Know Your Rights

Friday, June 19, 2009

Will America get real health care reform?

The outlook on health care reform is bleak in this country. With talks in Washington totally ignoring the most popular option for health care reform, and 60 Americans losing their lives due to lack of health insurance and 14,000 Americans losing their health insurance everyday. We are seeing Republicans (and Blue Dog Democrats) fighting tirelessly against a public option, and the Democrats ignore what needs to be done to control costs and cover every American. The Republicans are proposing the same old lame bull shit they always serve to the American people. Some lame chit chat about how a public option and single payer health care means not being able to see the doctor of your choice, a bureaucrat getting in between you and your doctor, rationing of care, long wait times, etc. So what do they want to do, give tax breaks and credits to help low income families buy private insurance.

I shall now discuss how this is a completely idiotic plan to tout about as the answer to America's medical crisis. First, the tax credit plan wont work. It's just that simple. This is what was proposed in Massachusetts, and it doesn't work. It costs too much to subsidize private insurance with public money. It does not cover everyone. And it fails to keep down costs. Subsidizing the private insurance companies does not give them any incentive to lower health care costs, and so health care costs continue to rise faster than the tax credits do. This means more people lose health insurance, or if the government gives more money in order to help with the rising cost of health care the government then goes broke. This plan is stupid, and if it comes into law it will fail.

Second, their attacks on the "public option" and single payer are just plain wrong. They say it means a government take over of health care. Wrong, health care delivery would still be private in both systems. They say it will cause rationing of care. This is just stupidity because anyone with a brain would realize that care is rationed in EVERY system. In the current private for-profit system care is rationed according to ability to pay. In a public not-for-profit system care is rationed according to need. They say it means not being able to see your doctor of choice. This is actually a more adequate description of the current for-profit health care system, where an insurance company will refuse to pay for a surgery performed in a hospital not affiliated with the HMO or a doctor they just don't want to pay. A public option would not stop someone from seeing the doctor they want. Ask any one Medicare or Medicaid if the government tells them who they have to see. Also, in single payer systems around the world (like in Canada, England, France, Spain, etc.) patients have a free choice of doctors and since there is only one insurance you have no trouble with finding a doctor who accepts it. Lastly, they say that wait times in a single payer system are horrible. Fact is, Americans are waiting around the same time for non-emergency care as the rest of the industrialized world is if not longer. As far as emergency care goes, in single payer systems there is no wait time. The points they use to criticize single payer are actually criticisms of our private for-profit system.

Now onto the Democrats. They are proposing some lame public option. The fact is, it wont cover everyone. And they will have difficulty paying for it (rather than simply taxing everyone, and giving everyone public insurance). If no restrictions are placed on the private health insurers you will see a number of the sickest patients being moved from the HMOs into the public option. This will then raise the costs for the public option with little hope of keeping down medical costs.

The simple truth is, the only way to insure everyone and keep down costs is single payer. We can not settle for less. HEALTH CARE NOW!

Friday, June 12, 2009

Rethink Afghanistan

The man who makes the films for RethinkAfghanistan.com was on the Ed Show yesterday promoting the soon to be released part four of the online documentary series on the war in Afghanistan. Check it out!

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Conservative Party of the U,S,

I was just looking up political parties when I found this, The American Conservative Party. At first I thought they could be, if they got enough public attention, the alternative to the faltering GOP. I started to read their platform page and thought that they were more in line with mainstream public opinion. They believe in small government, of course since they are conservative, that just gets out of people's lives. Unlike the GOP, the Conservative Party believes the government should not be deciding how people live their lives, so the ACP (American Conservative Party) believes that gay marriage is okay and so is abortion since the government should just get out of the way. It was their seemingly liberal social views that made me think they would be more acceptable to the American people than the current conservative party. However, I got to their stance on "Citizen Responsibilities" which kinda freaked me out. They say "Each adult citizen is responsible for the health, education and welfare of himself or herself and their family." If the ACP had their way they would effectively do away with Medicare and Medicaid, public schools and universities, and all forms of government assistance (I wonder if this includes corporate welfare?). I really don't see a party like this ever gaining popular support, and if this is what it means to be a conservative (either the ACP kind or the GOP kind) I am glad not to be one. But it goes on. They believe in preemptive strike, so we can just attack anyone for no reason other than "They looked at us funny!" Their "Education" section calls for the termination of the Head Start program, the Board of Education, and calls for the establishment of an Institute for Educational and Academic Standards which would affectively have no power over anything (talk about the pointless expansion of government). And then in their "Taxes" section they believe a flat tax would be the best option. Honestly, that is horrible. According to economist William G. Gale from the Brookings Institute, a flat tax "would raise burdens on low- and middle-income households and sharply cut taxes on the top 1 percent." Basically a flat tax would screw over the middle class and be a gift to the rich. I really hope these people never win an election...anywhere......ever.....

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Stop the Madness

Nearly 147 Afghani people were killed in a U.S. airstrike, many of them women and children, on the wester province of Farah. One of the houses bombed had a family of 13 seeking shelter inside from the attacks, as reported by the Red Cross. President Karzia of Afghanistan said that the airstrikes, which have claimed 552 of the 828 lives lost last year, need to stop. He added further that "Terrorism is not in Afghan villages, not in Afghan homes. And you cannot defeat terrorists by air strikes." Karzia also called for greater support of Afghan forces.

After the strikes nearly 2,000 Afghans protested in the provincial capital demanding the removal of U.S. troops.


For more on this story:


Friday, May 8, 2009

We Will Be Heard!

At the first Round Table on Health Care Reform, lead by Sen. Baucus, 8 brave men and women stood up for the American people and made their voices heard. Sen. Baucus invited the normal crowd of HMO lobbyists and not one single voice for single payer. These men and women stood up, and told Sen. Baucus that single payer needs to be on the table. Single payer is the only way to achieve truly universal coverage, and reign in health care costs. Single payer is the solution supported by the majority of Americans and health care professionals. So why aren't we discussing it? It might just have to do with the grip the health insurance agency has on congress, or maybe they just don't care that 22,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health insurance.

Loan Industry Wins, Homeowners Lose.

The Senate recently defeated, with the help of Sen. Landrieu, an amendment to a bankruptcy reform bill that would allow homeowners to negotiate for lower mortgages, thus keeping more families in their homes. Allowing these homes to get foreclosed will damage the value of neighborhoods and put many hardworking families on the streets. But should I have expected differently from a senator who received $2,000,000 in contributions to her campaign from the banking and real estate industry?

Call Sen. Landrieu's office and let her know that you are disappointed with her vote against the amendment.

Link to the story:

They're Back

President Bush's Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is trying to cover her and the administration's butt on the issue of torture. Fact is, Bush okayed the usage of torture and there is no excuse for it.