It seems CNN and Anderson Cooper's AC360 are in the tank and falling further behind in the ratings wars. It further seems that this has presented reason for the "Cable News Network" to emulate Fox News in a desire to manufacture controversy and report it as news rather than simply report on events as they are presented. How else to explain the decision to run with their story headlined H1N1 Vaccines to be Offered to Guantanamo Bay Detainees.

To their credit, CNN does not invent facts in this instance to create a controversy out of whole cloth such as Fox Noose has done on issues ranging from Death Panels to Liz Cheney's credibility as a national security expert. Nevertheless, they have diligently whipped up the emotional "I hate Arabs and other terrorists" crowd by reporting this Dog-Bites-Man story as a newsworthy item and then use it as bait for the usual demagogues to construe it as a controversial attack on American sensibilities.

First the facts as reported in the article:

1.) "The Pentagon will offer the H1N1 vaccination to detainees at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, officials there said Friday."
2,) "...the decision (is) based on U.S. government assessments that people held in detention facilities are at high risk for the pandemic"
3.) "Base officials had not received the vaccinations and did not know when they were expected to arrive"

End of story.

Pretty unremarkable stuff, no? One would expect that we provide detainees with standard medical care such as flu vaccinations in keeping with our commitment to the Geneva Conventions (if not out of simple belief in humanitarian principles). And, as the article points out, Guantanamo is waiting for its delivery of the vaccine just like virtually every other health care outlet in the country.

But then CNN takes the story a bit further and includes comment from an intellectually challenged demagogue (Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan), who reacts predictably with a dehumanizing swipe at the detainees and a tour through some kind of parallel universe that haunts his grasp on reality.

"As long as Americans must wait to receive the vaccine, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay should not be given preferential treatment to receive the H1N1 vaccination," Stupak said in a letter to Secretary of the Army John McHugh. "Until this shortage is addressed, I urge Pentagon officials to reconsider this decision to vaccinate terrorist detainees ahead of Americans who are waiting."

The real story here is that an elected Congressional Representative would be so quick to pander to the "I hate Arabs and other terrorists" crowd as to totally misread a simple news account about providing unexceptional medical care to prisoners in our keeping.

But you'll find none of that in the CNN article.

Indeed, on the Friday edition of AC360 John King interviewed Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) about the health care debate, and just couldn't resist baiting him with an opening question about the "controversial decision" to provide vaccinations to Gitmo prisoners. On cue, the mad dog teabagger Republican foamed at the mouth in outrage over this manufactured travesty wherein Gitmo prisoners are supposedly being given preferential treatment over the rest of us Americans who just hate what Obama is doing to this country.

King was satisfied with the response for its "newsworthiness," and so offered no correction to the abhorrent misrepresentation of the facts of this story. Having raised the issue as a legitimate controversy of his own making, I suppose it would have been difficult for King to ask in follow-up "Excuse me, Mr. Pence, but where have you seen it reported that the detainees were to be given the vaccine ahead of anyone else now waiting for it to be delivered?"

If they wish to present themselves as a legitimate news outlet, CNN has a responsibility to point out any facts that get in the way of a good story. Indeed, in this case it is incumbent upon a journalist to actually point out the way in which a non-controversial action undertaken by the government is being manipulated by demagogues to spread fear and resentment among the populace.

CNN has instead chosen to become a willing tool of the hate-mongering demagogues as a rather transparent means to boost their ratings. It is Lou Dobbs gone viral, and there is no vaccine that will protect us from the diseased "journalism" at CNN that now competes with Fox to appeal to our basest fears, prejudices, intolerance, and tribalism as a means by which they can capture and hold our attention.

My wish for Fox and now CNN is a pox on both their houses, because the pandemic they otherwise invite with their diseased "journalism" leads directly to fascism as the only way in which to protect us from "the other" they so willfully vilify. And THAT'S a developing news story they are incapable of reporting for reason that they've already surrendered journalistic integrity for the reward of higher ratings in an entertainment medium.

Hatred. Intolerance. Fear. Anger. Demagoguery. Tribalism.

CNN will be there to report it as it happens.

Pictures at Eleven.

From where comes all this obsession about the supposed 60 votes needed to pass health care reform that includes the public option? What am I missing here?

We are told by nearly everyone in the Dem Leadership that they prefer the public option be included in this legislation. Everybody likes the public option, right? When is the last time you heard a credible argument against it? (Sorry! The Insurance Industry's argument that "I won't be able to compete with the public option." is nothing more than the vampire campaigning against crucifixes.) Seriously. Take a step back and ask yourself if you've heard anyone in the leadership actually criticize the public option or suggest that it is bad policy?

No?

Me neither. In fact the polls show that a majority of the electorate wants it. Certainly, the Dem base wants it. And now Pelosi has shown that the most aggressive public option is the most fiscally responsible plan as scored by the CBO.

Even ol' MAXimum Dollar "Bought-and Paid 4" Baucus had the temerity throughout the kabuki dance that was his Finance Committee Negotiations/Fundraiser to insist he was for the public option. It's just that poor ol' MAX "The Buck Stops In My Campaign Account" Baucus couldn't include it in his bill because, as he said, "I can count, and we'll never get the 60 votes needed to pass this with a public option."

There's that pesky 60 votes thing again. But at least we can acknowledge there is consensus within the Dem Party to support the public option. That and a visit from the right lobbyist should at least gain you a round of golf, right?


Again, what am I missing? I know that 51 votes are needed in the Senate to pass legislation. I also know that 60 votes are required for a procedural vote of cloture on a filibuster. The Republican Caucus is threatening to filibuster the Health Care Reform Bill. It will therefore take 60 votes to achieve cloture if the GOP decides to filibuster. I understand this, but what's the big deal?

The Dem Caucus has 60 votes. This therefore really becomes a matter of party discipline, nothing more. I mean, is this whole 60 vote issue predicated on a concern that a member of the Dem Caucus would actually vote against his Caucus to sustain a Republican filibuster in the Senate? Is this possible? Has this been done before on anything as monumental as this Health Care Reform Act? 

Inasmuch as there are Dem Senators who might feel compelled to vote against HCR, it is Reid's job - along with Senate Whip Durbin - to determine who would be offered a "pass" to vote against the bill when it is presented in the Senate. But are we suggesting that Reid will allow a Dem Senator to cast a procedural vote to sustain a GOP filibuster against the Dem Leadership on one of the most momentous bills of this generation? Are we nuts? If Reid allows himself to be held hostage by ANY member OF HIS OWN PARTY on a PROCEDURAL VOTE against cloture, he has no business being in leadership. Period.

As for Lieberman, that is a case that should be handled by Obama/Emanuel. In this case I think Emanuel could be ruthless to good effect, and Lieberman definitely owes Obama the loyalty inherent in voting for cloture, regardless of what his ultimate vote on the bill might be. Failing that, Lieberman needs to be dealt with harshly - and he needs to know beforehand in no uncertain terms just how harsh the consequences will be if he tries to cut the rug out from under Obama and the Dems. (Move his offices into a local mosque? Maybe get a black jet idling on the runway at Dulles with enough fuel to make Damascus by morning and ask "Weeping Joe" if he really wants to punch that filibuster ticket to ride?)

Imagine a junior Dem Senator from, say, Nebraska telling Lyndon Johnson at any point in his negotiations that "I will be joining with the Republicans to filibuster your Civil Rights Act." Yeah, right.

Now imagine a Senator challenging Obama/Emanuel/Reid in this way. If that is what we are concerned about here, then the whole exercise of trying to govern is pointless. We elected Dems to lead and to pass a health care reform plan. If we are to instead be held hostage by threats issued by DEMOCRATS, then God Help Us All! 

As reported yesterday on TPM, Democracy Corps released a report that outlines a case to be made that the GOP base is "being motivated by a fundamentally different worldview than folks in the middle or on the Dem side."

This report is particularly helpful in getting the discussion about teabaggers and other right wing "activists" past simple attributions of racism and ignorance and other uni-dimensional explanations for the extreme hatred, fear, contempt and outright whackiness we seem to encounter from the Glen Beck/Michael Steele/Congressional Leadership Wing of the GOP Party. (Did I miss anyone?)

I'm not quite ready to accept the report's premise, however, that this anger and degree of incivility in GOP politics is an aberration. Whereas it is indeed a serious threat to our democracy if allowed to fester and burst forth from its present attitude, we act at our peril if we now attempt to simply de-legitimize the anger, fear and contempt expressed by this "persecuted minority" that we see showing up at various corporate-sponsored "teabag" events.

We best understand that there is a genuine foundation beneath this "angry, persecuted mob" that needs be addressed. In many ways, they share the same feelings of powerlessness that the Left rails about regarding the debilitating corruption in Wall Street and Washington; the ever-increasing economic injustice within our system; the lack of any sense of community that a healthy democracy (dare I say socialism?) offers in terms of an ability to have effect on one's own environment.

In essence, what I am saying is that in observing some of the "tea bag" activities and rallies and rhetoric, I found myself uncomfortably looking into the eyes of what might be considered my bastard brothers and sisters. Their anger is too painfully legitimate to be ignored. Yet they are perversely set upon by demagogues like Beck and Dobbs and other corporate "sponsors" and handlers who encourage them to identify the very tools of self-determination and class empowerment that would improve their situation (i.e. anything "guvmint" or "socialist") as the source of their oppression. Like mad dogs on a leash, they lash out in every direction to which their handlers project them - an exercise that conveniently keeps them occupied in a way that precludes any risk of having them turn on their handlers and at last slip their leash to good (albeit perhaps bloody) effect.

Ultimately, and without trying to go all meta, I have to say there is a real whiff of revolution in the air unlike anything I've felt in my years. This report offers nothing to diminish that sense of foreboding, but it does clarify a perverse opportunity for such a "revolution" to go horribly wrong in institutionalizing the very injustices that it seeks to remedy. The threat presented by this "persecuted minority" in the GOP base, after all, does not arise from the source of their anger and their fears but instead in the way these are being dangerously manipulated in effort to actually preserve an unsustainably unjust status quo. This is the most alarming aspect of the political landscape outlined in the Democracy Corps report. 

Indeed, my biggest fear as I look into the eyes of these "bastard brothers" comes not from so keenly understanding the pain looking back, but instead in a realization that they lay beyond any effective remediation of that pain for so long as they are encouraged to seek the revenge offered by fascism as their preferred treatment. If we are to truly reach out and diminish this threat as we must, we need to more effectively identify the source of the pain we all feel in today's political reality. We must then encourage justice for ALL as the salve that can ameliorate this pain that we so commonly share with one another.

But guess what? Even we progressives have little to offer at present in terms of effectively countering the oppressive interests that rein over the middle class. Nearly 20 years of Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) style triangulation and compromise has installed a "liberal" elite more interested in political expedience than democratic rule. We need an aggressive populist movement that strongly and unremittingly challenges the incredible abuses perpetrated by Wall Street over Main Street; that finds wholly unacceptable - illegal, even - the democracy-defeating pay-to-play politics that allows legislative goaltenders like Baucus, for example, to stand in the way of any legitimate health care or other reform efforts; and that disallows even a popular Obama from perpetuating the overall Washington corruption and all other manner of unacceptable injustices that are now too often accepted as simply the way business is done.

We need, ourselves, to at last determine that we are going to take no prisoners in our OWN search for justice. And then we need to invite these "bastard brothers" to at last join with us in a political showdown that finally pits the "good guys against the bad" in an alignment where justice has at least a chance to prevail.

Yes, if you want peace, work for justice. It really is as simple as that.

And every bit as difficult, as well.

Like many in this country, I truly thought that in choosing Obama as our President, we had at last elected a credible leader capable of pursuing legitimate change in the way business is taken care of in Washington. The dire state of our economy and the global situation including two hot wars intensified the need - and, thus, the opportunity - for a populist leader to assume the Presidency. With things in such disarray, such a populist leader would be given wide latitude in doing the people's work instead of kow-towing to the corporate lobbyists who have corrupted nearly every notion of democracy ("of the people") that supports this Republic.

Instead, it seems we have once again been bamboozled by the same old DLC type creampuff casper milquetoast know-nothings who try to legislate from within the cesspool that is Washington pay-to-play politics and end up with little more than their pants around their ankles and a wtf look on their face.

Once upon a time in this Obama campaign and Administration, there was opportunity to pursue principle over politics, and it was in building a populist campaign for health care reform that this could most strongly have been realized. We could have been proud of at last taking a victory from the lobbyists and the corporations who own Washington, and maybe we could have learned a few things that would lead to actual political reform as well.

It is in hope of such an opportunity being realized that I truly thought we were getting "Change We Can Believe In" when I cast my vote for Obama. Instead, it's looking like we got some hick from Illinois who thought he could win at the Washington lobbyists version of three card monty, and we are all the greater fools because of it. 

What a buzz kill!

Actually, we can't quite say we couldn't see THIS coming.

At the very start of this latest effort to reform our health care system, the Obama Team made it very clear that the number one priority was to make certain that the big players in the industry kept a seat at the table and that nothing would be allowed to come between them and their profits. A side deal was made with Big Pharma and the health providers. The Insurance Industry was assured there would be no substantial move toward anything like a single-payer system, even though this is an important feature of nearly every other universal health care plan in other industrialized countries; plans that provide health care in nearly every instance at a much less cost per capita and with better health outcomes for their citizens than our present system.

Until now, everyone in the health insurance industry has been playing nice in this effort to pursue this wonderful exercise that might best be described as "Impact Free Health Care Reform." They've even managed to play by the Washington rules - hell, Max Baucus alone has received millions of dollars in health insurance industry funds (OUR health care dollars at work!) to wear the uniform of the insurance lobbyists' goalkeeper throughout this game.

Through it all, however, there has been a surprisingly persistent chatter from a public who understands that reform doesn't come without changes being made. (What a concept!) These people have no particular affiliation with the insurance industry and most certainly do not receive benefit of the corporate profits that are skimmed from their health care dollars paid as "premiums." These people can quite logically look at the present system and see it is broken and unsustainable. They also see a need for competition in the industry of the kind that can only be provided by a government managed health care program.

Whereas it became necessary for the reformists to compromise away any discussion of a single-payer plan, the "common sense" nature of a public option has been so pervasive and resilient that reformists have persisted in declaring the plan to be dead without it. It has appropriately become a line in the sand between a sliver of true reform and a virtual "Health Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Improvement Act," and it remains very much in play as this effort moves toward resolution in Congress.

The good news is that the release of this report and the follow-up campaign to scuttle the entire bill shows that the insurance industry considers the public option to be very much alive in the negotiations. The bad news is that the status quo works quite well for them, and so they've apparently decided to pack up and go home with their golden goose firmly held within their hands and to leave for a later date another effort at "reform" that will provide to them at no cost an additional 50 million customers. And so we now have this effort apparently underway to sucker-punch Obama and cast their lot with the GOP "Party of NO!" in preserving the status quo.

The strategic commissioning and release of the insurance industry report at this time is designed to stick a stake into the heart of the present health reform movement, such as it exists after surviving the assault over months perpetrated by forces much better financed (Again, by OUR health care dollars!) than they.

"Game's over!" declares the owners and arbiters of our health. "Stick a fork in it! We're going home."

Yeah, we should have seen it coming. Many did, in fact.

Remember all this talk about how we reform advocates just didn't understand that it was important to lay down and play dead at the feet of the insurance industry if we were to ever achieve health care reform? Remember we were told that Obama knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he was getting so intimately in bed with the health care industry parasites who cause so much of our present problem in the first place? There was always that talk that we were unworthy participants in the discussion who were "playing checkers while Obama was playing chess."

Well, don't look now, but it seems that Obama just took a direct hit from a soccer ball to the face in his game of chess!

"GOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!" sayeth the health insurance industry.

Yeah, you shoulda' seen it coming, even as there's so little satisfaction in being able to say I told you so.

"Illegal aliens" are a pretty easy target in these times of economic insecurity that affects all Americans.

And the Democratic Leadership - never ones to stand up to demagoguery when a simple "bi-partisan" weak-at-the-knees surrender will do - recently caved to Joe Wilson's "You Lie" comment by making certain that not only would undocumented immigrants be denied any benefits under any health care proposal presented to Congress, but that they would not be able to even purchase health insurance.

For better or worse, the undocumented immigrants are here in large numbers and there is no reason to believe they will simply disappear overnight in the absence of available health insurance. So at a time when we deem it important to mandate everybody's participation in the health insurance pool, we have carved out undocumented immigrants as a special class of people who will not be allowed to participate at all.

It's a reasoned exception the Republicans make in this regard. The mandate recognizes that those without insurance too often postpone medical care until their illness or disease requires medical services in an emergency room. It therefore makes sense to mandate health insurance coverage to ensure everyone who participates in the system gets help when it is most efficiently provided, meaning early on at the onset of symptoms. It also ensures that these people cover their share of the cost for emergency room care and all other services.

The difference that allows for an "illegal alien exemption," however, is an implied agreement that they will not be allowed to participate in our health care system at all. They aren't supposed to be here in the first place. So why would we let them have access to the emergency room or any other services where they will waste our tax dollars on services provided?

If you are going to be chest-poundingly tough on this issue, it's really a pretty sound argument. And what are the Republicans if not chest pounders when it comes to their attitude toward brown-peopled hoards coming north to "steal our jobs" and commit other such crimes against the Republic? But let's try a little thought experiment to see just how such a "get tough" policy might be realized. Let's imagine a plausible case wherein two parents show up at the entrance to an emergency room with a ten year old boy. The boy suffers from appendicitis; from an illness that is presently causing him great physical agony and duress and will most certainly result in the death of the boy if left untreated. The boy is not covered by any insurance because his parents are undocumented immigrant workers.

Doctors and other health care workers are presently prohibited by oath and by law from denying this boy emergency medical care, which in this case would include an examination, medical tests, surgery and recovery at great cost to the taxpayer. Yet, under the GOP "get tough" plan the law would be changed to prohibit any intervention at all. A standoff would ensue between the health care workers and those who would enforce the GOP dictate. How might it be resolved? Let's imagine various political players on the scene, and see what happens:

Boehner, McConnell and the rest of the GOP leadership would insist that they are interested in helping, but that there needs to be a bi-partisan solution to this problem and that we all need to just slow down a little and start over.

Rush Limbaugh would not show up, but would instead take to the airwaves to play "Barack, the Magic Negro," say it was all the fault of the Democrats and other Socialists. He would then speed-dial his contact to arrange delivery of his next bagful of oxycontin.

Lou Dobbs would smugly sneer and ask "What is the Government DOING about this problem?" He would then call upon citizen militias to establish a three-block perimeter around every emergency room to prevent such problems occurring in the future.

Glen Beck would organize a teabaggers rally at the site to gain the media advantage, drawing attention away from the family and the issue at hand while inciting his followers to paroxysms of rage against the guvmint and any other social conventions that stand in the way of "Freedom" and "Liberty" and whatever other patriotic words he can think of. Cameras will be at the ready should the mob choose to tear this family limb from limb, a plausible outcome for which Beck has already written the tele-script in which it will be explained that "The godless Dems have blood on their hands over their failure to close the border and get rid of these illegal aliens!"

Meanwhile, there would be two parents in an increasingly agonized state watching over their little boy who grows sicker and who is at extreme risk of dying on the doorstep of a state-of-the-art medical facility.

I think you get the point. I have little doubt that Beck and the others we've seen could easily demagogue such a scenario to achieve higher ratings or electoral success or political power or whatever personal "needs" might motivate them at the time. I also believe that this is what defines them as sociopaths.

I also fear that a mob such as we've seen assembled at these teabaggers rallies would be capable of committing savage acts of violence against the undocumented characters in question if offered the right incitement to riot.

But I also know that this isn't the America we all grew up with, and it isn't in our nature as individual human beings to be cruel to another human being in such a fashion. I therefore know that if any one of us - or even nearly any single person in Beck's mob - were confronted one-on-one by a mother and a father pleading to receive medical help for their dying child, we would move heaven and earth to make certain such help was given if available. And we wouldn't even ask if they were here in this country legally or not.

This "get tough" policy of absolutely no health care being made available for "illegal aliens" sounds pretty good to the politicians who are anxious to offer their bona fides to the chest-thumping mob that calls for such measures.

But, except for the opportunistic bullies and outright sociopaths among us, we might all benefit in taking a step back, drawing a deep breath, and truly consider the consequences of such punitive policies before insisting they be passed into law.

(NOTE: This was re-published from yesterday due to a problem with the posting date on the original.)

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

Ted Kennedy knew that the work of government was never done. For so long as there are those who are sick and needy among us, he knew that justice required us all to rise to the challenge of providing healing and comfort, and in so doing to share with one another the joys and privilege of brotherhood.

I can think of no better tribute to Kennedy on the day of his Funeral Celebration of Remembrance than to dedicate ourselves fully in an effort to achieve Ted's dreams and by putting our shoulder more firmly to the work that goes on. 

On universal health care, we hear much fear and remonstration against "socialism." But just what is "socialized medicine" if not the organizing of ourselves into a collective to take care of one another; to make health care a universal right for all by each shouldering some of the cost to make it available to all? Isn't that what government is really supposed to be all about? Are we not charged by our Founders with the responsibility of governance? Of providing for all the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?"

Complain, if you will, about just how corrupt government has become. Make this your argument, if you must, about why it is so incredibly difficult to perform the mission of "governance" wherein the needs of the people are placed ahead of the self-serving demands of the corporations and the wealthy interests. But have the integrity of character - as did Kennedy - to temper these complaints with a willingness to accept your own responsibility in taking back your government rather than waving the flag of surrender.

Ted Kennedy knew the realities of today's politics in Washington, even as he refused to compromise principles to accommodate the moneychangers and corporate interests who now undermine our democracy. A review of Kennedy's legislative legacy show an astonishing list of "socialist" accomplishments where we have been challenged to come together to right wrongs and protect the needy - despite opposition from those who could find no financial profit in it or who otherwise were concerned that such programs would siphon wealth and privilege from those who have it to those who do not.

The genius of Kennedy is found in the way he could accomplish a "work-around" of the corporate interests and achieve social programs that benefitted the disenfranchised. Kennedy knew that we grow stronger as a nation, not by reinforcing and buttressing the powers and authority of the strongest among us, but rather by improving the lot and circumstance of the least advantaged in this society. And he was most effective in defying wealth and power in pursuit of social justice and in the promotion of the disadvantaged into their proper status as fellow citizens.

We bury today a great leader who understood to his core just how wondrous a power it is when we all come together in governance to heal the sick, comfort the poor, seek justice for all, and embrace all peoples as children of God. He modelled for us what peace and justice looks like if we will only accept our sacred responsibility to join together with those who "saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

In deference to Senator Kennedy, I will not now surrender this responsibility for social justice by assigning the provision of Universal Health Care to the powerful Insurance Industry lobby and the other monied interests for them to make of it a program that meets their needs at the exclusion of the sick and the needy. Instead, the "Dream Lives On" and I rededicate myself to the fight to encourage all of us to shoulder the task of providing legitimate health care to all as a fundamental right that will strengthen this nation and inspire us all into believing, once again, that we are truly at our greatest when we work together for social justice. 

Godspeed, Senator Kennedy. Your leadership will be deeply missed as we work to realize universal health care as a legitimate right for all in these United States. But rest assured, Dear Senator, that your inspiration remains vibrant in prompting a dedication among Progressives that this human rights advancement, at last, will be included as another accomplishment in your storied legacy.

The Dream Lives On!

(NOTE: This blog entry was inspired by a discussion on another blog castigating Ted Kennedy for failing to "get out of the way." Thanks, maggie!)

Imagine if Ted Kennedy were President today in place of Barack Obama. How might these health care discussions have proceeded if they were promoted by a Leader who could bring passion and a good share of Progressive ideology to the effort?

First, let's take a look at what Kennedy would bring to the fight for universal health care coverage. For this, I offer a review of comments previously made in the blog linked to above (You might want to review for full context, including a look at the Chapaquiddick episode in Kennedy's life):

Importantly, for me, I have not seen any personal integrity issues that have bore a negative impact on his conduct as a Senator. Indeed, as a Senator from Massachusetts, he has shown remarkable statesmanship and leadership and integrity on a wide range of issues that are important to Progressives including health care, labor, women's rights, civil rights, the environment and many more. In the cesspool that is Washington, I have never had to question who "owns" Kennedy; never had to suffer him selling out to the highest bidder, but instead have been very proud to see him champion the good fight for those who are so poorly represented in pay-to-play politics.

Furthermore, I've never seen him demagogue an issue, nor have I seen him feel compelled to engage in fear-mongering ("They're going to kill grandma!") or other dishonest hyperbole in an attempt to confuse people into working against their own self-interest.

As a United States Senator, Kennedy will always stand as one of a few in history who will serve as an example of what representative government is all about and how it can be effectively engaged. Would that there were a few more like him in the Senate, instead of the corporate whores that are so numerous and so corrupt as to actually legitimize the corporations as our "extreme benefactors" rather than the for-profit parasites they too often truly are.

The Presidency IS all about LEADERSHIP!

Especially now.

This country is starved for the kind if inspiring leadership Kennedy is capable of providing - no concerns about being "sold out to the highest bidder." No mealy-mouthed DLC attempts at "bi-partisanship" in steering a rudderless ship. Instead, Kennedy as President would have modelled for us deeply held principles that would guide us all to a better outcome; principles which even his political enemies would know are inviolable. We would be offered inspiring speeches of substance of the kind offered by his brothers, Martin Luther King, FDR, and all the Progressives in our past who put us so closely in touch with "the better Angels of our nature."

Obama has all the skills to provide such leadership. Unfortunately, he has yet to exhibit the passion or the conviction of principles to lead with authority. And into the vacuum has stepped the jackals of Washington to spread their fear and hatred and prejudice and political opportunism that effectively stokes the fires of intolerance; that inspires the people not to reach forward, but rather withdraw into a dog-eat-dog fight against one another; that leaves the door open for the Insurance Industry lobbyists and all the rest of the parasites and profiteers to define the message in such irresponsible a fashion as we've witnessed ("They're going to kill Grandma!" fer chrissakes!).

Yeah, just for a moment take a step back and imagine: How might this all be different right now if a healthy Ted Kennedy were President? Would we even be discussing the viability of a "public option," concerned that it might not be allowed by the insurance industry? Or would we be inspired - righteously angry and indignant and empowered - to instead insist we stick it in the neck of these parasites and their bought-and-paid for whores in Washington to achieve the reforms that would truly serve us in gaining health care for everyone?

"We can do this!" I can hear Kennedy saying. "We once put a man on the moon. And in a similar effort to reach beyond ourselves, we can take on and succeed in this challenge to establish health care as a right for every one of our fellow Americans. Rise up, and let the naysayers be damned. We're still Americans, and we still take care of our own."

And this is only addressing the health care debate. Imagine Kennedy on the War in Afghanistan and the War of Choice in Iraq; on torture; on abuses of the Executive; and on all the other unfinished business from the Bush/Cheney years that sits within the body politic as a cancer threatening to go malignant in the absence of any interventions.

We have established in this last election that we are collectively ready for change in this country. Yeah, just imagine if a healthy Ted Kennedy were President to honor that desire for change by providing the leadership required to make it happen.

I'm grateful to obey and miguelitoh2o and all the others who have written recently with such clarity and passion about the abuses of our health insurance industry.

In light of such information about Insurance Company abuses, it seems puzzling that the insurance industry lobbyists can actually mobilize people to disrupt town hall meetings on behalf of the insurance industry. Yet, it shows that these corporations can be strategic actors in the marketplace even as they are so inept at serving it.

If anything, the insurance lobby is pretty good at framing the debate with inflammatory rhetoric. Terms like "big guvmint," "socialism," and other triggers are thrown around like raw meat by these corporate organizers, with result that their "pavlovian populist idealogues" strain at the leash to just "git me a Congressman" when invited to do so on command at these meetings.

These people at the Town Hall Meetings are angry, to be sure! But if they would only take a minute to realize it was the corporate handlers who had actually sand-papered their assholes with practices like rescission and other abuses, they would turn their anger on their masters and really sink their teeth into the problem. With the insurance company parasites dispatched thusly, we could then anticipate some GENUINE health care reform and abandon this silly notion of INSURANCE INDUSTRY reform.

Someone please explain: If the objective is to be health care for everyone, what role does "insurance" have to play? Stated another way: If we are to collectively provide health care for all - with no limitations on pre-existing conditions or "exposure to risk" - what need is there to insure against "loss." In adopting universal coverage, aren't we determining that we are in fact going to accept the "losses" as part of our compact with our fellow citizens that we will be there for them (and us, too!) in their time of medical need? Or are we going to continue using health care dollars to "pay premiums" (contributions toward corporate profits - and lobbying!) to cover only healthy people?

Yeah, I'm angry too. But if I were to go to Washington with pitchfork raised, my first stop would be on K Street, not Congress. And if I were to choose to disrupt a meeting, it would not be at a gathering of citizens discussing matters with their elected officials. No, it would be in some corporate board room where I could righteously give a full-throated expression of the contempt I feel for the parasites who stand between us and genuine health care reform.

At the very least, I want returned to me the health care dollars I contributed as insurance premiums that are now being used to organize houliganism at these Town Hall Meetings. And then I want these insurance industry parasites to get off my back!

The fact that most other industrialized countries are spending 50% less and receiving better care would seem to indicate that there is a structural failure in our health care system. Wild guess here, but I'm betting that a "health INSURANCE system" simply introduces too many parasites into the effort to provide efficient and effective health care to our citizenry.

I, for one, can state unequivocally that there is not ONE insurance company executive that ever provided for me ANYTHING that can even remotely be considered health care. And this is not a specious argument made in favor of universal single payer health care (at best!) or at least a "public option." It is simply common sense that seeks the elimination of the health insurance industry as the primary "cure" that is necessary to be undertaken before we can accomplish the systemic reforms needed to achieve adequate health care as a right for everyone in the United States.

I watched in amazement one Congressional hearing that included three Health Insurance Company CEO's testifying about rescissions. It was disgusting to learn of the incredibly cruel games they play - accepting monthly premiums from healthy people and immediately dropping coverage for same when they become ill - to preserve and enhance company profits. By their own accounting, over 20,000 "customers" of just these three companies were suddenly denied health insurance coverage at their moment of need per year.
  
As I watched, my thoughts became centered upon the impact that would be felt if these three execs were to simply "disappear" from our health care system. The removal of the expense of their salaries and compensation benefits of just these three execs from the overall health care "budget" would allow for free health care for my family and the families of my nearly 100 co-workers (with, tangentially, undoubtedly enough left over to cover the salaries of most of them as well).

How many such CEO's are we supporting with our health care dollars? How many duplicative staff and services are we supporting at each of these companies? At what cost in health care dollars being spent?

There is a demand for universal, single payer health care among the grass roots that will not be quieted. It is for reason that people see the same waste and inefficiencies of our "health INSURANCE system" that is so readily apparent to me, and they apply a common sense toward a solution. If we are truly serious about cutting waste, forget about diversionary talk about arbitrarily cutting physicians salaries or other such nonsense. Get the bloodsuckers off our back first, then let's talk about genuine recovery of our health care system.

At the time we experienced the economic meltdown during the death throes of the Bush Administration, I was alarmed to hear the names that were suggested as the economic "experts" who would save us from this impending disaster. Paulson, Geithner, Rubin, and Bernanke could all be seen as the elite who held major sway over Wall Street during the run-up to the meltdown caused in large part by the deregulation of our financial industry. On top of it all, these men were a fairly incestuous group overall with ties to a mere handful of the most powerful among the largest of Wall Street "Investment Banks," particularly Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and AIG (as their "insurer").

The sense of alarm I felt was intensified greatly when the very first recommendation to resolve this crisis was to hand over upwards of $800 BILLION dollars to former Goldman Sachs (GS) CEO and then Treasury Secretary Paulson to buy up troubled assets ("toxic assets") from GS and the other Wall Street firms. Most incredibly, these funds were to be distributed solely at Paulson's discretion without Congressional or Judicial oversight and without any assignment of ownership equity to the taxpayer in exchange for this massive infusion of cash into these "private" firms.

This arrangement was not a problem of an appearance of a conflict of interest. No, the conflict of interest here was irrefutable. Yet, to my astonishment, the blank checks were written and the U.S. taxpayers mortgaged our future to underwrite the effort of these "experts" to save our economy.

How ironic is it that we never actually engaged in the purchase of toxic assets, even though this was a supposed key component of the recovery plan as proposed at the time we forked over billions of dollars for the Paulson Recovery Program?

How ironic is it that there was never any effort made to forestall homeowner foreclosures, even though the rising number of such foreclosures was identified as the key threat to our economy?

How ironic is it that Lehman Brothers - among the greatest competitors to GS - was allowed to fail into bankruptcy at great cost to the taxpayers less than a year before GS claimed almost record profits?

How ironic is it that we hear increased pressure for U.S. Corporations to ship jobs offshore and reduce employee wages and benefits as a means of becoming more "competitive" even though the recession is reportedly caused primarily by the lack of "consumer confidence" and the lack of consumer spending by these same domestic employees?

How ironic is it that we now learn that Citigroup (among others) are now trying to repackage their toxic assets (or, ahem, "legacy assets" fer chrissakes!) into new instruments that can be awarded AAA status?

How ironic is it that GS and Citigroup are among those business interests that are now leading the way in the fight against increased regulation of the financial industry?

There really is no irony to any of this at all. The "experts" we put in place certainly identified from the start that the fiscal health of Wall Street was really all that mattered in terms of an "economic recovery," and Wall Street has recovered quite well, thank you very much!

And so, quite simply, those of us who suffer under this jobless recovery and who face the same, ongoing yet deepening threats presented by increased home foreclosures and unemployment are seemingly invited to go out and get our own recovery plan. Paulson, et. al., are finished with theirs, and the champaign flows on Wall Street and plans are underway to determine just how the spoils of their success will be distributed in bonuses to be handed out.

Don't be surprised if the taxpayers are not invited to the parties underway on Wall Street to celebrate its success. If you go, however, be sure to pick up the condom at the doorway reserved for you to wear as a party hat for a dickhead. After all, we the taxpayers have been afforded no more consideration in any of this than that, and we are left with little choice here but to resign ourselves to playing the role that has been assigned to us by the "experts" who have saved this economy.
  

President Obama has said that if we were starting from scratch, a single payer health care plan would undoubtedly make sense. Yet this assessment is offered, unfortunately, as a roundabout way of explaining why a single payer plan will not even be considered among all options now being discussed.

It has been rather surprising just how persistent the American public has been in insisting that some form of public health care plan be considered, despite vigorous opposition to any government administered program from the health insurance and medical/pharma industries. So strong has the push been for a public option that it now seems likely that some form of government administered program will be included to compete with other private health care providers. The American people themselves are seemingly resigned to the fact that single payer is off the table, but there is an intransigence building that says any health care reform without the inclusion of some form of public option is a non-starter.

Why is this push for a public option gaining such wide support at the grassroots level? And how is it sustained in opposition to so many monied forces that are aligned against it? The health care and insurance industries are spending over $1.4 million PER DAY in lobbying efforts, mainly focused upon excluding such government involvement. How is it, then, that a "public option" still remains as a top priority for many of the consumers who seek genuine reform of their health care system.

Having first identified health care reform as a critical issue confronting the U.S., American health care consumers have looked around at other industrialized nations and see single payer systems that are serving all their constituents at less cost per person than our present system. Without even getting into the specific details of how these other programs work, the American health care consumer is able to determine intuitively that there are a number of ways in which a single payer plan can introduce efficiencies that result in real savings over present costs.

To begin with, there is an intuitive sense that a single administration overseeing a universal plan is surely far more efficient than a multitude of private corporations establishing their own bureaucracies to manage their own little corner of the comprehensive system that is required. Duplication of services is understood to be extensive and extremely wasteful, as is the number of people needed to simply keep up with the myriad of different bookkeeping and other paper trails that are created, generally as one whole system of paperwork and policies, etc., per provider.

These same consumers understand that it will take one CEO - a government Administrator, probably at the level of a Cabinet Secretary - to oversee a singular bureaucracy in charge of providing universal health care to all. This CEO will be expected to earn in the neighborhood of $197,000 (Highest rate now paid to any Cabinet Secretary) and will replace an untold number of private executives, each making multiples of this salary. Multiples of $197k? Well, yes. It was recently reported, for example, that Bill McGuire, former CEO of UnitedHealth Group, accumulated total compensation of $1.6 billion during 2005. Quickly doing the math, the consumer reasons that simply removing this one executive from the equation for one year provides enough financial resources to provide lifetime health care coverage for themselves and their extended family, almost without regard for how large that family might be. Eliminating all such highly paid executives could be expected to result in enormous savings without compromising so much as the availability of a single visit to a Doctor.

According to a recent article in The Economist, "The American health-care system, which gobbles up about 16% of the country's economic output, is by far the most expensive in the world." The article goes on to show that the US already spends more PER PERSON for health care than any other industrialized country, and even twice as much as is spent per person in Sweden, Japan, Britain and Italy. Most of these countries have universal health care. Even the casual observer among the health care consumers in this country look at this and see that we are already spending much more than is required for universal health care, yet we somehow fall short in providing coverage for over 42 million Americans. It is not unreasonable for these same consumers to deduce that this present system of insurance providers and Big Pharma and the private health care industry are consuming far more "non-direct health care related" resources than is required.

And herein lies the reason that a "single payer" health care solution had to remain off the table if we were to proceed with any kind of health care reform in this country. After all, if such a proposed solution were to be given serious discussion, much of what the consumer has already determined intuitively would be fleshed out in facts and figures. A full litany of efficiencies to be gained and resources to be reallocated from private industry profits and logistical support to the actual provision of health care would be enumerated, showing the way in which we could achieve universal health care without actually spending more money than is already dedicated to health insurance and health care. And that would be a good thing, right?

Well, yes it would, unless you were one of the insurance companies or Big Pharma or the health care industry that has bled our health care system dry. Alas, the prime thing the consumer realizes intuitively is that the majority of waste and the inefficiencies under which our health care system suffers is related to the parasitical tagalong that is the insurance/health care/Big Pharma industries. And the possibility of the consumers acting upon that realization has the executives in these industries losing sleep.

It is an unfortunate political reality that it is these parasites who own so much of Congress in these days of pay-to-play politics. And so any potential that the door would be open to arrive at a "throw the bums out" solution to health care reform by honestly considering single payer would never have been allowed to gain traction at all as Obama embarked on this process.

On the other hand, successfully eliminating single payer as an option to be considered allowed the monied interests to reason it was safe - nay, potentially highly profitable - to proceed with Obama's "health insurance reform." These health insurance industry providers calculated that they could improve their take from the health care system if they smartly played the reform game. Senator Max Baucus of Montana, Chair of the Finance Committee and one of the biggest benefactors of health care industry campaign contributions, seemed to carry their water quite well for so long as he was able. Stating strong opposition to any public option, Baucus' was instead inclined toward a solution wherein we would eventually subsidize consumers as necessary until we achieved universal health insurance coverage. Executives at the major insurance providers were nearly besides themselves in planning the next Congressional fundraisers, undoubtedly certain that they could double, triple, nay quadruple their budget for campaign contributions at a mere fraction of the profit to be made from the 42 million new customers they stood to realize out of this proposed "reform" package.

But it seems neither Baucus nor the bosses reasoned just how persistent the grass roots would be about gaining some measure of serious reform of our health care system. Baucus has encountered significant pressure from Montana voters who insist that a public option at least be included in any reform proposal. Liberal Democrats are growing more insistent that any proposal must have a public option to gain their support for the measure. And the health insurance/health care/Big Pharma industry lobbyists are discovering that no amount of arm twisting, glad-handing, or promise of campaign contributions is going to allow the public option to be taken off the table. The voters are being heard in large numbers, and the pols are rightly calculating that no amount of campaign cash is going to mollify these constituents; that the voters are drawing a line in the sand that insists some degree of genuine health care reform be enacted with no quarter offered to politics as usual this time around on this issue.

And so we have stumbled upon an inefficient solution to the reform of our health care system, one that preserves much of the inefficiencies we now suffer in relying upon the health insurance/health care/Big Pharma industries. But against great odds, a persistent grassroots effort has made it all but certain that any reform package will include some genuine reform in introducing a public option that establishes the groundwork for moving toward a more sanely efficient single payer system.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but then progress in politics is rarely accomplished in one large step. I would certainly have preferred that we simply get it done right all at once and shove the parasites aside in one big move toward a single payer system.

But I understand the political realities that made such a course of action impossible to achieve. And so I will celebrate the little victory gained by the grassroots in achieving a public option, and watch in satisfaction as the parasitic insurance and private health care industries are forced to compete with a more sane and efficient system that will eventually cause them all to give up this game of promising to provide health care while bleeding us all dry instead.

May they rest in pieces. And may the rest of us at last know justice in health care being provided as a right granted to all in this great nation.

According to a letter in today's paper, Bill McGuire, former CEO of UnitedHealth Group, accumulated total compensation of $1.6 billion during 2005, "just a hair over $4 million a day if he worked all 365 days of the year."

Like me, I'm sure you look at this figure and reason that it serves as a pretty good argument in favor of single payer health care coverage. After all, this is a whole lotta' healthcare-related resources being applied wastefully toward something that contributes nothing to our nation's health care system.

Unfortunately, I fear President Obama and too many in Washington look at this figure and see little more than a terrific source of potential campaign finance funds.

This difference in perspective explains more than anything why we seek health care reform and our political leaders respond by trying to enhance and preserve the health INSURANCE industry.

(The following was originally posted as a comment to TPM's Fourth of July Roundup, which discussed holiday pronouncements made by President Obama and John McCain. The responses focused mainly upon McCain, criticizing him for his political opportunism.)

I think McCain is the strawman here in this response to political announcements on the 4th of July. I, for one, find it to be particularly reprehensible instead for Obama to don the cloak of the Patriots in his remarks.

The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against the tyranny of the government of King George. Nowhere did it mention health care reform (or, as is more cynically accurate, health insurance "reform"). Nowhere did it mention an energy policy. Nowhere was it presented as an outline for a business-as-usual political policy agenda.

No, the Declaration of Independence was fighting words! I would encourage all to read the Declaration of Independence within the context of what should be our proper response to the many abuses of power introduced by the Bush Administration, many of which are now sanctioned by the Obama Administration. The Declaration of Independence leaves little doubt about just how urgently Jefferson and Adams and the others would have responded to revelations about war crimes and Gitmo and CIA "Black Sites" and warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of habeus corpus rights and the murder of detainees and other such extreme human rights abuses.

McCain is a clown, and his ridiculous, denture-clattering pronouncements are to be expected.

Obama is another story. He is our President. Furthermore, he was elected in main part to restore the principles of governance spelled out so beautifully in our Declaration of Independence. He has failed miserably in this regard.

If he would now choose just a modicum of honor before political expediency, he would find the decency to at least lay low and not show his face around here during our celebration of the 4th of July. But who needs honor when there are so many lobbyists requiring servicing for a fee, eh? Obama chooses instead to continue with the very lucrative "business" of "governing" instead of defending our Constitution, and thus blasphemes our Founders in the process. We should all feel ashamed for allowing it to happen.