Liberal Voices

Universal, Efficient, and Affordable Health Care

Can you imagine Newt Gingrich and John Kerry getting together regarding any topic? I couldn’t until I saw an oped article in the NY Times on how to improve US health care.

It’s not like Gingrich is coming out for socialized medicine, but he, along with John Kerry and Billy Beane, cared enough to recognize a need to improve one of America’s most critical needs – a more efficient and inclusive health care system.

Health care didn’t turn into a critical mass during LBJ’s Great Society time, but it has since then. Its growing need came during the leadership of right-wing politicians, and early on, Richard Nixon put health care in the hands of private Health Maintenance Organizations, what we call HMOs.

Since then business interests have become too heavily entrenched for any one-payer, low-cost solution to be considered. The last real effort was the Clinton plan in 1993 which was rudely rebuffed, mostly by a negative health-care industry propaganda campaign, and it is still poised to attack.

Today, four publicly traded corporations -- WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Aetna Inc., and Cigna Corp. -- dominate the market, covering more than 85 million people, or almost half of all Americans with private insurance.

The LA Times reported their revenues in 2007 as: WellPoint, $55.9 billion; UnitedHealth, $68.8 billion; Cigna, $8.7 billion; And Aetna, $23.5 billion. UnitedHealth, for one, has earned about a billion per quarter. The four have a combined $157 billion worth of revenue muscle.

Accordingly, health care business and drug company lobbyists dominate Washington. To guard profit, health care corporations exclude those with chronic conditions, like asthma and diabetes. The companies lobby governments to take over responsibility for their sickest customers, whom they routinely discard.

Is it no wonder that politicians are submissive toward the big-business healthcare system, and openly non-committal to any efficient one-payer system? In effect, the big providers and drug companies have poisoned the waters of a one-payer government system.

So naturally when I read the NY Times oped, “How to Take American Health Care from Worst to First,” and got excited by the idea, the name Newt Gingrich as a shared writing source floored me.

Before anybody gets too excited about right-wing support for an efficient one-payer system, forget it. Newt purportedly supports a health care application of a data-driven information system used by some major league baseball clubs, most notably The Tampa Bay Rays, who have the second-lowest baseball payroll and are in the World Series now.

Believe it or not, studies show that most health care is not based on clinical studies of what works best and what does not — be it a test, treatment, drug or technology. Instead, most care is based on informed opinion, personal observation, what private insurance will pay for, or tradition.

Accordingly, a doctor can get more data on the starting third baseman of his fantasy baseball team than on the efficacy of life-and-death medical procedures. Statisticians now routinely use data to put better teams on the field for less money. Our health care provider attention seems to be on denying expensive procedures.

In 2005, the US spent over 15 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care, compared to 10 percent or less for other major countries, including Britain, Canada, Germany and France. But looking at major performance criteria, the US isn’t even in the playoffs.

In 2006, Life expectancy for males and females are higher in the UK, France and Canada. Infant mortality rates, deaths/1000, is 7 in the US, and 5 or lower in these three countries. It could well be that the uninsured, some 46 million, and the underinsured, drag down these statistics, if that is relevant.

Top this off with the fact that, according to a recent LA Times report, 31 percent of American health care costs go for administrative expenses.

There is probably little that can be done about tossing away 31 percent on administrative costs, apart from instituting a one-payer government system, something health care forces would fight tooth and nail against. Contrast our private health care system with a highly successful government Medicare system, which spends 5.2% for administrative costs.

An example of one of the oped success stories involved evidence that corticosteroids improved the lung function of premature babies. The use of corticosteroids tripled and there was a 10% drop in deaths of low-birth-weight babies and a marked drop in expenditures for such critical care.

Couple better utilized medical information with a universal system, and you give your human resources as much priority as property. That would save money and lives.

Health care is a right that every American citizen should have. Others have this right, including France, Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Portugal.

There is no excuse for Americans to go bankrupt because of illness. We cannot justify a man without insurance choosing not to reattach a severed thumb because of an unaffordable cost, or a family choosing to pay the mortgage rather than family health insurance coverage, often costing over $1000 a month for a family.

My anger rises when I hear these stories. Doesn’t yours?

Don't Count Obama the Victor Yet

If you are taking solace from the most recent polls, think again! Be mindful that the past two elections were won by Republicans tampering with the vote.

It is quite certain that George W. Bush and the Republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. Democrats thought that all they had to do was get more votes and let state voting infrastructures work.

That thinking proved wrong!

In 2000, twenty-seven Florida electoral votes, the difference between Gore or Bush in the White House, were assigned to Bush by the Supreme Court.

In 2004, Greg Palast’s story of illegal voter purges, confirmed the stealing of Florida in 2000, where some sources say that Bush won by 534 votes. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris kept 57,000 votes, most of them African-American, from being counted,

The names of the disenfranchised supposedly resembled names of persons convicted of crimes. The state eventually acknowledged that the purge was improper, but it was two years too late.

During the 2004 Presidential election, 350,000 voters, all Democrats, were disenfranchised in Ohio alone, enough to give the election to George W. Bush instead of the legitimate winner, John Kerry. Evidence was provided in a Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., documenting how Bush forces disenfranchised that number of voters through fraud, voting machine manipulation, and rejection of valid voters.

The national strategy since Bush-Rove in 2000 has been first, negative campaigns, assuring voter polarization; second, suppression of Democratic voters, especially in key battleground states. Third, if need be, you can add voter fraud to the mix.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission estimated that since 2003 at least 2.7 million new voters have had their applications to register rejected. "Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law," according to a NY Times report last week.

Paul Weyrich, a principal architect of today’s GOP and co-founder with Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, dismissed the many Christians who want everybody to vote. His contention is that Republican leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down.

Recently in Florida, the Republican-dominated legislature created fines up to $5000 per violation for groups that fail to meet deadlines for turning-in voter-registration forms or for trivial administrative errors. Such legislation caused the League of Women Voters there to abandon it's registration drive, resulting in applications plummeting to fewer than 10,000. Florida also has a Republican governor.

Of course, the Bush administration has not been reluctant to use agencies of the people to promote Republicans. For the 2004 election, it used the Department of Justice, which some have renamed the Department for Republicans, to suppress voting by Democrats. Other government agencies have also been used to support Republicans, including the Social Security Department.

Monday, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, asked Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 which requires new voters to supply the last four digits of their Social Security number if they have no state identification. At least four of those states are swing states.

The 2002 voting law specifically states that voter rolls many not be purged within 90 days of a federal election, except when voter die, move or have been declared unfit to vote.

Indiana, Nevada,North Carolina and Ohio seem to be improperly using Social Security data as a primary source to verify registration applications for new voters, when only the last four digits of your social security number can be requested of new voters as a last identification source.

Examples of voter suppression are from two keys states, Michigan and Colorado. In spite of the 90 day provision, 33,000 Michigan voters were removed from the voting rolls in August (about 11,500 died or moved in that period). In Colorado, some 37,000 were removed in late July (7,500 died or moved during that period).

In addition, McCain has been doing his part by accusing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) of voting fraud. ACORN officials said that the primary problem isn't a few phony names on voter registrations, but real voters being prevented from casting their ballots.

One thing is certain. Considering the proof of stolen elections in 2000 and 2004, many Democrats feel that the two terms of the Bush presidency are illegitimate.

Furthermore, Republican strategy has not changed. The dictum is to keep the vote close and utilize voter suppression and, if necessary, voter fraud, to sustain victory in swing states.

Florida saw fraud in 2000; Ohio, in 2004. Will it be Pennsylvania in 2008?

A new Rolling Stone article this month concludes, "If Democrats are to win the 2008 election, they must not simply beat John McCain at the polls - they must beat him by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering."

Still a Plutocracy

He is the Treasurer of Wall Street, not the Treasurer of the United States. To qualify as the latter he would have to represent the interests of the people – Main Street -- not the interests of Wall Street.

How many times and how often do we need to be hammered by the narrow corporate thinking and the loyalist-at-any-cost appointments of George W. Bush before we really see the criminal harm imposed by the Bush regime.

The Bush plutocrats are still un-accountable and un-restrained in spite of eight years of Bush’s laser-like focus on corporate interests and Bush-centered loyalty. Due to Bush’s abuse of power, the people will pay and continue to pay.

Yesterday it was the Department for Republicans, not the Department of Justice. Today it is the financial meltdown with the Wall Street Treasurer, Henry Paulson.

Though Bush bears perhaps only conspiratorial blame for the de-regulation of financial institutions, his Bush-loyalist, corporate-allied appointments continue to bring us the tainted leadership for which BushCo is famous.

After Henry M. Paulson Jr. for years did nothing to address the housing bubble, or the ludicrously unregulated derivatives and swaps, he is acting like the savior – that is, the Wall Street Savior. Or should we say, the Goldman Sachs Savior?

Going back to the trough he came from, Paulson sought help navigating the Wall Street meltdown from his old firm, Goldman Sachs. He snagged a handful of former bankers and other experts in corporate restructurings.

In September, after the government bailed out the American International Group (AIG), the toppling insurance giant, for $85 billion, Paulson helped select a director from Goldman’s own board to lead A.I.G.

Earlier this month, the former Goldman CEO, Paulson, jotted down a two-page pro-business plan that would have rewarded the very financial interests that contributed mightily to the meltdown. And to add insult to injury, he wanted unbridled power to lead the effort with $700 billion of our money.

Instead he got a few restrictions and billions in pork, recruiting a 35-year-old from Goldman, to mete out the billions to what he determined to be worthy businesses.

As a result of Goldman’s ubiquitous presence in the treasury department, other bankers and competitors give the company the nickname: Government Sachs.

Because the relief came directly to the corporate bandits, investors, and the stock market, were not impressed.

It took clearer and fresher minds to introduce the solution: Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, and Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to our Treasury secretary), have defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort. The natural thing to do, then — and the solution adopted in many previous financial crises — is to deal with the problem of inadequate financial capital by having governments provide financial institutions with more capital in return for a share of ownership.

This equity-based bailout plan is what quieted the markets, but unlike Britain and other European countries, the United States is not gaining a majority stake or even a voice in the management of these financial institutions that we, as taxpayers, are rescuing from ruin.

Is there no wonder that the real solution to the financial crisis could not and did not come out of Paulson’s office, since his sole telescopic vision is corporate-centered, with a favored focus on Goldman. It is quite an obvious conflict of interest, especially with his announcement that he is parceling out $10 billion to Goldman Sachs, while he had allowed his old competitor, Lehman Brothers, to go down the tube.

Naturally the American people are quite skeptical about any solution that comes out of the would-be autocratic Bush regime, a regime that never passed up an opportunity to provide corporate welfare and corporate tax breaks. Reaching into our wallets, Bush said, “The government’s role will be limited and temporary.”

Subsequently, after weeks of financial crisis, the Obama campaign is a clear winner.

The contrast of McCain flim-flam and Obama candor now seems to be set in the eyes of the public.

Unfortunately for McCain, he appears to be intrinsically connected to the eight years of Bush deceit and favoritism toward the rich, in spite of cheap words and negative attacks.

In the Neocon Game, We Lose

George W. Bush has left the world in shambles.

It is curious that one willful, self-deluded, inflexible dolt could accomplish what you would usually associate with a global catastrophe.

Of course, He didn’t do it alone.

Besides two wars, unhampered global warming, financial crisis, and the derision of most other countries, we have the polarization that the Bush regime so carefully crafted in order to maintain control and power.
 

Given an environment of hope, fairness and unity during the last eight year, we could have handled the world problems.

Instead, we have a world in shambles.

But hope, fairness, and unity were not trademarks of the Bush regime. The Christian virtues of hope, love and charity were twisted into greed, hate, fear and division, and it is fair to say that we let it happen, many seeing goodness in his lying eyes.

It is no surprise that a candidate who embraces Bush policy, from favoring the rich politically and economically, to exploiting the fear, hatred and derision left like a cancer by Bush, does draw in these sad refugees of the Bush regime.

In the twisted Bush world, there has to be a target, a cause for the ills of society, many of which your own policis perpetuate.
 

So turn this division to your favor.

Palin and McCain are doing this with the living casualties of Bush policy.

As Bush victims stand before them, disgruntled, resentful, fearful, and full of hate, McCain and Palin are pointing at Obama, whom they hope to be the sacrificial lamb for their own cause of power and greed.

The end justifies the means: true Machiavellians in the spirit of Karl Rove.

Doing Nothing is Not an Option

Eight years ago, when McCain was more accessible to the media, he told reporters, “I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.” Gooks is a racial epithet that demeans all Asians. Using such a term fails to distinguish McCain's prison guards from all Asians.

In 2008, a desperate McCain, with a running mate from the ranks of the radical right, is playing the card of hate and derision – by actions and by words.

The groundless and vicious attacks on Obama deride him as a foreigner, a traitor and -- exploiting his name (you don’t know who he is) -- as a black extremist. Even the McCain scowls during the debates and exclamations of “that” -- referring to Obama – plan to make Obama a target of hate and derision.

Both are playing with powerful extremist themes to denigrate Obama. Up to the last debate McCain has made no effort to distance himself from the hateful image he and his unprincipled, slandering, running mate try to project for Obama.

When Sarah Palin first brought up Obama’s irrelevant association with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, she accused Obama of “Palling around with terrorists.” Like Obama, even Republicans have served on boards with Ayers, who is now a professor.

Palin’s claim of Obama’s association with Ayers is, at the least, dishonest and, at the most, slanderous and criminal. One who knowingly incites crowds to violence, whether now or in the future, demands our total denunciation, as many embarrassed Republicans have stated and written.

McCain, and certainly not Palin, has not called off the cowardly and vicious attacks. For Palin, one might say it is akin to shooting wolves from a plane. It is no personal risk for her and with malice, she can call it a legal sport.

At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the unchecked slinging of racial epithets, are incited and frenzied calls. They are alarms that we all should heed.

In a society where the Secret Service has detained a man for touching Cheney, isn’t shouting “murder” like stating criminal intent and isn’t inciting such actions and/or words, engaging in conspiracy to do harm?

The McCain-Palin Dumpster Campaign

Now miring himself in the dumpster of derision, John McCain is emerging as a reprehensible scoundrel, and his sidekick, Sarah Palin, as an opportunistic dolt.

Both are cheerleading crowds into a frenzy. Some of the crowds are sad and hopeful allies, Bush trickle-down hoax castaways. Others are attracted to a maverick image or a female compatriot.

Still others are the emotional casualties left from the Bush-Cheney-Rove regime’s years of promoting fear, division and hate.

Both McCain and Palin are further demeaning the office of the Presidency, that is already tattered and dirtied by a Bush regime which used it, the American people, and religion to further its  power, this through the plague-ridden path of another opportunistic dolt, George W. Bush.

At a time of financial crisis, both McCain and Palin – irresponsible, self-absorbed users – are fomenting unrest, anger, and hate, all for personal gain and all done without conscience, but perhaps a modicum of restraint.

A few crowds drawn to an angry frenzy by McCain’s spurious charges of Obama treason, were somewhat subdued by a supposedly embarrassed, maybe even surprised, McCain.

A totally ridiculous association with Ayers is the main basis of McCain-Palin charges.

A little research reveals both – McCain and Palin -- as dire hypocrites.

Palin has her religious zealot from Kenya, Thomas Muthee, who claims he drives out witches (one an alleged witch in his Kenyan village). Palin credits him with using his magical powers to drive out her evil spirits and help her bid to be governor of Alaska, this when he was a guest speaker at the Wasilla Assembly of God in 2005 (Youtube has a video).

McCain sought the endorsement of the radical Rev. John Hagee, who calls the Catholic Church “the great whore” and the anti-Christ, and insists that the Jews are the killers of Christ and have brought about all their own suffering.

McCain has even admitted to knowing about Hagee’s views.

But perhaps, McCain has forgotten his domestic terrorism association.

In the early 1990s, McCain sided with right-wing domestic terrorists and voted against tough new legislation cracking down on a wave of anti-choice domestic terrorism targeting women who visited abortion clinics, their doctors, and clinic staff.

These same right-wing anti-choice extremists were terrorizing women, doctors, and clinic staff across the United States.

After Dr. David Gunn was murdered by an anti-choice terrorist outside the Pensacola Women’s Medical Services clinic, Congress passed anti-terror legislation giving authorities the tool they needed to protect women, doctors and clinic staff from the ongoing threat of terrorism.

McCain opposed it.

Aside from the McCain-Palin hypocrisy, what is my point?

My point is that if we allow this McCain-Palin ugly propaganda drive to attain an ounce of credibility, the genuine fear and concern felt by people in these times of war and economic turmoil could turn into ugly violence.

Gauging the rancor and anger of the McCain crowds, McCain and his acrimonious sidekick, Palin, could, in their desperate and ignoble pander for votes, foster violence against their opponent.

Behind Every Humble Man Is a Woman?

Now I don’t like generalizations or stereotypes. They are the fertilizer for would-be dumbed-down “ditto-heads.”

But with the presidential race and the success of at least one candidate and the utter arrogance, decline in principle, and gutter-sniping of the other, I think I could build a case for the aphorism: Behind every humble man is a woman.

Michelle Obama is that woman.

By all appearances, she acts as a sounding board, as a damper and as a devil’s advocate for her husband.

It is easy to visualize pigheadedness, swelling egos, and a total lack of objectivity for presidential candidates, especially if that candidate is shielded from other opinions and unfriendly crowds, as was often the case with George W. Bush.

We need a president who is objective, down to earth, and in touch with reality.

This was not the case with the self-deluded Bush, and it is becoming increasingly evident that this is not happening with John McCain. McCain doesn’t appear interested in the truth – about himself or about his tactics in his campaign.

Taking counsel from his cynical advisor, Steve Schmidt, he is not only using Palin as an attack dog against Obama, but also his wife, Cindy.

A speech Cindy McCain made yesterday drives this fact home.

Prior to John McCain’s address before a crowd in Pennsylvania, Cindy McCain said, “The day that Sen. Obama cast a vote to not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you..

Cindy McCain spoke of Obama not supporting her son in a negative Senate vote providing Iraqi war funding which did not have a timeline for withdrawal. She did not mention that her husband, John McCain, voted no on a similar version of the bill that included a timeline for withdrawal.

Before the presidential debate in Nashville, Cindy accused Sen. Barack Obama, somewhat like the fox who grabbed the chicken, of running “the dirtiest campaign in American history.”

In contrast, Michelle Obama jokes to Jon Stewart that her husband has to keep working to get her vote.

Perhaps it all comes down to character and motivation. One wife never had to be accountable, never engaged in hands-on help to the unfortunate, never had to succeed on the basis of her wits and intelligence, and never seemed to cede principle to power and attention.

Likewise, Barack is a hard-working man who had to struggle for what he achieved. He was not a show-off and not inclined to risk the lives and property of others.

One candidate is inclined to choose a wife for her intelligence and principled support, the other for glitz, power, and show.

I know. I am generalizing big time, but we do need a humble, objective and intelligent president.

Anyway, what is the current evidence before us?

McCain's Risk Pool Could Be Ours

An LA Time article last Sunday indicated how reckless, inattentive to details, and how much of a risk-taker John McCain was in his naval career, so his current campaign shenanigans should not come as a surprise.

Three crashes early in his career led Navy officials to question or fault his judgment.

The first cost taxpayers an AD-6 Skyraider in 1960 when McCain was a 23-year-old junior lieutenant. Naval investigators concluded that he was not paying attention to his power settings. He did not realize he lost over two hundred feet of altitude and consequently crashed into Corpus Christi Bay. In a later autobiography, McCain falsely claimed engine failure.

A serious “clowning around” incident occurred over southern Spain in 1961 when he flew into electrical wires, causing a blackout. He landed on the aircraft carrier Intrepid with several feet of electrical wiring wrapped around his plane.

McCain’s third crash involved a T-2 trainer jet in Virginia. A 1966 navy report could not corroborate McCain’s claim of an engine explosion and cited several other McCain errors in judgment and procedure.

Michael L. Barr, a former AF pilot with 137 combat missions in Vietnam and an aviation safety expert, considers three mishaps as unusual. “After the third accident, you would say, Is there a trend her in terms of his flying skills and his judgment?”

According to John Karaagac, the author of a book on McCain, "In his military career, he was a risk-taker and a daredevil."

His naval career was decades ago, but recent actions tend to support his tendency to take risks and to grandstand, but now, as the potential American President, his mishaps could negatively impact billions on our planet.

Since retaining Steve Schmidt, a Karl Rove protégé, to right his faltering campaign, McCain has been risk-taker, Obama-attacker, and grandstander, all rolled into one. Add to that a disturbing practice of distorting the truth for McCain’s own purpose and we are beyond a moral maverick. America needs integrity, peace, honesty and stability. Unwary voters with McCain-Palin could get more war, more instability, more division and more fear, in other words, many more Bush moments.

The selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, the lying about the McCain-Palin ticket’s exploits, the lies about Barack Obama, and the trip to Washington to solve the financial crisis – all are razzle-dazzle attempts to gain headlines and votes.

A majority of Americans say that Sarah Palin is not fit to be president while the actuarial risk of her succeeding John McCain is like one in six when considering his age alone, but perhaps one in four when you add his health risks.

Even beyond the shadow of his aviator days, John McCain is perfectly willing to take us along his journey of recklessness, daring and risk-taking. With 3 of 4 shakes of the dice, we’ll get a cynical risk-taker who seems to be doing anything to promote himself.

But one shake might mean we lose with the snake eyes of a female Bush Mini-Me, Sarah Palin.