I must say that I get quite worried when conservatives, private sector providers, and the unions for such providers embrace market healthcare as the panacea to all their problems.  It may well be the panacea to THEIR PROBLEMS short term on paper, but I think it is only the beginning of big,

big problems for many if not most patients.  Down the road, I also think it is the end of medicine as a reliable profession, so if I am correct, providers and their unions just might want to think on this a bit!  

Anyway, I want to throw a thought out there to the providers and provider union reps, but I do not wish any answers at this time because in their current market euphoria state, any answers are just not trustable at this stage.  This is just food for thought.

When people go to providers under the current idea that the care is mostly paid for by the system, it really does increase the trust that the patient must have in the provider to use his knowledge and specific info for the benefit of the patient. However, when shopping for the lowest price is thrown into this mix, I just cannot help but wonder what kind of trusting relationships  will or will not develop between patients and providers.  To

me there is just something smelly about quality care, price of that care,

and access to what!  If trust is lost or  only equated to higher costs, the medical system will disintegrate in a sea of distrust and compromises that professionals know is wrong.  But hey, you have got to make a buck!

Also, look at this link from the NYTIMES

Posted at February 3, 2006 7:21 AM in response to What's Up, Docs?

There is also the media to contend with and whether they are acting responsibly.  If they are, then the American public must be so scared post 9/11 that they are willing to let essential freedoms go for now.  Scary!

Molly Ivins said yesterday:

Because we are stuck with this administration for another three years, I think it important to begin to get past the defensiveness and drawing attention away and blame games that big messes provoke. And part of that calls on American journalism to get over reporting the Bush administration as though it were a credible source. We need to face facts

Full article at:

Posted at January 26, 2006 7:58 AM in response to Poe and Dowd

I agree with your premise, but you seem to be implying that many folks cannot see that government programs which give security in these family areas are only seen as good if we grovel over it like the conservatives.  Is that what you are saying becasue if so, I like the obvious to speak for itself.  I do not like grovelling.

Posted at January 23, 2006 4:23 PM in response to God, family, & country--progressive style

Can anyone imagine the potential and current state of an incompetent presidency like GW Bush's without a national threat from either the Soviets, Bin Laden, or some other Bogeyman.  It is the only way a minority party can govern by using a threat or fear to make the majority not think clearly or logically.  Bin Laden's lack of capture by the most powerful, most sophisticated power on earth, while he supposedly hides out and runs his empire in caves on the Afgan-pakistani border, would not even qualify as a good fairy tale!  Yet here we are 5 years later, and still both hearing this crap and believing it (well maybe).  

Maybe Bin Laden was not created by the Bushies, but they sure are and have been using this Soviet surrogate bogeyman to their fullest advantage so far.  Emphasis on the so far, as the cry wolf syndrome may well be starting to enter the equation!  Therefore, do not be surprised if the golden goose (Bin Laden) meets his demise soon at the hands of the Bushies.  It is likley already in the script!

Posted at January 21, 2006 7:41 AM in response to Was bin Laden a Frankenstein-creation of the CIA

You have got to ask yourself just how and why the majority of all potential American voters, who I believe about 75% are worker types (versus owner types), would ever vote for a conservative Repub administration that does not represent their economic interests?? The inevitable result of doing so would be the demise of their standard of living in favor of a smaller class of influential capitalists, which is indeed what has been happening under both the Reagan and both Bush administrations. I wish I knew why these types of social conservative administrations can keep pulling the wool over workers' eyes with maybe other less relevant social issues so they can get in power and screw the majority worker voters over and over on extremely vital economic issues.

My point is that any political party that can make itself clearly seen as representing the welfare of workers in America should never, never, never lose an election in a democracy! NEVER! Therefore back to the question of how can/could the Dems have lost the trust of so many working types so that these workers choose to vote either against their economic future or just do not see the Dems as the party that really is representing workers. Maybe they are all afraid of no jobs instead of supposedly secure jobs under the Dems, but certainly many workers do not see the dems as "their party".

What needs to be done is to allow government to clearly work for the benefit of American workers in everything it does! For example, unions need to regain the potential leverage in bargaining by stopping through governmental actions the ability of the owner class to send jobs to the lowest denominator of cheap wages in the third world and/or to allow cheap illegal labor to come into this country. Peoples' concerns about union abuses should also be dealt with through laws where indicated, but not by allowing owners to undermine the unions' power through the above mechanisms. For all workers, living wage requirements and improved working conditions and security (including a fair healthcare system for all) need to be made of upmost importance, and all tax policy should at least be fair to workers!

If such a political party philosophy and actions could be sold to all workers, namely that that party will really represent workers interests and welfare at all costs, then that party will/would always win elections in a democracy made up of primarily workers.

Posted at January 1, 2006 1:14 PM in response to OFF-MESSAGE: RISE OF THE DINOs?

Posted at September 26, 2005 11:44 AM in response to So Close, and Yet So Far

Then why the heck are they going in with rifles at the ready looking just lke they do going door to door in oraq?  Why?

Posted at September 12, 2005 10:51 AM in response to Catastrophic Success

What do you expect from an administration that has guardsman and soldiers going house to house in New orleans with rifles drawn and ready as if it was a war zone. If they do such action in an American city, imagine what they are they capable of in Iraq.  It is not a good thing to unleash trigger happy young men on any citizens, nevermind American citizens!

Posted at September 11, 2005 2:08 PM in response to Catastrophic Success

And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.

Not to also mention that such islamic fundamentalists will take away women's rights, which under Saddam were pretty good in comparison to the arab world in general.  Now that would be some reward for the mom's of all those dead American soldiers that the death of their children was so that women in Iraq could be less free.  Is there nothing this Bush guy can do right??

Posted at August 25, 2005 1:38 PM in response to Why We Must Leave Iraq

It is a vision in which international order arises from the coupling of American power with its liberal founding principles, with the United States wielding its power to craft consensual and legitimate mechanisms of international governance.

The challenge to implement this would be great even in the light of individual terrorism potential in the pre-nuclear pre/Biologic weapons time period, Now however, since such weapons are here, can this ideal structure survive such an attack??  Just imagine the reaction of nationalism and blind hatred that will result if such weapons are smuggled into a country and detonated!  9/11 will look like a schoolyard pissing match in comparison.  How do we deal with this in our search for legitimate mechanisms of international governance.

Posted at August 21, 2005 6:57 AM in response to A Democratic Foreign Policy?