That's the nature of any society when it comes to ethnic minorities. America is no different.

Historically, in fact, America has a pretty rotten record generally, when it comes to ethnic minorities.

America ranks near the bottom of all nations when it comes to treatment of its indigenous population. It committed genocide on most Native American tribes, lied to them about treaty after treaty, and set up a reservation system that all but guarantees them a life in poverty. America dragged on legal slavery and legalized racial discrimination longer than the vast majority of nations in the world. It was the worst in the West when it came to the above.

It's not "paternalism" to suggest that young ethnic minorities need a boost above and beyond the boost needed for the dominant majority. It's just common sense, based upon history, logic, and the real world.

It's a given right now that liberals and progressives feel the need to defend themselves by saying they aren't liberals and progressives. That's too strange.

I never hear conservatives do that.

The baseline for the establishment right now is conservative. And, yes, that includes the MSM. Contrary to the incessant whining of the right, the MSM is centrist at best, not liberal at all, and often outright conservative.

In public, conservatives are not expected to defend being conservative, or too conservative. Liberals and progressives are, and THEY'VE internalized right wing memes. They've internalized the critique of the right and, perhaps, unknowingly, apply it to themselves.

America lost its liberal consensus in the early 70s. Conservatism has dominated the establishment scene for nearly four decades. The right is in charge. Yet they spend, it seems, most of their anger, their energy, their time and money battling an enemy that no longer exists. At least one that no longer has any power.

Another major irony: Sotomayor's record is also centrist at best, and often downright conservative. The right should cheer on her selection. Leave it to the Dems to feel the need to appoint centrist judges when they run the show. The GOP never seems to feel the need to do that.

The percent of GDP going toward taxes in roughly 25%. I've seen conservative economists who say it's lower than that. Under 20%. They cite that number, ironically, in defense of their scare tactics about Obama's future taxation potential.

Sweden's is roughly 50% of its GDP, as a point of contrast.

America, from 1947-1964 had a top rate of 91%. From 1964 to 1973 it was 70%. There is a direct parallel, historically, between high taxes for individuals and corporations, and high economic performance, job growth and wage growth.

After 1973, wages for roughly 93% of Americans stagnated or fell, with only a brief blip during the Clinton years, when he raised taxes.

There is a direct parallel, historically, between low taxes for the rich and corporate America and poor job growth, poor wage growth, and a rapidly increasing gap between rich and poor, rich and the middle, and even rich and richer.

Some posters here have tried to say that low taxes are needed for a healthy economy. The facts, the evidence, the historical record says otherwise.

The most recent example is obvious. Under Bush, just 1.45 million new jobs were created, net. Tax receipts to the Treasury declined his first three years and his last. He doubled the debt. He set records for domestic and trade deficits. Wage growth for roughly 95% of the American workforce were flat or declined. Wage growth for the top 1% skyrocketed. It was even higher for the top .01%.

History tells us that lower taxes for the rich and for corporations do NOT help the vast majority of Americans. They help the rich. Period. And, since they have seen the vast majority of tax CUTS in the last few decades, it is only fair that they pay for health care reform. They can afford it. No one else can. It needs to be done.

That said, the two best health care bills are the ones being ignored. Conyers' and Sanders'. Both Single Payer. Single Payer would immediately save us at least 30% in overhead costs . . . which would translate into several hundreds of billions each year. It has the potential to save much more, as prices could be forced down with a Medicare for All system.

It's the cheapest, most efficient, best answer to our health care problems. And it would save the vast majority of Americans a fortune. No more out of pocket costs or premiums would help any family. It would also help businesses, for obvious reasons.

If not for the power of private insurance company lobbyists, we'd do the right thing, the smart thing, the least costly thing and go Single Payer.

I really thought more Americans made high wages. Apparently, just a tad over 2 million make 280K or better. That puts a person just this side of the top 1%.

Wealth concentration has gotten far worse, as everyone knows. Wealth is more and more consolidated in the hands of a few multi-billionaires and multi-nationals, and the middle class is shrinking. Even the upper middle class is shrinking.

It's no coincidence that this has happened under a decades' old conservative economic regime, that saw taxes slashed for the rich and for corporations. It also comes at the same time that deregulation has taken hold like wildfire.

Wages used to rise year after year for the middle class. But that hasn't happened since 1973, roughly. We've had nearly 40 years of stagnant or falling wages for more than 90% of Americans, while the wages for the top 1% have skyrocketed.

And what else do we have to show for voodoo economics? An eleven trillion dollar debt, record trade debt, crumbling infrastructure, a collapsing health care system and a collapsing economy overall.

Reaganomics. The biggest economic con-game in our history. It's time to reverse course.

A million people with the disposable income to buy cars, TVs, washer dryers, books, food, etc. etc. is a hell of a lot better for manufacturers and retail stores than 1000 people with that ability.

The economy does best as a whole when the potential pool of consumers grows. The more, the merrier.

And that's not even dealing with all of the social issues that come about with the high level of inequality, the health issues, etc.

We have a pyramid with the top surging ahead faster than the foundation. It's the wrong shape.

The difference is obviously power, access, and money. People without those things aren't going to get urgent attention. If any attention. The financial elite get that attention, immediately.

We outnumber them by a huge amount. Obviously. Yet we let them treat us like a minority . . .

Americans are suckers. And it's astounding when average Joes and Janes actually defend the financial elite.

Obama has it in his power to make them do the perp walk. Easily.

Cheney, just for his assassination squad alone, would get life. Bush for his secret, illegal surveillance programs, constant lies about that progam, and his manipulation of a nation into war.

More than a few righties talked about Iraqis being "ingrates" for cheering on our recent exit from Iraqi cities.

The real ingrates are Bushies who attack Obama, the guy who keeps their boys out of jail.

Consumers didn't cause the whole system to crash. It was the Financial Sector. All of those masters of the universe and the banksters. They had leveraged themselves beyond repair and couldn't handle the housing crash. If they hadn't been leveraged up to their eyeballs, they could have weathered the storm. Citigroup, AIG, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, etc. They played Casino Capitalism with OPMs, and a lot of execs made billions, even though their companies lost trillions. Then the government bailed them out. We socialized their losses, their risk, and let them keep their blood money. Sent them trillions to do so. We sent trillions to billionaires, so billionaires could send millions to millionaires.

Meanwhile, individual average Joes and Janes lost everything, and there was no bailout for them.

The Financial Elite want people to think it was the fault of the average consumer. If people woke up and really looked at the wizards behind the curtain, really scrutinized what they've been doing for decades, they'd march on the castle. And those big execs know it. So they're pretty happy that people like you repeat their talking points. Though, you aren't among the worst by far I've seen.

The worst blame the poor and minorities, having drunk Financial Elite koolaid for much too long. It sounds like you've taken a few sips at least, though . . . .

Wealth is "redistributed" by the insurance companies. They take all of the premiums you send them, and pay for services rendered for OTHER people. They make huge profits on JUST those premiums, copays and out sourcing. They make sure they pay out less than they take in. They hire people to make sure that happens. And the number of people they've hired to do that has skyrocketed.

Young, healthy people who don't get sick pay for the health care of older folks who do. In general, the healthy pay for the sick.

You're not paying for your own health care when you have private insurance. You're paying for other people's health care through a collected, collective pool. And when YOU'RE sick, they pay for YOUR treatments.

As for who you want deciding coverage for you. I'd MUCH rather have career civil servant making that decision than for-profit insurers whose job it is to collect more cash than they pay out.

The government doesn't have to worry about making profits or paying its execs eight figure salaries.

I have no idea why anyone in their right mind WOULDN'T rather have a career civil servant making that decision.

That's why Obama and the Dems are pushing for effective medicine review. It's a big part of their reform measures.

These could be implemented along with Single Payer.

What it is, essentially, is peer-reviewed standards of what works, what's effective, and what's overtreatment, as you mention. Most of it is just common sense. Most of it deals with the abuse we all knows happens. Running dozens of tests when the doc already knows it's with a much smaller range of possibility.

Most doctors and hospitals do that in house. They streamline care on their own. They work like technical troubleshooters, eliminating variables, doing process of elimination.

But some don't. Some take advantage of the system.

That could be reduced.

And, we could leave safeguards in place allowing for special circumstances. Always do that, I'd say.

Insurance is the single biggest problem right now. It's the thing that has the least to do with health care and the most logical thing to cut. Medicare practice is next in line for reform. But the insurance part of the deal, the for-profit insurance side, is simply in the way. It's a parasitic middleman that doesn't need to be between doctors and their patients.

He's yet another John Galt wingnut, like CMN.

Their basic philosophy is "I've got mine, screw everyone else!"

They'll get their comeuppance one of these days. They'll find themselves in need of help and they'll take it gladly, despite bloviating the way they do about their tremendous self-reliance and moral superiority.

Writ large, this is like the governor of Texas bitching and moaning about government interference, but then taking massive federal funds after hurricanes devastated his state.

They want to secede from the union until they need the union to bail them out.

Phonies and hypocrites, all of them.

Single Payer, as I said, would dramatically reduce costs for health care PROVIDERS. Right now, they are swamped with paper work. They have to deal with hundreds of plans and dozens of insurers. Some regional, some local, some national.

That would change with Single Payer. One source. One place to send all of your bills.

Other cost savings:

We pay far, far more for drugs than they do in Canada, Europe and in much of Asia. Big Pharma rips us off constantly. Single Payer would have tremendous power in negotiating lower payment rates. Medicare did this before Congress meddled with it and helped Big Pharma yet again with Part B. Get rid of all of the privatization in Medicare, make it 100% non-profit, and it has the power to force lower prices, at least to normal rates seen in MOST countries.

As for that "transfer of wealth" you speak of. That's being done under the current system. Private insurance companies make ginormous profits by adding zero to the quality of our health care. They are totally unnecessary and parasitic. They suck up trillions of dollars that should be going directly for health care, and not for their eight figure salaries, yachts and lavish homes and vacations, etc.

You also "transfer wealth" when you send them your premiums each month. If you're young and healthy, especially, you're paying for the health care of the older and sicker people who need coverage from your insurance company. The insurance company collects premiums, copays and out of pocket expenses into a huge pool. Many people pay in far more than they ever use. Many other people use far more than they ever pay in.

There's virtually no difference between that model and paying taxes for insurance. Except for the most important one:

Single Payer would be non-profit. You wouldn't be paying for eight figure salaries. You wouldn't be paying to make an unnecessary middleman filthy rich. Your tax dollars, minus less than 3%, would be going toward HEALTH CARE. Unlike with private insurance.

Also. The government has no incentive to deny coverage. Private insurers do. They lose money when they cover people, which is why they're invested in "recission" and "purging" right now.

Private insurers also keep jacking up their rates, year after year after year. Their profits have soared for decades.

The government doesn't have to worry about pleasing greedy executives and stockholders. It just needs to run an efficient department. Medicare is already massively more efficient than any private insurer. If it covered everyone, it could easily increase those efficiencies.

As far as I know, no country has a 100% pure Single Payer system. They have some version of a public/private system, which is weighted toward the public. We have the worst of the worst, because our public/private "partnership" is weighted so heavily toward the private, it makes private insurance companies far, far, far more profitable. It we removed Medicare and Medicaid from the mix right now -- I'm against that, obviously -- private insurers would lose money, because they'd have to cover the elderly who need payouts the most.

. . . .

So, to make a long story short:

Why not have America lead the way? Why not be the first nation on earth to have a truly 100%, all public, all non-profit, all the time health care insurance system?

As in, zero privatization. Zero "partnership" with the private sector insurance industry.

As in, they're out of the loop.

Again, as far as I know, no country does this. We're already unique right now (in a horrible way) in our obliviousness to the uninsured, and our focus on private profit and bottom lines when it comes to health care. Why not go in the other direction, and be all about the patient, all about the common man or woman?

100%, pure, unadulterated, public, non-profit health care insurance.

That would put America first by definition.

Did you try?

Private health insurance tacks on an immediate 30% (at least) to our health care bill. Given the fact that we spend more per capita on health care than any other nation, don't you think it's a good idea to eliminate that 30%?

Medicare has overhead of 3% a year. Actually, slightly less than that. It is far more efficient and cheaper than ANY private insurance provider for a ton of reasons. One of the biggest is also the most obvious:

Medicare doesn't have to make a profit. Private insurers do, and they make a fortune.

Private insurers pay their execs EIGHT FIGURE SALARIES.

Top pay for government workers is in the six figure range.

Right now, Medicare tackles the most expensive group in America, the elderly. Medicaid insures the least likely to be able to afford premiums. Medicare and Medicaid help make private insurers FAR more profitable because of that. Private insurers are left with the best pool of customers available. And they STILL have ten times the overhead that Medicare has.

If we extend Medicare for everyone, costs will go DOWN dramatically. Medicare would THEN be covering young, healthy people as well. They don't have that luxury right now and, AGAIN, their overhead is less than 3%.

Doctors, hospitals, etc. will save a fortune in paperwork, with just one source for payment. They will save a fortune.

And businesses? They won't have to cover their workers anymore. THEY'LL save a fortune.

We need Single Payer to fix this mess, and it should be 100% non-profit, government-run health care INSURANCE. That's the best possible way to lower costs dramatically, increase efficiency dramatically, and cover everyone.

And here's the best part:

No more copays, premiums or out of pocket expenses for patients. MOST bankruptcies in America are due to health care costs, and MOST of those bankruptcies were for people WITH health care insurance.

Single Payer will eliminate the vast majority of those cases.

The overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option.

If they really understood what a Single Payer system was, they'd want that even more than just a public option.

But, thanks to our center-right MSM, Single Payer isn't even being discussed.

An informed electorate would make the healthy choice. And the healthy choice is Single Payer.

The public option isn't enough.

Even if we grant them their thesis -- I don't -- that making abortion illegal would prevent them, they haven't changed the law.

So, again, what have they done that brings actual benefits to the American people, even using their own standards?

Not only have they nothing to show for their movement, they have actively stood in the way of real progress for decades. Perhaps centuries.

But, when progressives get things done, like shorten the work week from 80 hours to 40, the very same conservatives who fought that change viciously . . . embrace them, take advantage of them . . . . etc.

I mean, honestly . . . what have they ever done to make life better for Americans?

I see them as actively working to prevent positive change, on hundreds of different issues. Which is worse than coming up empty when it comes to making positive change happen.

The conservative "mind" has always baffled me. Their obliviousness to the misery of others, especially.

It looks like he's embraced parts of it, too.

You're right that Reagan tripled the Debt. Carter left him 1 trillion. He left Bush Sr. 3 trillion.

And he expanded government. Both Bushes did even more.

Since 1980, Republicans have accelerated the growth of government far more than any Dem.

. . . .

But, to me, the real question. I really, really can't think of a single thing "conservatives" have ever done to make the quality of life in America better.

I can think of hundreds of things progressives have done to make quality of life better.

Righties? Not one single thing.

I think THAT should be their main question to themselves. When they look in the mirror. When they're not in denial. Can they name even ONE thing they've ever done to make the quality of life for Americans better?

I think even THEY'LL come up empty.

Their hearings continue to demonstrate that we can't trust private health insurance companies. And they show that its apologists are full of shit. I've read several commentators in health care threads here try to say that insurance companies make their money on investments, not on the difference between incoming premiums, copays and out of pocket expenses, and payment for health care.

Wrrrrrrrong.

If that were true, they wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to avoid making health care payments. They would also be in some OTHER business. Why set up a source for investment capital that doesn't make a profit for you, in and of itself? They exist. Those models are everywhere. Why pick a net loser, if it's supposed to be one?

It's not. Health insurance companies make HUGE profits SOLELY on the difference between incoming and outgoing payments. Investment gains are gravy.

Great link about that here:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-one-before.html

Wouldn't it be interesting to have the two Michelles, Bachman and Malkin, "debate" this?

Also, isn't Bachman off a bit on her dates (being off her rocker is a given)?

FDR died in 1945. How did he manage to collect data in 1947?

Also, surprisingly, Hoover was against the internment. A real bastard in a lot of ways, he seems to have gotten at least one thing right.

I think FDR was one of our best presidents of all-time. But the internment issue was a huge stain on his presidency. A terrible idea. Ugly, racist, brutal.

But the Census? They had the information without it to do what they wanted to do. Bachman is a lunatic.

Patients aren't responsible for allocating eight figure salaries to the heads of the major private insurers. That's their call, not the patient's.

Patients are trapped. They have no other option. They have to pay the middleman to cover their health care, when it would be far more economical, far more logical, far cheaper, if the government did the financing.

Medicare currently runs at 3% overhead. Most private insurers can barely manage 30%. Right off the bat, patients are paying a HUGE surcharge to private insurance companies who take HUGE profits and increase costs.

Take FOR profit insurance companies out of the mix, and you INSTANTLY lower prices. That's just straight math. No way around that.

We don't need private insurers mixing with health care. They're parasites. They add no value to the transaction. They just get in the way, increase costs, take their cut like drug dealers, and add an unnecessary layer of private sector bureaucrats between the patient and the doctor.

And with their despicable practice of RECISSION, they are fast approaching the status of disgusting pigs.

You want to defend them? Be my guest. But realize something. You have ZERO rational, logical or empirical support for doing so. They should NOT be involved. Period. Our government can do financing more efficiently, cheaper, and with the patient's actual needs in mind, instead of profits.

Single Payer is the way to go. All other options are cosmetics.