
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Finally done

Thursday, September 10, 2009
Who lies?
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Empire strikes back
Friday, June 19, 2009
Why we need public health care
Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."
The answer from all three executives:
"No."
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them.
"This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
They're doing it again
As Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, put it Friday morning on the ABC program “Good Morning America,” the congressional leaders were told “that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally.”
Mr. Schumer added, “History was sort of hanging over it, like this was a moment.”
When Mr. Schumer described the meeting as “somber,” Mr. Dodd cut in. “Somber doesn’t begin to justify the words,” he said. “We have never heard language like this.”
We're in trouble. But something about that meeting seems familiar... why do the words weapons of mass destruction and civil liberties keep popping into my head? As usual, Glenn Greenwald explains why:
What's most vital to underscore is that the beneficiaries of this week's extraordinary Government schemes aren't just the coincidental recipients of largesse due to some random stroke of good luck. The people on whose behalf these schemes are being implemented -- the true beneficiaries -- are the very same people who have been running and owning our Government -- both parties -- for decades, which is why they have been able to do what they've been doing without interference. They were able to gamble without limit because they control the Government, and now they're having others bear the brunt of their collapse for the same reason -- because the Government is largely run for their benefit.We're being played again. Yes, this is a serious problem, but anything these people say is probably a lie. So how we deal with it is something we should be careful with. One way of being careful is making the choice between John McCain, who said this;
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.and Barack Obama, who said this:
First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money.Time for new management.
Second, taxpayers shouldn't be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street.
Third, taxpayers should be protected and should be able to recoup this investment.
Fourth, this plan has to help homeowners stay in their homes.
Fifth, this is a global crisis, and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets.
Sixth, we need to start putting in place the rules of the road I've been calling for for years to prevent this from ever happening again.
And finally, this plan can't just be a plan for Wall Street, it has to be a plan for Main Street.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Supporting the troops
Sunday, April 6, 2008
What part of "Health Care" do we not understand?
The problem with letting the market decide is that the market is concerned with making a profit, providing "care" is just the means to that end. As long as insurance providers make money by denying care, they will do so, with little or no remorse. The results of this is that we spend more on our health insurance than any other country, yet most of us our still one major illness or accident away from financial ruin. Single payer health insurance is not "socialism," it's compassion and common sense.
Incidentally, one notable policy difference between Hillary and Obama is on this subject, with Hillary's plan closer to the universal coverage we all need. If Obama wins the nomination and hopefully, the White House, Hillary could spearhead a drive towards universal care from the Senate. Her "Hillarycare" was sneered at in the past, but I think the American people, if not the politicians, are ready for it. At least it's about care, not profit and that's whare we need to start.