Friday, December 12, 2003
Having two political parties is like having two burger stores in town. Imagine if your choices for a quick burger were Burger King or McDonalds? Neither choice is great, especially if you're a health nut.
Lets say the mayor of this fictional town wants to take a vote as to which burger store is best. Each store pours millions of dollars in advertising to win the vote. When the day of the vote comes, there is a low voter turn out (24% of the population.) In a narrow margin, one restaurant wins over the other by a few votes. Lets say for the sake of argument in this fictional town that McDonald's wins by 10 votes.
This analogy is like what we have today. We have watered down Democrats that pander to corporate interests and corporate money and we have hardline conservatives that pander to corporations and corporate money. Except its worse at the presidential level.
We have a bunch of Democratic candidates scrambling for the ability to square off against the Pretender-In-Chief. Now Bush and his minions in Washington are some dirty and tough minded SOB's. The Democrats need someone that will not be afraid to roll up the sleeves and go toe to toe with the Bushistas.
Now Bush and his lackeys in office have left a lot of room for a wiley Democratic candidate to pounce and attack. Lets see... personal liberties crushed in Cuba and with the Patriot Act, kissing up to corporate chums with many governmental deregulations, environmental deregulations, cronyism and of course his tax cuts which mainly benefit the upper 1% of the country. His foreign policy blows. The war in Iraq is a sham, his war on terrorism is not working. He's pretty much pissed off all of our allies, and really could give a fig what anyone locallly or globally thinks of him and his policies.
And yet... Which Democrat would really take Bush to task? Lieberman is basically a Republican, but calls himself a Democrat. Kerry could have a chance, but he looks like an Ent from The Two Towers. Sorry, if you don't look like a president these days, you don't get elected. (Not that Bush looks presidential. I'll pause with the Alfred E. Neumann suggestion.) A telegenic presence is necessary to get elected these days. Lincoln wouldn't stand a chance today. I'm not too sure about Dean. Most left wing sites seem pretty geeked about him. He seems like a typical Democrat. Likeable, but what really separates him from the pack? Al Sharpton has a bad history following him. Carol Moseley Brown gets so little air time, I wonder if she's still running. Then there's late-comer, and I'd say best possible candidate General Clark. He's a lefty, a former commander of NATO, well educated, a Vietnam vet, and really has a connection to the working man. He's the biggest threat to Bush, in my opinion.
Oh, I forgot Kucinich. Kucinich is from my homestate of Ohio. He really is a populist. He'll do the unpopular things that most politicians wouldn't even dream of touching. He'll fight big business, he'll stand up to corruption. He's so idealistic, I'd say he'd stand a snowballs chance of winning against Bush. Also, most Dems don't seem to support this guy.
I'll make a prediction that when the Dems choose, it'll be some middle of the road, play it safe candidate, and they'll get creamed. At that point, you may as well kiss personal liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, environmental protection laws, and many other freedoms taken for granted good-bye. (When we hear words like, "We have to suspend the Bill of Rights to win the war on terrorism!" or, "I'm asking Congress to grant me temporary emergency powers, and asking them to vote me as Supreme Chancellor of the United States..." or something along those lines we're all dead.)
So, the Democrats have to get with the program and realize that people can still believe in them if the will only trust the people and quit pandering to the middle ground and corporate special interest groups. Rock the boat a little, inspire the people with hope and optimism. Offer them a future where the threat of terrorism will be diminished, where economic prosperity is the primary goal, and where personal freedoms and liberty will not be erased. Get out the brass knuckles if you have to and take the presidency back from that right wing snake in office.
If not, the people won't have only two restaurants to choose from anymore, we'll only have one, and at that point, only those that like the one restaurant will have any say of what goes on. Democratic government, you'll get it your way.
Lets say the mayor of this fictional town wants to take a vote as to which burger store is best. Each store pours millions of dollars in advertising to win the vote. When the day of the vote comes, there is a low voter turn out (24% of the population.) In a narrow margin, one restaurant wins over the other by a few votes. Lets say for the sake of argument in this fictional town that McDonald's wins by 10 votes.
This analogy is like what we have today. We have watered down Democrats that pander to corporate interests and corporate money and we have hardline conservatives that pander to corporations and corporate money. Except its worse at the presidential level.
We have a bunch of Democratic candidates scrambling for the ability to square off against the Pretender-In-Chief. Now Bush and his minions in Washington are some dirty and tough minded SOB's. The Democrats need someone that will not be afraid to roll up the sleeves and go toe to toe with the Bushistas.
Now Bush and his lackeys in office have left a lot of room for a wiley Democratic candidate to pounce and attack. Lets see... personal liberties crushed in Cuba and with the Patriot Act, kissing up to corporate chums with many governmental deregulations, environmental deregulations, cronyism and of course his tax cuts which mainly benefit the upper 1% of the country. His foreign policy blows. The war in Iraq is a sham, his war on terrorism is not working. He's pretty much pissed off all of our allies, and really could give a fig what anyone locallly or globally thinks of him and his policies.
And yet... Which Democrat would really take Bush to task? Lieberman is basically a Republican, but calls himself a Democrat. Kerry could have a chance, but he looks like an Ent from The Two Towers. Sorry, if you don't look like a president these days, you don't get elected. (Not that Bush looks presidential. I'll pause with the Alfred E. Neumann suggestion.) A telegenic presence is necessary to get elected these days. Lincoln wouldn't stand a chance today. I'm not too sure about Dean. Most left wing sites seem pretty geeked about him. He seems like a typical Democrat. Likeable, but what really separates him from the pack? Al Sharpton has a bad history following him. Carol Moseley Brown gets so little air time, I wonder if she's still running. Then there's late-comer, and I'd say best possible candidate General Clark. He's a lefty, a former commander of NATO, well educated, a Vietnam vet, and really has a connection to the working man. He's the biggest threat to Bush, in my opinion.
Oh, I forgot Kucinich. Kucinich is from my homestate of Ohio. He really is a populist. He'll do the unpopular things that most politicians wouldn't even dream of touching. He'll fight big business, he'll stand up to corruption. He's so idealistic, I'd say he'd stand a snowballs chance of winning against Bush. Also, most Dems don't seem to support this guy.
I'll make a prediction that when the Dems choose, it'll be some middle of the road, play it safe candidate, and they'll get creamed. At that point, you may as well kiss personal liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, environmental protection laws, and many other freedoms taken for granted good-bye. (When we hear words like, "We have to suspend the Bill of Rights to win the war on terrorism!" or, "I'm asking Congress to grant me temporary emergency powers, and asking them to vote me as Supreme Chancellor of the United States..." or something along those lines we're all dead.)
So, the Democrats have to get with the program and realize that people can still believe in them if the will only trust the people and quit pandering to the middle ground and corporate special interest groups. Rock the boat a little, inspire the people with hope and optimism. Offer them a future where the threat of terrorism will be diminished, where economic prosperity is the primary goal, and where personal freedoms and liberty will not be erased. Get out the brass knuckles if you have to and take the presidency back from that right wing snake in office.
If not, the people won't have only two restaurants to choose from anymore, we'll only have one, and at that point, only those that like the one restaurant will have any say of what goes on. Democratic government, you'll get it your way.
Sunday, December 07, 2003
Title
I caught Senator Kerry on CSPAN yesterday. For the most part, he seemed pretty on the ball about stuff, he did however mention something about universal health care.
According to most Democrats about 40 million Americans are living without adequate health care. Now there are about 280 million Americans. Does that mean that 240 million Americans have adequate health care coverage?
For a long time, up until this year, I was one of those 40 million Americans without health insurance. Now, I have to say, without health care I would not go to see a doctor unless it would be a dire emergency. (Fortunately, nothing arose.) So, I know the plight of those without health coverage. You live with hope that nothing bad will happen.
Now I have mixed feelings personally about universal health care. Emotionally, I say yes, all Americans should have access to medical coverage and not have to be denied or ignored for any kind of coverage or access to health professionals. Intellectually, I ask who will pay for it?
Health care in the US is sort of like that serpent in Norse mythology that keeps consuming itself and when it stops, Raganarok (the end of the world) will happen. (I think its name was Yggdrasil, but I could be wrong.) You see, the US has some of the most advanced medical technology in the world, and it also provides really good medical service. With this great technology and service, also comes a hefty price tag. Secondly, the US is also a very litigious society. (No, I'm not going to suggest any kind of tort reform. I think people should have the right to sue anybody for any amount they can get away with. The ability to have hefty lawsuits is one of the few defenses consumers have against financially powerful multi-national corporations. Take away the ability to sue, or limit it, and you have permanent corporate power. But I digress...)
Now, most people get their health insurance from their employers. (I suspect, anyway. Health insurance is expensive.) Most employers today are reluctant to hire full time people due to the added cost of paying employees health care benefits, plus other reasons, but I'll try and focus on health care. Democrats have been beating the drum of universal health care for some time. I'd say lets table that argument for the time being, and just work on the 40 million or so without health insurance. We're talking about 15% of the population without even basic coverage.
If Democrats were smart, in this time of Conservatives Gone Wild, they'd break the health coverage problem into manageable chunks. Lets start with the children. Of those 40 million Americans, I'd say some of them have children under the age of 18. Heck, some of them could have been like me in the few years past college, ages 21-30 with no health care. But lets start with the children. That should be easy pickings. If Republicans and conservatives scoff at creating a system to help poor children get medical coverage, they'd be easy targets to kick out of office. What politician wants to be seen as anti-child, especially poor children?
Just as Head Start is a good program to help poor children get early access to education, you could create a program to assist the families of poor children to get the kids comprehensive medical coverage. I'm certain this would be a great benefit to poor families, knowing that their kids could go to the dentist, optometrist, or any sort of doctor, and not have to worry about paying expensive bills. You could create a low deductible, or give low monthly payments, or something. I don't know, but its a start.
The next step could be to create a national health insurance program, run by the government. Make it voluntary. People could elect to have a portion of their paycheck go to this service, and they could get a card or something they could use when they go for a doctor's visit. Think of it as a non-profit health insurance company. If the US can save money for disasters, why can't it save money for people's health care. Just as social security is put into a fund, you'd put this money into a locked fund, that can't be touched for any purpose other than for those paying into the system to use it. The government could match part of the fund, or add to the fund as needed. It could be a good thing for those who are stuck working part-time, near full-time, entrepreneurs, small business people, self-employed sorts.
For example, I have a friend that runs a small web-design business out of his home. He earns a fair amount of money per month, but refuses to get health insurance because of the hefty monthly cost. Create a government health care system with a lower cost, gives my friend an option of having some insurance versus no insurance. Secondly, this would make health insurance companies montly premiums come down because of competition. Competition helps the consumer.
The next step is to think of a way to help businesses out that provide health insurance for their employees. How about a tax credit, or a partial refund for providing health insurance. (This could be exploited, but I'm brainstorming.) If I'm a multi-national corporation or even a small business, getting something back for providing health care for full and part-time workers is something. Heck, give them a 50% refund if they provide health coverage for part-time employees.
Republicans and conservatives act as if government is the enemy. Its not. It can be a very beneficial tool to the growth of the economy, and to the welfare of its citizens when its managed correctly.
For Democrats, making a blanket statement of universal health care is a grand idea. Its sort of like wishing everyone would win the lottery, but because of the heavy costs due to the expensive technology and lawsuits, it won't get very far in congress, and it won't make it past a Republican presidency. It has the potential to be very expensive and poorly run. Now, unlike some conservative talk show hosts, I won't toss the reason for the sentiment out the window, just the idea. The sentiment of providing every American with the best possible health care is a great notion, the planning is poor.
I'm not saying my ideas are grand or correct, they're just ideas, but its a start. There are people out there like myself that are/were without health insurance. Its scary to think what would happen if you got sick or hurt. If your poor, you take your chances and hope for the best. Thats not a good situation for anybody, especially for 40 million people. If the economy continues the way its going, and good full time jobs that provide health care keep disappering, the percentage of Americans without healthcare will rise. Something has to be done, but not something foolish or drastic. The Democrats are on the right trail, they just have to come up with better ideas.
I caught Senator Kerry on CSPAN yesterday. For the most part, he seemed pretty on the ball about stuff, he did however mention something about universal health care.
According to most Democrats about 40 million Americans are living without adequate health care. Now there are about 280 million Americans. Does that mean that 240 million Americans have adequate health care coverage?
For a long time, up until this year, I was one of those 40 million Americans without health insurance. Now, I have to say, without health care I would not go to see a doctor unless it would be a dire emergency. (Fortunately, nothing arose.) So, I know the plight of those without health coverage. You live with hope that nothing bad will happen.
Now I have mixed feelings personally about universal health care. Emotionally, I say yes, all Americans should have access to medical coverage and not have to be denied or ignored for any kind of coverage or access to health professionals. Intellectually, I ask who will pay for it?
Health care in the US is sort of like that serpent in Norse mythology that keeps consuming itself and when it stops, Raganarok (the end of the world) will happen. (I think its name was Yggdrasil, but I could be wrong.) You see, the US has some of the most advanced medical technology in the world, and it also provides really good medical service. With this great technology and service, also comes a hefty price tag. Secondly, the US is also a very litigious society. (No, I'm not going to suggest any kind of tort reform. I think people should have the right to sue anybody for any amount they can get away with. The ability to have hefty lawsuits is one of the few defenses consumers have against financially powerful multi-national corporations. Take away the ability to sue, or limit it, and you have permanent corporate power. But I digress...)
Now, most people get their health insurance from their employers. (I suspect, anyway. Health insurance is expensive.) Most employers today are reluctant to hire full time people due to the added cost of paying employees health care benefits, plus other reasons, but I'll try and focus on health care. Democrats have been beating the drum of universal health care for some time. I'd say lets table that argument for the time being, and just work on the 40 million or so without health insurance. We're talking about 15% of the population without even basic coverage.
If Democrats were smart, in this time of Conservatives Gone Wild, they'd break the health coverage problem into manageable chunks. Lets start with the children. Of those 40 million Americans, I'd say some of them have children under the age of 18. Heck, some of them could have been like me in the few years past college, ages 21-30 with no health care. But lets start with the children. That should be easy pickings. If Republicans and conservatives scoff at creating a system to help poor children get medical coverage, they'd be easy targets to kick out of office. What politician wants to be seen as anti-child, especially poor children?
Just as Head Start is a good program to help poor children get early access to education, you could create a program to assist the families of poor children to get the kids comprehensive medical coverage. I'm certain this would be a great benefit to poor families, knowing that their kids could go to the dentist, optometrist, or any sort of doctor, and not have to worry about paying expensive bills. You could create a low deductible, or give low monthly payments, or something. I don't know, but its a start.
The next step could be to create a national health insurance program, run by the government. Make it voluntary. People could elect to have a portion of their paycheck go to this service, and they could get a card or something they could use when they go for a doctor's visit. Think of it as a non-profit health insurance company. If the US can save money for disasters, why can't it save money for people's health care. Just as social security is put into a fund, you'd put this money into a locked fund, that can't be touched for any purpose other than for those paying into the system to use it. The government could match part of the fund, or add to the fund as needed. It could be a good thing for those who are stuck working part-time, near full-time, entrepreneurs, small business people, self-employed sorts.
For example, I have a friend that runs a small web-design business out of his home. He earns a fair amount of money per month, but refuses to get health insurance because of the hefty monthly cost. Create a government health care system with a lower cost, gives my friend an option of having some insurance versus no insurance. Secondly, this would make health insurance companies montly premiums come down because of competition. Competition helps the consumer.
The next step is to think of a way to help businesses out that provide health insurance for their employees. How about a tax credit, or a partial refund for providing health insurance. (This could be exploited, but I'm brainstorming.) If I'm a multi-national corporation or even a small business, getting something back for providing health care for full and part-time workers is something. Heck, give them a 50% refund if they provide health coverage for part-time employees.
Republicans and conservatives act as if government is the enemy. Its not. It can be a very beneficial tool to the growth of the economy, and to the welfare of its citizens when its managed correctly.
For Democrats, making a blanket statement of universal health care is a grand idea. Its sort of like wishing everyone would win the lottery, but because of the heavy costs due to the expensive technology and lawsuits, it won't get very far in congress, and it won't make it past a Republican presidency. It has the potential to be very expensive and poorly run. Now, unlike some conservative talk show hosts, I won't toss the reason for the sentiment out the window, just the idea. The sentiment of providing every American with the best possible health care is a great notion, the planning is poor.
I'm not saying my ideas are grand or correct, they're just ideas, but its a start. There are people out there like myself that are/were without health insurance. Its scary to think what would happen if you got sick or hurt. If your poor, you take your chances and hope for the best. Thats not a good situation for anybody, especially for 40 million people. If the economy continues the way its going, and good full time jobs that provide health care keep disappering, the percentage of Americans without healthcare will rise. Something has to be done, but not something foolish or drastic. The Democrats are on the right trail, they just have to come up with better ideas.
