Here's a little head clearing from Amy Goodman/Democracy Now! ---

[defendandprotect]

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/18/dennis_kucinich_and_ralph_nader_a




Some of the highlights, IMO --
NOTE: this is not verbatim and includes my own impressions of what was said!


Until 2014: 180,000 will die before BEFORE any coverage expands - Harvard Medical Research
While hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money will be poured into corporations
which have caused the problem with our health care system!

At the end, Kucinich sadly stresses the need to "preserve the Obama presidency" . . . !

Unfortunately, that suggests that if Obama had introduced a single payer system that
it would somehow harm his presidency -- !!

But, it also makes clear that this president -- which Kucinich is making clear --
lives either in fear of Republican retaliation -- or he is for the Republican agenda!


The discussion also rightly covers the insanity of these wars and the expense -- and
the reality that they were wars of aggression based on lies.

Are we accepting war as part of our daily lives as both Kucinich and Nader suggest?
Including assassination policies and ignoring of dead civilians?
"Homicidal activities" by mercenaries?



And, what about Obama pressuring those against single payer? Why didn't that happen?
As Kucinich CONFIRMS, Obama could have made any kind of change that he wanted in health
care but he forged a plan that offered NO CHALLENGE to the "for profit" system.

2500 pages wherein the insurance companies can "game" the system -
and citizens are forced to buy "junk insurance policies."

"Everything went down" . . . "No shift of power"

Kucinich also stresses that he was one of 77 -- all of whom folded.

And discusses his astonishment that Obama wasn't "going to budge"!
obama was going to keep a "for profit" system intact!
But, no one gets to the "WHY?" of that point --

And a reminder that the majority of the people -- including doctors and nurses --
supported a single payer system -- see LINK to Single Payer website below

2,000 full time lobbyists vs Congress and the "moral position" for full single payer
with free choice of doctor and hospitals -- which this legislation does not provide.

"Pay or Die" system by insurance companies

"BONANZA" for pharmaceutical companies --
Including new ways of fighting off competition from generic competition --
And still no importation of drugs from Canada
No Public Option to keep prices down
"MONOPOLY" -- vs anti-trust laws
Also doesn't "safeguard" the states who are trying single payer from LAWSUITS to stop them --
Pennsylvania and California

Nader: "Corporate-Democrats" are crushing progressive forces and third parties --



Obama's presidency is "on the line" yet he is dumping liberals/progressives?
Who is his presidency on the line with?
IMO, it is the health of the nation and the health of our citizens which is on the line --
Indeed, the health of our planet!

"Americans aren't mobilized" --
Full MEDICARE FOR ALL

This legislation will cost 2X what the Canadians and Germans and French are paying to
COVER ALL OF THEIR CITIZENS!!



http://www.singlepayer.org/

http://www.freespeech.org/


ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT .. for those interested --
Though I think we all understand this . . .
Nader reiterated that

First, in 2004 - Kerry/Bush -- the anti-war movement gave a pass to Kerry and broke
the momentum of the movement

Second -- Fewer people in Congress they can see supporting their position --
"demoralization" of the movement --

Third -- Money $$$$$$$$$$ to run demonstrations --
Left is not as well funded as the right

Fourth -- Washington Post and N Y Times not covering the anti-war movement --
they're ignoring it -- but giving plenty of attention to the T-party!

President and Congress are not giving leadership to anti-war positions --

Obama is "freezing out dissenters" -- and is surrounded by "War-mongers and MIC" --

Same as Bush -- "won't listen to Vets for Peace or any others opposing the war" --

[mn9driver]

1. It is possible to have a reasonable system run by a private insurance industry

The Swiss did it. The Belgians did it. But it requires very tight regulation and enforcement. Since our government has proven itself incapable of even considering a single payer system, we have to continue pushing in this direction.

There has to be a transition period as everyone is brought into the risk pool. Could it be done all at once? And soon? I'm not sure how that would be possible given the fact that we will remain with our mishmash of private companies. It will take time until "everyone" is in and paying premiums--at which point the pre-existing condition exclusions can be outlawed. That's in the bill.

I don't like it. It would be simpler, faster and cheaper to just give a big F U to the health insurance racket and institute universal single pay--but that is NOT going to happen. We will need to work a lot harder for a lot longer to make sure that we keep getting bills passed that bring this runaway industry under control, and they will fight it every step of the way. This bill HAS to be only a starting point. We've got a long way to go.

[defendandprotect]

2. Do you know that we spend as much money as the Swiss do per person . . . but, where's the care?

There is NO tight regulation and enforcement in this legislation -- to the contrary!

Here are two ways to keep fighting . . .

http://www.singlepayer.org /

http://www.freespeech.org /

Upper left/Petition


What we have to understand is the WHY? of the question of single payer not happening and

what that portends for any other important issue . . . such as war, reregulating capitalism,

Glass-Steagall, Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine --

What Obama made clear the other day is that he's throwing out any influence by the Liberals

and Progressives . . .

Keep in mind, that's WOMEN and UNION issues, as well -- that's the New Deal!

That's Social Security and Medicare!

That's the anti-war movement!

I think he's given fair warning of what's ahead and I think liberals/progressives need to

MOBILIZE!!

[mn9driver]

3. to the contrary...?

Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote. Can't help you with that, sorry.
:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

5. I meant "to the contrary" as in stressing the total reverse happening . . .

In other words, completely the opposite end from any regulation/control --

I got you --

In fact, they are going to reap a BONANZA in taxpayer money from this legislative scam --

and are being given immense new power over our health care system!

How many Americans know that we're paying PER PERSON what the Swiss pay for a luxurious health care

system and we're basically getting nothing for that money?

Amazing that can be so well hidden in this country by a corporate-press!!



:)

[defendandprotect]

15. kick

[Dinger]

4. K & R

[rhett o rick]

7. What's your point about "It's possible to have a reasonable system run by private insurance

industry"? So the Swiss did it, bully. We dont need to "do it". We need to kick the predatory for-profit insurance industry out of Dodge.

What's this bullshit about a transition period? Ok take 6 friggin months, but not 4 focking years. People are dying and you say we need a transition period.

From your post, I cant tell whose side you are on? Maybe you should make that clear.

[mn9driver]

12. Whose side am I on?

re: "So the Swiss did it, bully. We dont need to "do it". We need to kick the predatory for-profit insurance industry out of Dodge."

Whose side are you on? The side of wanting what is not going to happen and therefore gets nothing at all? How productive. You are the GOP's dream.

re: "What's this bullshit about a transition period? Ok take 6 friggin months..."

The subsidies will take 4 years to kick in. The reason for this is because of the requirement to pay for every aspect of the bill. Tax collections need to create a fund before the money can be disbursed. An accounting and application system needs to be created-- unless you want to force people to buy the insurance without subsidy?

re:"you say we need a transition period"

Um, duh?

re:"From your post, I cant tell whose side you are on?"

I guess that the following is very ambiguous: "I don't like it. It would be simpler, faster and cheaper to just give a big F U to the health insurance racket and institute universal single pay...We will need to work a lot harder for a lot longer to make sure that we keep getting bills passed that bring this runaway industry under control, and they will fight it every step of the way. This bill HAS to be only a starting point. We've got a long way to go."

Yep, sure is hard to tell how I feel about the issue, isn't it?

It would be nice to live in a country where it was possible to actually make single payer happen right now. We do not live in such a country. I doubt that we will live in such a country after the November elections, either. Since you're so impatient about the "transition period" that I am apparently responsible for, how many years or decades are you willing to wait to get universal single payer? How many more people will die while we wait for you to get it done?

Good luck with that.

[rhett o rick]

14. You said, "It is possible to have a reasonable system run by a private insurance industry"

and I say it isnt, not for primary care. I am surprised if the Swiss use private health insurance to cover PRIMARY care. Do you have a link?

Interesting that when we illegally invaded Iraq, we didnt have to wait for a fund to be created from collected taxes before we spent the money. Same goes for the 2001 and 2003 Bushy tax breaks for the wealthy. We didnt have to wait for a fund to be created before Medicare Part D took effect. Is this something new?

And tell if you think saying that I am on "The side of wanting what is not going to happen and therefore gets nothing at all?" is a fair question?

I am on the side that wants decent health care for all Americans. I do not want the predatory health insurance industry involved AT ALL with primary care. And you are on the side that thinks the predatory health insurance companies can be involved with primary health care, which is probably the DLC position.

[upi402]

8. We can't regulate banks after they robbed planet earth blind

No, our government rewards them by looting the treasury and handing it to them. They can't regulate prune juice anymore!:freak:

[eridani]

9. Tightly regulated = actually run by the government n/t

[Raineyb]

13. The Swiss have heavily regulated their insurance companies including not allowing

for profit companies to provide basic health care. There is NOTHING like that in this bill.

I see no reason to push for mandated insurance because t6he bought and paid for refuse to do the right thing opting instead to line their pockets. I'm not giving them a pass on that and there's no evidence that this bill is merely a starting point. What in the behavior of congress in recent history would even give you that idea?

[defendandprotect]

6. kick --

[mmonk]

10. The corporations have two parties. It would be nice if we

could at least have one.

[readmoreoften]

11. +1