Political Stumping

I usually don't stump for specific political organizations, but two interesting recent events in U.S. politics have inspired me to do just that.

The first was something President Obama said in his 2010 State Of The Union address: "...if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

A young doctor by the name of Dr. Margaret Flowers took Obama at his word and went to the White House with a letter addressed to the President describing why in her opinion a single-payer approach to health care would fulfill all of his stated requirements. Not only did the President not accept her letter, Dr. Flowers was eventually arrested for trying to deliver the letter to him.

Dr. Flowers isn't some lunatic nutcake. She is a physician who's vision of health care is, as she states in her letter, supported by 65% of the American public and 59% of physicians. So she has some clout and evidence to back up her theories.

Now, if by what Flowers means by "single-payer" health care is meant "free (for the patient), universal, publicly-funded health care", I, too, support the validity of such an idea, and I signed the “Open Letter to President Obama to Support Single-Payer Health Care,” which can be found on the Physicians for a National Health Program website, and, if you agree with me, I urge you to do the same, seeing as though Obama has so much as said that he would consider such ideas. I thought he was open to the single-payer idea from the start, but obviously I was wrong or a lone physician wouldn't have felt the need to get arrested trying to deliver the idea to him.

In my opinion any government that gives the well-being of money priority over the well-being of its citizens should be ashamed of itself. Just as it is my opinion any government that allows even one of its citizens to live in poverty should be ashamed of itself. These are just my opinions though.

The other interesting recent event is the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the details of which can be found here.

How any person can call himself a conservative, say that they are against the status quo of big money influence in politics, and then support this ruling is beyond me. What this ruling says, amongst other things, is that if a wealthy corporation has the money to support a political cause in an advertisement or "movie" during primetime television, then the right to free speech applies to the corporation. If an unwealthy corporation, or group, or organization, or individual would like to support a political cause in an advertisement or "movie" during primetime television but doesn't have the financial means to do so, then said group or individual needs to either shut up (at least in their hopes of making their case on primetime TV in competition with the corporation), or bust out their soapbox and go to some streetcorner (or lonely website outpost) somewhere and scream "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" to anyone who'll listen. Said people who are all probably lunatic nutcases like Dr. Flowers.

This ruling is about free speech. Conservatives say it supports free speech, liberals, like me, say it stifles it. I heard one liberal TV pundit ask a conservative TV pundit, if corporations are people why don't you support an electoral system in which corporations are afforded the right to vote as well? The conservative conveniently skirted this question.

Anyways, I signed the Move To Amend's "Motion to Amend" the U.S. Constitution to make it clear that corporations are not human beings, nor were they ever intended to be by our founding fathers. If you agree with me, I urge you to sign it too.

"Socialized Democracy"?

a question for conservatives (including president obama): is it "socialized democracy" when every american, regardless of their financial income, has the right to an equal vote? why is the concept that every american, regardless of their financial income, should have the right to equal healthcare, called "socialized healthcare"? if the equal right to vote is called "democracy", shouldn't the equal right to healthcare be called "democratic healthcare"? and another question for conservatives: if you were to have our government force people to pay money for healthcare, shouldn't you support the concept that our government should force people to pay money to vote?

Re: Pelosi: New health care bill is 'historic moment'

From the article:

"Speaking on the steps of the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress was "on the cusp of delivering on the promise of making affordable, quality health insurance available to every American.""

Let's ignore for now the possible definitions of "affordable" and "quality". The beginning of the very next paragraph reads:

"Officials said the measure, once fully phased-in over several years, would extend coverage to 96 percent of Americans."

So, which is it? Will the legislation cover every American, as Pelosi said, or just 96 percent, as officials are reported as saying.

Why might the proposed legislation cover only 96 percent? Who are the 4 percent who won't be covered? Why are the lives of the 4 percent not worth, monetarily speaking, as much as the lives of the 96 percent?

Why is it that Pelosi and other key Democratic legislators don't support free universal health care that would cover all Americans, not just a portion of them?

Karen Ignagni Is A Spawn Of Satan

Read this article to find out how health insurance industry lobbyist Karen Ignagni is almost single-handedly preventing free universal health care in America from becoming a reality.

I already wrote, in a previous blog entry, that President Obama never wanted universal health care in the first place. The House bill (which contains a "public option", Baucus' Senate Finance Committee bill doesn't) will only cover 97% of those eligible, far from universal.

Both of these "health care reform" bills contain a mandate that people must buy health insurance. Such a mandate will insure that the health insurance industry will have millions of new customers, putting billions more into the pockets of health insurance industry executives, employees, and lobbyists. Money will continue to be seen as more valuable than people.

As long as people have to pay money to insurers and providers for health care, some people will be able to afford it, and some people wont. Some people will receive health care, and some won't. Some people will live, and others will die unnecessarily.

The only way to "keep the health insurers honest" is to get rid of the health insurance industry entirely! Let the health insurance industry executives, employees, and lobbyists get their greed on in some other industry, like the music business!