or Muslim terrorists (and become atheists and/or Muslim converts, presumably)?

Glenn puts himself forward as a populist, but being a Libertarian makes this claim quite dubious in my opinion. Wikipedia defines (classical) populism as being "derived from the Latin word populus, which means people in English (in the sense of nation, as in: The Roman People (populus Romanus), not in the sense of multiple individual persons".

That we are a nation of individuals and not at all a "we society" - as Michael Moore suggests we should strive to be in his documentary film "Sicko" - is the essence of Libertarianism. (BTW I don't give a damn what the Populist Party of America thinks, Libertarianism and Populism are at odds with one another. Libertarians, the same as Republicans, would be against all of Paine's "revolutionary ideas" detailed above).

According to Beck "The populist sentiment is Common Sense" (a direct quote from Beck's own website), which is correct, but not at all what he is doing (promoting a populist sentiment). What Beck is doing with his "common sense" book is fraudulently recasting Thomas Paine as someone SHARING his anti-"big government socialism" point of view. Which is an out-and-out perversion of Mr. Paine's legacy. The "idiot" book is clearly more of the same nonsense. With Beck what it is really all about is protecting his millions.

In fact, it is fairly easy to discern that Beck is a fraud. Look at who he's attacking - labor unions and ACORN, two populist organizations! American Rights at Work, a union advocacy group truly states that "Unions, by fighting for higher standards for workers, businesses, families, the environment, and public health and safety, have helped to build the middle class and make sure the economy works for everyone". That's populism.

ACORN advocates "for low and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues". That's populism.

By Beck's own admission populism is common sense. But by Beck's own actions it is obvious he doesn't support populism. Although, it is common sense for him to promote the interests of America's super wealthy, the modern-day equivalent of Great Britain's aristocracy. He has done so successfully (people are buying his books and watching his show) and he has been rewarded handsomely.

A positive review of the "idiot" book declares it to be "chock-a-block with all the facts and data one needs to successfully and authoritatively rebut the Left's preposterous proletarian propaganda". "Proletarian propaganda", is, of course, code for "rhetoric in support of working people", or POPULISM.

Populism is preposterous, and needs to be attacked. That's according to a positive review of the "idiot" book. And Glenn Beck is a fraud and a moron. That's according to ME. Although, as Beck's earnings illustrate, there are quite a few gullible fools eager to buy into his faux populism. In regards to such people, Thomas Paine said, "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon", and "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it".

I'll leave you with a deft observation regarding Glenn Beck...

Glenn Beck likes arguing, but has a deep-seated hatred for logic ~ Stephen Colbert, 7/29/2009 on the "Colbert Report"

Further Reading
[1] Thomas Paine (1737-1809) A Sort History by Eric Foner.
[2] Thomas Paine and the Promise of America by Harvey J. Kaye, Thom Hartmann's "Independent Thinker" Book of the Month Review, BuzzFlash 2/2/2006.
[3] Senate Votes to Deny Funds To ACORN by Andrew Taylor, Associated Press 9/14/2009 (Reason to Read: ACORN alleges "prostitute & pimp" videos were doctored).

SWTD #23

Baucus Bill A Shameless Shakedown

The Bill it (the Senate) sends to the President may as well be called "The Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act" ~ Wendell Potter, Former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, testifying before Congress on 9/11/2009

First Representative Wilson called the President a liar, and now, Senator Max Baucus, after listening to the President's instruction request plea for the inclusion of a limited public-option in the health insurance reform legislation, submits a bill that says, in effect, "fu*k you" to Barack Obama - and to the American people.

Keith Olbermann and Wendell Potter discuss the health insurance reform bill - an excerpt from the September 16, 2009 broadcast of Countdown: (edited for brevity and clarity)

Keith: Good Evening from New York. If it were up to Senator Max Baucus, middle class families would be forced, literally forced to pay far more on healthcare than they already do right now. 13 percent of what they make could be deducted directly from their paychecks and mainlined to insurance companies. A so-called "Max tax", that would be handed over to the very industry that has given the chairman of the finance committee three million dollars in campaign donations. And that thirteen percent payroll deduction does not count co-pays and deductibles. See a doctor for any reason, or get sick, and you can expect to pay nearly $12,000 a year more.

Our 5th story in the countdown - only three million dollars to chairman Baucus? In exchange for a bill, in which the health insurance industry is guaranteed to make billions upon billions? We know what you are Senator Baucus, we're now arguing about the price.

Mr. Baucus today releasing his version of the healthcare reform bill that would give coverage to 30 million Americans who currently do not have any, first by extending Medicaid, the state federal insurance program for the poor, next by providing government subsidies to modest income families and individuals to help them buy over the counter coverage. Only those who make less than 300 percent of the poverty level would fall into either of those categories.

That means any individual making more than $32,500, or any family of four making more than $66,150 is on their own, subject to the "Max tax" of 13 percent. For a family making $66,150 that is $700 a month they'd have to pay. If the family does not buy insurance they would be fined nearly half that amount.

Some other nuggets in the Baucus bill - private insurers would be allowed to charge older individuals up to 5 times as much for coverage. You heard that right, 5 times. Forget about pulling the plug on Grandma, Max Baucus wants to help the insurance industry steal her purse. Also in the bill, anyone with pre-existing conditions would go into a high-risk pool. But the provision says they would need to be uninsured for 6 months before they could even gain access to that pool. Exactly what you want for those who are already sick.

For more on what's in the Baucus bill lets turn to a veteran of the insurance industry, Wendell Potter, former communications director at CIGNA, now senior fellow at the Center for Media and Democracy. Much thanks again for your time tonight sir.

WP: Thank you very much.

Keith: We anticipated the Baucus bill would be bad, it would be difficult to swallow - but a bill that actually makes healthcare more expensive for the middle class, and essentially taxes them off the start, 13 percent. And then starts talking about what you're actually paying to see a doctor. How could it possibly be this stunningly awful?

WP: You know, I can't imagine. I read the framework of the bill before this was actually released. That was bad enough, but to see what it really looks like... I got an email from a medical director I used to work with that said that Karen Ignagni must have been doing a jiggity-jig when she saw this. Karen is the head of the trade group for the health insurance companies. It really is just an absolute gift to the health insurance industry.

Keith: Was this bill more or less written by the insurance lobby, or did somebody just anticipate their needs and decide to double them?

WP: You know that's a good point. It looked at first like it might have been written by the lobbyists and the lawyers for the health insurance industry, but I don't think they would have been quite this audacious to have expected something like this.

Keith: If your family's income is in the $60,000 range and you don't hand over your 13 percent, the government could fine you $3,800 under Baucus' plan. You get no public option to turn to. You have no leverage to negotiate a lower price. Is this not exactly the opposite of the premise of the choices that President Obama discussed just last week, let alone in the entire buildup to this?

WP: Oh absolutely the opposite. And the President said during his address to the joint session of Congress that he wanted to make sure that no family would go bankrupt or lose their homes because of high medical expenses. This would guarantee that more and more of us would be in that boat. It's just absolutely ludicrous to think that this would be something that the President would sign.

Keith: You could go bankrupt without seeing the doctor. $13,000 subtracted from an income in the $60,000 range is often make or break for a family with that kind of an income in this kind of America.

WP: Right, it is. Another thing to keep in mind is that people who really can't afford those premiums will get subsidies from taxpayer dollars that will go straight to the insurance companies as well. So they win, win, win and we lose, lose, lose.

My Commentary: This bill is nothing more than a shameless shakedown by Max Baucus and the so-called "bipartisan six" on behalf of their corporate donors. Or, rather, an attempted shakedown. It was mentioned on Countdown that the Senate Democratic leadership is not happy, and that this bill is essentially DOA. And yet, according to the Washington Post, "the legislative dance is just starting". Senator "pull the plug on grandma" promises to "keep working until we get it right". I suppose that means he thinks that the bill isn't generous enough to the Healthcare Insurers?!

SWTD #22

Universal Coverage A Hardship for Health Insurers?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed ~ Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) pre-eminent political and spiritual leader of India during the Indian independence movement.

If you didn't watch the coverage on MSNBC Wednesday night after the President's speech (9/9/2009) you probably missed what I think was the most important clarification of the evening. David Axelrod, appearing post-speech on the Rachel Maddow Show explained how there could be a mandate for everyone to buy insurance, yet what we would end up with would NOT be universal coverage. According to Axelrod, if you can't afford the not-for-profit health insurance, you will be granted a "hardship exemption". Which means, I suppose, that people who can't afford the reduced rate because they are too poor should be grateful they will be allowed to continue to not have access to health care.

Of course Republicans will approve, as we can not have more lazy lowlifes "suckling from the teat of big government". This explains why they're so upset about Obama's death panels - death panels fall under the purview of the for profit health insurers (Death panels are only bad when they are run by the government I guess). The Supreme Court has ruled that money is free speech - and it is the insurance companies who have spoken loudest. They are the ones who would suffer a "hardship" if the health insurance reform legislation included a true public-option (one which anyone could buy into). Think of the billions in lost profits!

I am not joking. These contract breaking death-panel running parasites actually DO have the temerity to argue that an overhead of up to 40 percent is reasonable while Medicare can do the same job for under 4%.

In an 8/25/2005 article from US News & World Report titled "Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains", author Rick Newman declares that, "blaming insurance firms for runaway healthcare costs is a weak argument, because the insurance industry isn't all that profitable to start with". As proof to back up this misleading claim that the health insurance racket "isn't all that profitable", Mr. Newman correctly points out that "the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year".

How can the profit margin stat be both correct AND misleading, you might ask? Mr. Newman reveals the fatal flaw in his own logic when he states that, "profit margins basically reflect the percentage of revenue left over after paying salaries, expenses, taxes and lots of other things. So it's possible for firms to pay their executives a lot and still have a low profit margin". They don't pay their executives "a lot", they pay their executives WAY TO DAMN MUCH. Even though he himself points out how looking at profit margins can be misleading, this fact goes completely unaddressed in Mr. Newman's article. Not even a quick dismissal.

I'm guessing he believes exorbitant Health Insurer CEO compensation to be justified, beyond reproach, and thus not even worth discussing (his article goes on to point a finger at the pharmaceutical industry, which, overall has higher profit margins). I agree that Big Pharma is another leaches draining the American health consumer, but that is a topic for a future blog post.

David O. Friedrichs of the Department of Sociology/Criminal Justice, University of Scranton PA asserts "some immense forms of social harm are not formally classified as crime" in a paper titled Exorbitant CEO compensation: just reward or grand theft? The article concludes that "such compensation is neither warranted nor necessary" and may very well jeopardize the "economy which produces their wealth in the first place".

The author's determination - which I happen to strongly agree with...

David O. Friedrichs: Walking into a bank with a gun and demanding money from a teller is one way to steal money. Walking into a corporate boardroom and securing from that board's compensation committee, made up of cronies, consultants, and even relatives, compensation of millions - sometimes tens of millions or hundreds of millions - is another way to steal money. ...exorbitant CEO compensation is, in a very real sense, a form of crime.

However, excessive CEO compensation is not the only way to dispose of dollars that would otherwise be profit. Former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, Wendell Potter, knows all to well how policyholder money can be squandered on corporate jets, gold-plated silverware, country club memberships, security services and other "gilded excess".

Unlike Medicare, private insurance plan also have high administrative costs - which include sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. Given these facts, can anyone explain why town hall protesters are falling for this "socialism" baloney? Government already provides public education, police and fire protection, not to mention health insurance for people over 65 (which the private health insurers love, by the way, since those individuals are the most costly to insure).

The solution, while it may be a "hardship" for the private health insurers, is a no-brainer. Expand Medicare to enable anyone to buy into it. Liberal talk show host Thom Hartman, in his article "Medicare Part E: Everybody", explains that if we used the rate "set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it ...Medicare Part E would be revenue neutral".

Revenue neutral means we wouldn't be adding to the national deficit, which is the primary Republican oppositional talking point. Or we can continue allowing health insurance execs to continue stealing billions because it would apparently be better than allowing lazy poor people to avoid dying.

Further Reading
[1] The Private Health Industry's Time is Up by Bernie Sanders, Christian Science Monitor 5/16/2009.
[2] The Health Care Racket by Paul Krugman, The New York Times 2/16/2007.

SWTD #21

President Obama Mandates Larger Profits for Health Insurance Companies?

Maybe the President is saying to the blue dogs, "don't worry, don't worry, we'll give them a phony-baloney public option" ~ Liberal Talk Show Radio Host Thom Hartmann on his program 9/10/2009.

I've been thinking about this since last night, and it occurred to me that, while the MSNBC pundits may have thought that President Obama stated that he was in favor of a single-payer type public option being included in the healthcare reform legislation, what he actually said was that there should be a "not for profit public option available in the insurance exchange". And that this option would only be "for those who don't have insurance".

In other words, he SAID public option, but then described something that isn't a public option. Single payer means that the government is the insurer. An "insurance exchange" describes a place where the health insurance consumers can go to choose from a variety of PRIVATE plans.

David Axelrod (who appeared post-speech on the Rachel Maddow show), explained that low-income individuals would qualify for tax credits - and if they still could not afford to buy - then they could be exempted under a "hardship" provision. So the plan will NOT offer UNIVERSAL coverage - and thus will not prevent people from showing up in an emergency room after having let whatever health problem they are experiencing go untreated for to long.

And what's the deal with TAX CREDITS?? Tax credits are only of use if you actually pay taxes, number one - and secondly, just because someone gets a tax credit doesn't mean they suddenly have extra money. This is more Republican appeasement, which there seemed to be quite of bit of in the speech.

My conclusion is that while this will probably be an improvement for those in the middle class, it won't do a damn thing for poor people who can't afford insurance now.

The President also brought up MANDATES. A mandate and an extremely limited public option (possibly in name only) equal a BIG payday for the insurance companies - in my opinion.

I need to hear what Thom Hartmann thinks. That should clarify it for me if any of my fears are justified. My fear is that the President used the term "public option" but it won't be a real public option. The "not for profit" option will be administered through a private company instead of the government and only certain people will qualify.

If you have access to insurance through your employer you'll be required to take it. Even if it is not that good. Even if it stinks. Access to the "public option" will be carefully controlled. You'll have to be poor to get it, but not too poor that you can't afford it. In other words very few people will get in, thus defeating one of the main purposes of the public option, which was to keep prices down. This, in my opinion, is a fake public option. The only reason it was in the speech was to placate President Obama's liberal supporters.

People with insurance won't be subject to Recission. People with pre-existing conditions won't be denied coverage. Some people who couldn't previously afford insurance may now be able to, thanks to "tax credits". The insurance companies may be making less per person (maybe), but with insurance now mandatory, they'll make up the difference with new customers.

So, will this help everyone? Absolutely not. People will still fall through the cracks, people will still be showing up in emergency rooms without insurance, and people will still die due to lack of insurance. I can't say I'm surprised, but I also can't say that I'm not disappointed.

SWTD #20

Who Supports Healthcare Insurance Reform

I think Wednesday is going to be a make it or break it day for President Obama's presidency ~ Thom Hartmann on his radio program (9/3/2009)

Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care reform in prime time today (Wednesday, Sept. 9th). If the public option, which President Obama has previously described as a "must" is indeed dead (as proclaimed by Glenn Beck and other right wing news sites/pundits), we will probably find out then. An 8/17/2009 article on "The Daily Kos" by Jed Lewison says, "If the White House does end up letting the public option disappear without a major fight, many of President Obama's most ardent supporters, inspired by his Yes we can attitude, will withdraw from politics, their previous cynicism once again affirmed by a broken system".

In my previous post titled "Who Opposes Healthcare Insurance Reform", I addressed the right's assertion that it is average Americans who are opposing healthcare insurance reform. In said post I clearly illustrated that those against reform are "billionaires posing as grassroots groups to oppose anything that isn't in the billionaires' interests" - to reiterate the quote I concluded that post with.

Average Americans are, in fact, largely in favor of reform. According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, "72 percent [of Americans] support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers ... [and] think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs".

I linked to this poll on a conservative website, and of course a Con chimed in disputing the figures. Because CBS News is "liberal". If "liberal" equates to "no conflict of interest", then I suppose CBS News is liberal. Actually, it is because CBS News - as reported by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) - is one of the few news organization without a conflict of interest, I believe their figures to be the most trustworthy.

So, what is the conflict of interest? FAIR explains that, "when a director from one company sits on the board of directors of another company, that's known as an interlocking directorate"; and, "save for CBS, every media corporation has board connections to either an insurance or pharmaceutical company".

Wow, every one? Yes, read the article. A Con faced with that fact would probably next attack FAIR, because they are "a progressive media criticism organization", but the facts, and the conflict of interest remain. The proprietor of a conservative blog I recently visited, and was quickly banned from posting on, argued that an organization having a conflict of interest does not preclude their information from being correct. So, billions of dollars are on the table, but polls produced by news organizations on whose boards health insurance executives sit - polls that tell us a majority of Americans are against a "government takeover" of healthcare - they might not be rigged.

I think common sense should indicate clearly which side in this debate is telling the truth - fake grassroots organizations backed by health insurance industry money and news organizations with health insurance industry executives on their board of directors - or polls from non-biased sources that tell us that a large majority of Americans want a public option?

Also supporting a single-payer system or a public option are a number of physician and medical professional organizations (see the list below). It is an impressive list, but there is one notable exception. The American Medical Association (representing approximately 20 percent of practicing physicians) has, historically, always opposed the public option.

Because they're worried about mandatory participation and reimbursement rates - they're whining that government run insurance programs aren't paying them enough. I'm in favor of paying doctors fairly, but I'm not convinced that this isn't about greed as opposed to fair pay. Otherwise you'd think that argument could stand on it's own.

In the past the AMA has referred to the public option as "socialized medicine" and made the Sarah Palin-ish claim that a government-sponsored system would be a gateway to totalitarianism. This go-round they're alleging a public option would lead to "an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers". If this were really about adequate compensation why trot out these obvious lies? Insulting my intelligence doesn't help your case, AMA.

As with my previous post, again we can follow the money and discover whom, in actuality, the AMA is concerned about. Is the AMA all about protecting taxpayers from "an explosion of costs" and totalitarianism, or their own bottom line? An article by Matthew Yglesias on "Think Progress" reveals that at least 20 percent of the AMA's budget comes from the pharmaceutical lobby.

The AMA was willing to whore itself out for money in the past when it accepted money from the tobacco industry (see the Think Progress article), and, in my opinion, the same thing is going on now. Which may be why a recent survey by Sermo (an online community for physicians) found that 91 percent of physicians feel that the AMA does not accurately reflect their opinion as physicians. Which could explain why membership in the AMA has been declining in recent years.

In any case, I didn't intend for this post to be about the AMA, but about who supports the public option (the American people), and speculation regarding whether President Obama will, or will not, stand up and fight for what the American people want. If he does not I fear for the future of his agenda and for the future of the Democratic Party. If President Obama is of the opinion - and from what I've heard he may very well be - that any bill is a win, I think he is mistaken.

No public option is a win for the Republicans, and could very well render the rest of Mr. Obama's presidency ineffectual. Does this leave a lot of Democrats wondering, as a blogger on Atlanta's Examiner.com put it, "is Obama's presidency about to self-destruct over health care?".

Physician and Medical Professional Organizations Supporting Healthcare Reform
[1] The National Physicians Alliance with a membership of approximately 20,000 physicians.
[2] Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) representing aproximately 14,000 American physicians, medical students, and health professionals.
[3] Mad as Hell Doctors representing Oregon physicians.

Further Reading
[1] Health Care Reform vs. Single Payer Like HR676 (8/17/2009) Reason to read: Lays out how a public option would lead to tremendous savings and other benefits.
[2] The Pharmaceutical Payoffs? by Candice Lane, M.D. (blog post from Wellsphere's General Medical Community, 4/16/2008). Reason to read: Reveals how drug companies are paying off doctors to hawk their products.

SWTD #19