« The 12th Imam: Who is Rahim Mahai? | Desidero's Blog | Out of the Mouth of Babes: Being Hillary Clinton »

How Republicans Win: Death Panels and Democrats in Disarray


The latest flap about Sarah Palin represents just another example of how Democrats continue to lose - as ReadyToBlowAGasket notes, by not even recognizing the semantic and logical rules at play, and often by just ignoring reality for too long.

TPM does a disservice to readers by not giving background to where Palin's Death Panel reference comes from. It's from a 1996 paper (not 2009 as some contend) by Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's brother. It does in fact discuss the differences between basic and discretionary services, and in view of limited resources, what criteria might be used to decide who gets those resources. Jake Tapper discusses:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/when-academic-words-become-political-ammunition-.html

Emanuel doesn't seem to be "advocating" - he is discussing the different ways such a thing happens and what might be more ethical ways of doing this.

The fact is that health insurance companies have these same kind of decision makers, but they're not elected or public officials, they might be simply bean counters looking to guarantee stockholder value, there is no transparency for the public, but someone denied say breast cancer treatment (I believe one of the bloggers over at Firedog had this issue) has no recourse. If it's a government body making this decision, you can raise a fit, call your Senator, sue or start a protest. If it's an insurance company does it, good luck.

But by not giving sources of known information, readers assume Palin's just whacko, and then they give Republican fans an easy retort: "you're deluded, Emanuel says so right here". Bad way of doing business, bad way of arguing. Instead, progressives need to have the facts, and be able to say how many cases are disallowed by insurance companies a year (there were just Senate hearings on this very issue), retroactively labeled as "pre-existing" or other foul practices. But instead, Democrats do what they usually do, go into battle unarmed and get mowed over by self-assured conservatives with a few key facts and a head full of deception.

Now, since Palin is working off of factual information, she's already misrepresented in criticizing her description of a Death Panel. There are already many Death Panels in and out of government. Deep Capture describes how the FDA denied a promising prostate drug treatment due to unethical and likely illegal actions of stock manipulators in the background. The government decides which drugs and treatments it has the resources to test - the rest are pushed aside. Insurance companies decide which treatments are too expensive, often masked with "acceptable lower cost alternatives exist". HIV research and AIDS care was a political hot potato for Death Panels for a number of years, some years going up, some years going down. Death Panels decide on needle exchange programs, sentencing junkies to likely early deaths. Our foreign aid Death Panels for Africa favors AIDS programs over traditional diseases like tuberculosis and malaria, while our Christian fundamentalist influenced Death Panels kill off family planning efforts that would make disease preventing contraception available while exacerbating poverty with appalling death rates. Defunding stem cell research was a direct attack on a number of promising lines of research - I think that decision was made by a Death Panel of 1, George W. Bush.

And as for baby Trig, for most people the insurance companies will have their eye out to have the kid tossed off their insurance rolls as quickly as possible, and once on the pre-existing condition list, Trig will be singing the most famous nursery rhyme since Al Gore sang "Look for the Union Label": Tough Titty Said the Kitty.

The insurance Death Panels also play by procrastination. Treatment and payment delayed means more drop outs, fewer filed claims, fewer consultations. So even that decision of how many operators to leave you waiting on the phone 45 minutes is made up of some kind of cold calculating Angel of Death annualizing the number of minutes on hold per patient that leads to maximal profits without invoking complaints by the corporations that pay the bill (with their insurance payment tax exemptions funded by you, the tax payer - one of the largest expenses in our budget). Oh, hey, forgot that Death Panel - your employer. Remember when they switched insurance plans, saying they'd cut costs and get better service? Did you believe them? Did your service get better? Or did you get a chance to find out, when they downsized and put you on the street where you can't afford the COBRA payments that some Death Panel somewhere in their delusion thought would be affordable.

As Dave Berry might say: "Death Panel: Great Name for a Band. Better Name for an Insurance Racket."


38 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

How Republicans Win? Democrats are in control at the White House and Congress, have a higher approval rating than Republicans, and have policies that most Americans favor. Yet, Republicans are winning?

Republicans are great at winning the day-to-day message battles (battles folks, not war), but in the end they have lost and will continue to lose the war. They continue to go down in the polls and they continue to lose voters. If that's winning, they can keep it.

user-pic

We're still in Iraq, upping the ante in Afghanistan & Pakistan, won't make our January target for closing Gitmo where Uyghurs still are, opening another one in Bagram, DoJ maybe will do limited investigations of how low-levels deviated from Bush approved torture, DoJ is suing to keep Abu Ghraib photos from being released, half the stimulus bill was tax cuts that aren't working, trillions got paid out to Wall Street, the unions got jacked in Detroit, and now we've got single payer and the public option off the table for health reform, and Big Pharma has its obligations capped at $80 billion. If Republicans lose any more like this, why they won't even need to run for office.

user-pic

Absolutely agreed!

user-pic

They aren't winning...This guy is delusional. He's grasping for straws. Noone trusts Republicans anymore, hell most people are afraid to even admit they are one. There's no real worry here, just someone to be humored.

user-pic

Maybe they aren't winning, but they're making US (Progressives and the country as a whole) LOSE!!

The endless stream of lies, delays, lies, obstruction, lies, misinformation, lies, fear, lies, hate and lies -- from the winger pols themselves and amplified by the winger media (El Fatso, The Rodeo Clown and Sean Haircut) -- does nothing but confuse the electorate and torpedo the chances for meaningful reform.

Not that Max Bought-Us (DINO-MT) isn't doing a great job pissing away the opportunity for reform his own bad self.


user-pic

I really didn't and don't under Saracuda's Death Panel deal. My primary care doctor gave me a living will form to complete and I have complied.

Perhaps after the Schavio case, the smarter doctors in the country figured that this was the best way to go. They--my doctor at least-- wants to stay out of the weeds on this issue; and I am glad my doctor did so.

user-pic

Well highlighted.

I would like to say that everybody knew that Palin was misappropriating an actual statement and was just jumping over the explanatory step, but then I would be fibbing.

user-pic

Ops, that should be were just jumping over.

user-pic

Somehow, the difference between being completely delusional and being delusional with a source strikes me as a distinction without a difference. As I pointed out back during the campaign, Republicans always have a source for all their lies.

user-pic

Well maybe Democrats should have a source for all their truths, eh?

user-pic

Here's how they win (reposted from another thread)

Pelosi: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/gop-democrats-are-questioning-peoples-patriotism.php?ref=fpa


SEIU + Himes: "..come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices."

http://www.seiu2001.org/Healthcare_Town_Hall_Forum_with_Congressman_Jim_Himes.aspx

user-pic

Lalo,

I'll lay odds you haven't seen the inside of a woodshed lately, so I'm going to take you on a tour of mine.

Here's the sentence the GOP have seized on from the Hoyer/Pelosi op-ed: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

What, you mean it isn't? You mean our country's tradition of free speech is closer to, say, Nazi Germany's? No, too easy. Maybe you mean Americans conduct our public dialog like the People's Republic of China? Still to easy. How about you pick the place, then -- you know, one of those nice countries where legislators and their constituents are threatened with violence for speaking publicly about pending legislation?

The current Republican Party will seize -- would have seized -- on anything and everything distortable. No Democratic sentence is too good to be grist for their rumor mills.

And SEIU asking its members to turn out to tell Himes their personal stories? So?

Maybe you believe the story told by an African-American in St. Louis who was selling buttons of Obama in Joker white-face and selling out his race to a racist crowd at the same time. Maybe you think it was the black union guy with the good sense not to disparage his own race who started the fight.

Take a good look at what wasn't edited out of that dark video again: It begins with the SEIU guy on the ground. And to his right is a friend who now owns a broken clavicle -- he stumbles backward as he pushes the minstrel button seller away before his fellow is jumped on again. To the left is a man in a light-colored shirt with brown hair yelling "You attacked him!" over and over. That is the gentleman who repeatedly yelled "Fuck you!" one inch from my face.

You pick who you want to believe.

Me, I'm attending a town hall in support of health care tomorrow. Is your only talent whining?

user-pic

Lalo, that's disingenuous - Himes said "It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to counter their voices." That doesn't mean shout them down, it means have counter-information, counter-stories available so it's not one-sided.

-1 point for this one.

user-pic

You got me thinking, it just struck me, that a lot of people on this site are probably in reality on Palin's side on this, just have cognitive dissonance of some kind and don't know it yet, don't realize it yet. You know, those that constantly complain that the Democrats in Congress and the current adminstration are a bunch of yellow-bellied useless blue dog DINO's and don't represent them? I wonder why they would they want so very badly that those very same people to be making decisions about what gets covered by health insurance or a government health plan, and/or deciding who decides what gets covered? Isn't there some kind of disconnect there? Who exactly is supposed to be running the single payer health plan or whatever of their dreams? Is Paul Wellstone going to rise from the grave to do it or what? The Congress we have now, does everyone realize that that's the Congress that is going to be running whatever show we get (or worse, if the trends continue as have for decades.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't consider myself one of the described, just wondering what the deal in complaining about the same Congress which you want to give a lot of power, i.e., if you think they are so incompetent, why aren't you with Palin?

user-pic

Because Palin is not good enough to be merely incompetent?

user-pic

There's actually quite a bit of truth in what you said there. I'm not trusting what the party is doing on this and I absolutely fear that a bad bill is worse than no bill. There is no commitment from establishment Democrats to really deliver on universal healthcare. It's the commitment more than anything that is really missing. If the commitment was there, then there could be a variety of approaches that would work. When I'm asking for universal healthcare, I'm asking for the commitment. I'm asking for them to make universal healthcare another third rail. Instead, we have an underfunded monstrosity so contrived and conflicted and nuanced and contingent... that no Democrat can concisely explain what the bill will even do. It won't be enough to deliver and they have all given themselves cover. They've come to describing this now as "insurance reform". Note the absence of healthcare there.

So you are correct. I don't really trust them at all. This is a big deal and they are almost as one unwilling to make a big commitment or take a big risk. That's not the spirit that defeated the Great Depression or the Nazis or put a man on the moon. It's a cowed, timid, tepid, fearful, dream averse party we have.

What we really need is a new party but there is no leadership for that either. We seem to be exhausted.

user-pic

Agree very much. I don't need to pass a health care bill this year. I would like to improve the health insurance situation, but I'm rational. If they're my kind of government, they'll come to me... a bit. Consumers seem lost in this equation.

user-pic

Democracy for America anyone?!? Howard Dean is still the guy when it comes to knowing his ass from healthcare.

user-pic

Howard's history. He was the first to get Rahm's STFU. Maybe in 7 years he'll rise again, maybe he won't.

user-pic

That's kind of a bullshit frame. The legislators do not make coverage decisions about anything. They set policy, define the programs and then appropriate to fund the programs. The discussion isn't over *what* to cover it is *how* to cover.

When was the last time a medicare patient's dialysis decision was made by John Boehner? The only instance of direct legislative interference in a health-care treatment decision I can remember was when Bill Frist gave a video-diagnosis of Terri Schiavo from the senate floor ... and if I recall, the system we have today was in place in that instance.

IMO, the reason many legislators suck is because they pretend that HHS, which administers Medicare pretty darn well (far better than the private executives seem to administer the needs of their customers), somehow couldn't do just as well with a similar program that was open to everyone. And oddly, at the same time are they taking gobs of cash from industries that clearly profit from the status quo. The current system does not challenge the market to define success by the quality of service and value they deliver to the customer, but instead by how much they can squeeze the customer to maximize shareholder returns and executive compensation. We need to change that dynamic if we are ever going to provide a level of health care for American citizens equivalent to what is taken for granted in the rest of the modern world.

Recognizing that doesn't require one to pretend that people who can only be described as taking bribes to keep it from happening don't totally suck ass.

user-pic

"The only instance of direct legislative interference in a health-care treatment decision I can remember was when Bill Frist gave a video-diagnosis of Terri Schiavo from the senate floor ... and if I recall, the system we have today was in place in that instance."

That's an excellent rejoinder that I'm going to file away for my next wingnut debate.

user-pic

The current system does not challenge the market to define success by the quality of service and value they deliver to the customer, but instead by how much they can squeeze the customer to maximize shareholder returns and executive compensation. We need to change that dynamic if we are ever going to provide a level of health care for American citizens equivalent to what is taken for granted in the rest of the modern world.

That just needed to be repeated, IMHO.

user-pic
The fact is that health insurance companies have these same kind of decision makers, but they're not elected or public officials, they might be simply bean counters looking to guarantee stockholder value, there is no transparency for the public, but someone denied say breast cancer treatment (I believe one of the bloggers over at Firedog had this issue) has no recourse. If it's a government body making this decision, you can raise a fit, call your Senator, sue or start a protest.

According to the blogger myth that facts will conquer all, Roosevelt must have jammed the New Deal through Congress with facts, and if only the public knew more facts, the Republican agenda would collapse and Progressives would rule.

But unfortunately there are an infinite number of facts, and Progressives lose track of them just as quickly as Republicans.

For example, Desidero seems to believe that it's easier to sue the federal government than an insurance company, an opinion with which I cannot agree, in spite of my general admiration for Des and his ability to keep more than one ball at a time in the air, while the typical internet "juggler" just hurls a few boogers at the ceiling and hopes they stick.

Virtually the only avenue open to plaintiffs against the feds is the FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, which is full of unpleasant little details like disallowing punitive damages and likewise disallowing suits based upon...

"the exercise of performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused."

I know all sorts of people who have successfully sued somebody, but I never met anyone who had successfully sued the federal government, and litigation under the FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT isn't exactly a typical career choice for bright-eyed young shysters, so it's perfectly possible that your town may not have anybody with any experience whatsoever.

Meanwhile, essentially discretionary activities like denying coverage for your disease are immune to actions under the FTCA, unless you can prove a lot more about whoever declined to cover you than you could probably prove, because just proving that they really should have covered you under existing guidelines won't be enough, since there is always and inevitably a certain amount of discretion in every policy which requires the division of our infinite selves into a finite number of categories.

user-pic

"you can raise a fit, call your Senator, sue or start a protest". Note I didn't put "sue" as #1, and likely I left it at #3 only for cadence.

user-pic

This is starting to sound like Republican talking points.

What can you do if you don't like your government healthcare?

You can raise a fit, call your Senator, sue or start a protest.

I guess you could also piss your pants, ask mommy for a bandaid, emigrate to Ethiopia, or "think healthy."

And here comes the Republican refrain...

What can you do if you don't like your private healthcare?

Choose a different provider.

Which sounds easier to you, Desidero?

Let's try it again with a different "product."

What can you do if you don't like your government beer?

You can raise a fit, call your Senator, sue or start a protest.

Okay!

And the Republicans say...

What can you do if you don't like your private beer?

You can buy a different brand.

But your argument probably works for progressives, because you can always recognize a progressive bar by the mob outside it, raising fits about beer, calling Senators about beer, suing somebody about beer, and protesting something about beer, and that's why the average voter would rather have a beer with George W. Bush than Michael Dukakis.


user-pic

In all my years I never had the choice of switching providers, whether it was company funded or government socialized medicine. I now have socialized medicine, but also pay an additional $4000/year for the option of leaving the country for another provider/different treatment if I so desire. So far in 6 years I haven't done this despite very serious treatments - I guess that says I like the single payer, public option quite a lot, though I've hedged my bets.

I don't think this is just about facts, but Democratic messaging on this sucks. The main response to any criticism is "you're a right wing nutcake". We've been arguing this stuff for decades, so can't Democrats come up with a couple of basic lines of argumentation to deal with the obvious? My mom sent me that recycled Canadian MRI sob story yesterday. Sent the obvious rejoinder.

Of course communications were a bit different in FDR, and FDR probably led the push for Social Security in a bit more straight-forward style than Obama. I love hearing people say, "Sarah Palin can't be right, there isn't a single bill, there are 6 of them and death panels aren't in any of them." So let's rally around those 6 bills, lads, rally around the bills. One of them will pop out like a spanking new baby, brillo'd and clean.

user-pic

Oh great, CNN has a "helpful" article identifying areas of waste.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/10/news/economy/healthcare_money_wasters/index.htm?postversion=2009081009

Once again, "medical records" - like wasn't Bush talking about this 5 years ago? Weren't people talking about it 10-15 years ago? Do it already, standardize forms, and so on.

Emergency Rooms as clinics? Well if people don't have insurance but ER will take them, then they'll continue to use ER. How hard is it to set up a procedure where you assign someone a primary care physician for non-ER evaluation if they don't have one?

"Unnecessary tests" being the biggest waste, just CYA? I'd like to see the breakdown on that one - sounds like the insurance companies' position or maybe the doctors'. Occasionally those pesky patients aren't happy with the Gods of Olympus and challenge their edicts. It took me 5 months to arrange a basic test in the US health care system. I've known a few people who required quite a few tests before their actual problem was identified. But all our problems would go away if people would stop abusing the ER and stop demanding those unnecessary tests. Why won't they accept their first wrong diagnosis? Why do we have to come up with 2nd and 3rd wrong diagnoses?

user-pic

Of course I agree with you about US healthcare as now constituted, and likewise about 6 bills confusing the issues.

But it's also worth considering that 6 is still a very small number of bills to regulate an enormous industry like US healthcare, and it's already a triumph for Republicans and their sponsors in that industry when almost every regulatory initiative has been forced into the same very narrow channel.

The all or nothing approach to healthcare reform has failed before, and it wouldn't necessarily compromise the big initiative if Democrats were pestering the healthcare powers with hundreds of proposed regulations, about the price of one drug, for example, or one class of drugs, or making it easier for people to switch providers.

user-pic

That was part of my thinking when I read the CNN bit. Electronic records don't need to be implemented as part of universal health care. UHC would make solving ER abuse more reasonable and straightforward, but it's not a necessary component. The prescription benefit from 2003 didn't need UHC. (Actually just noted that the latest projected 10-year cost of that program is $400 billion, what Bush originally promised, not the sky-is-falling $1.2 trillion some Democrats projected. Hope I don't have to issue more mea culpas to Bush). Presumably something can be done with allowing pre-existing conditions without UHC, and clamping down on insurance company illegal denial of benefits/stonewalling can be done without UHC.

user-pic

Rutabaga,

I think you are kind of making his point. You have to got to battle informed. Because the entire switch brands concept does not really apply.

Where is the choice?

If your health care is through your employer, you entire company would have to change or you would have to change companies...neither as easy as going from Bud to Miller.

Alternatively, if your are in insured in the private market in many states, such as Maine, there are no alternatives. In those states that there are you can be guaranteed at this point that you will be rejected for pre-existing condition.

So in Maine, the only sell Bud.

And in CA, Miller will no sell you beer.

user-pic

The irony is that Big Bidness is engaging in the very nefarious acts the tea-baggers accuse the government of attempting to perpetrate. There already are death panels: they're called pre-existing conditions. There already are holes im coverage. The costs are out of control and are breaking up the middle class and small businesses.

Desidero, what is a political defense against insanity? How do you convince people who consistently and tirelessly vote against their best interests to STFU? What could Sartoris say and do to convince his dad to stop burning barns?

And how in the hell can we stop the Senate from fucking us? We can't. The Senate, with its retarded 2 votes per state mechanics, allows douchetards like Baucus to slow reform down and allow the Snopes of the world to crawl out from their AM radio basements and turn this country into a golf course made of flesh.

But in the end, what are the DEMS doing wrong? They are culpable to be sure. Only a world class numbnuts would pick wunderkind Geithner and match him with the most overrated financial assclown since the man who thought up Tono Bungay: Larry Summers. Then pick McChrystal to oversee zippo raids in Afghanistan because doves love black ops.

This country is stupid. Not irredeemably stupid, but on the razor's edge of an event horizon of stupid, where our children will be doomed to wander as Pretans thirsting for a spark of novelty in an otherwise defunct void of FAIL.

user-pic

Yikes, brilliant, the Sartoris angle. I think I'll hole up with a stack of Faulkner books and won't peep out until I finish them. My bedroom shall become my Yoknapatapha County. Curtains closed, sun goes down. Hope no one sets fire to my house while I'm gone...

People have been voting against their own interests since voting began. A lot of people who have no investments think life gets better when the Dow rises (and setteth, and proceedeth around to whence it came). It's just part of the landscape - it's amazed me the conservatives who sat back silently with $400 billion deficits through the Bush years, but we're about tribes and packs more than logic and issues. I agree with Baga if I read him right that it's not just covering facts in more detail that will change anything, and there's no way more than 10 people are going to read everything that's in those health bills. So it's just back to political maneuvering. But without the Commander-in-Chief setting a forceful direction, it's hard to get the troops to move.

user-pic

The health care rationing argument is just stupid. What world are these folks living in that this isn't happening already? My mom has Medicare and excellent private coverage (as a retied federal employee) and STILL faces deails of benefits. I've spent the better part of this year in administrative hell with both providers. My mom came down with a vicious case of torticolis/dystonia (on top of her other health concerns) in early February. She was in severe constant pain, could not sleep, could not dress, could not feed herself and needed round the clock care. Her neurologist recommended botox injections to the neck and physical therapy 3 times a week. Medicare would not cover the botox for torticolis. After 2 months of appeals, we finally got her secondary insurance to pick it up. I can't imagine the challenges someone without insurance coverage (or inadequate coverage) faces or someone who doesn't have advocates (family, friends, doctors) fighting on their behalf.

If we want to talk about cost impact, how much more costly would it have been to have her go into a nursing home because they are unable to get the medical treatment necessary to live independently? As part of health care reform we should be having this discussion.

My bigger problem is with those who are screaming about government-forced euthanasia/death panels. Seriously? Their concern is how the government will treat people at end of life, but they arguing against providing adequate medical coverage and preventative care to people who are currently uninsured? That hardly seems very right-to-life-ish to me.

user-pic

Sorry to read of the troubles with your Mom, and I realize how tediously awful it can be to deal with the insurance deny-ers. They want it that way, of course, so we'll get discouraged and let them deny us care.

The real world you accurately describe can indeed be very difficult. Easier, of course, to fantasize and inveigh.

As to your last point, I think the healthcare thing is really another proxy for their generalized hostility, like the birth certificate sedition.

The idea of the government getting involved in life-and-death decisions as to individual medical patients is so horrible, as is the idea of the government making other kinds of decisions when all you have to do is take one look at the government ... and what you see right away is that its leader is a black man with an Arab name.

MHO.

user-pic

The fact is that health insurance companies have these same kind of decision makers, but they're not elected or public officials, they might be simply bean counters looking to guarantee stockholder value, there is no transparency for the public, but someone denied say breast cancer treatment (I believe one of the bloggers over at Firedog had this issue) has no recourse."

There are panels who decide everyday who gets a lung, or a kidney or a heart. Every day.

Remember poor Mickey Mantle, one of the greatest Yanks of all time. I was sooooooooooo pissed with the MSM 'public outcry'...how long did he last anyway? a couple years with a new liver.

Had no idea Rahm was tied to this.

Great Post Desi.

user-pic

Thanks for the shout-out, Des. Wish I had something intelligent to add to your thread on a philosophical level. Yesterday was one of those down-and-dirty, brutally hot August days in New York, the kind of day when they open the fire hydrants in neighborhoods like mine (Bed-Stuy, Bklyn) because there are no parks, no cooling centers (at least as far as I could tell), and so many businesses are no longer in business (I'm guessing by the gates down in the middle of the day) and quite a few of the ones that are still open don't have air conditioning.

On Saturday, a cop in my precinct was shot. He had just stepped into the parking lot on his break, and pop! He was wearing a bullet-proof vest, so he was not seriously injured. Walked back into the precinct and said, "I think I've been shot." Was he targeted? Who knows.

I was running errands yesterday, sweating like a banshee and looking for a couple of small items, which I didn't want to spend a lot of money on. I stopped into one hardware store, several 99-cent stores, and two drug stores. Everything I touched was made in China, Turkey, India, or Israel. (Full disclosure: I completely avoided stuff made in Mexico.) I thought about lead, BPA, VOCs (well, not really, but I should have), asbestos, and mold (I walked into a radically hip bar on the edge of Bushwick and Bed-Stuy that reeked of mildew—what a concept—so it was impossible not to think about mold). It's not really such a mystery why the rates of adult asthma are increasing every year. Yesterday was an air-quality alert day in parts of neighboring New Jersey because of ozone levels. Today isn't one.

I saw several people on my journey who were either drunk or mentally unstable or possibly both, bloated and puffy from ill health, wandering under the elevated train on Broadway. Many people looked dazed, miserable, slow-witted, and downright defeated in their sweat-drenched T-shirts. Overhead, the air-conditioned trains thundered by and dripped condensation on those of us below. The only people who looked unfazed were the overdressed Guatemalan ladies pushing carts of Italian ices. No one was buying, however.

I'm describing what I saw because I think I witnessed (or read about) every single problem—other than war and torture—that the Democrats aren't fixing and have no intention of fixing: poverty, availability of handguns, loss of American manufacturing, foreclosures, the environment, lack of adequate health care, lack of basic social services. It was simply a day in the life of many Americans: The Way We Live Now.

user-pic

Well I still think the kind of manufacturing like cheap stuff in 99-cent stores isn't something the US wants to get back into. Auto manufacturing is something else - the Chinese haven't proven that adept at it and it's pretty complicated business to do right. But yeah, we're still stuck on a war footing and everything else takes a back seat.

Leave a comment

Desidero

user-pic

Following: 4
Followers: 58

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

  • Favorite Books Ack, Books? Who reads books? A boy and his dog, note the graphic.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address