[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

These Are The Most Stolen Cars In Every US State

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger


(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Obama & Universal Health Care: Time to Put on the Pressure
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12787.cfm
Published: Jul 6, 2008
Author: Sam Smith
Post Date: 2008-07-06 12:40:54 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 254
Comments: 19

If all goes according to plan, Barack Obama in his first 100 days as president will prevent the passage of a decent and full healthcare plan for at least another 100 months. He doesn't say that, of course, nor does the media nor does the Obama fan club. But it's the truth because if Obama gets his fake universal healthcare plan through at the start of his term, it will inevitably take years before politicians will deal with the issue again.

Obama's alternative is a bill that would expand the subsidy to the health insurance industry, a subsidy financed by expanded required use of said industry. Unlike automobiles, where the claim can be made that no one has to drive and so can't complain about required insurance to do so, everyone has a right to live without having to funnel money into the parasitical and useless health insurance industry. There is no justification for Obama's approach other than a desire to get funding from the health insurers and to avoid their wrath.

It is not only a wrong policy, but an immoral one. And, if he is successful, America will continue to have one of the worst healthcare plan of any developed country.

This is not just some progressive idea. As the Twin Cities Daily Planet wrote recently:

"Last year, Minnesota Medicine magazine reported its results from the first-ever random sampling of state-licensed physicians. Physicians were asked what type of health care financing structure they'd prefer among three choices: single-payer, health savings accounts (tax- free savings accounts to which individuals and employers contribute), and managed care (market-based private insurance plans). Sixty-four percent said a single-payer financing system would provide 'the best health care to the greatest number of people for a fixed amount of money,' according to the Minnesota Medicine report."

Obama is, of course, not alone in attempting to foster the private health insurance con on the public, but he stands the best chance of seeing it to fruition. It is also not the only way that Obama betrays his alleged status as an agent of change. His plan for Iraq is, at best, vague; he supports such conservative atrocities as the Patriot Act, the drug war and No Child Left Behind, and he seems singularly indifferent to numerous economic crises confronting the country. But because, with healthcare, he knows what to do and when he wants to do it, it is the most pressing domestic danger Obama presents.

The conventional liberal approach to this issue is indifference. Like the liberal eunuchs who helped elect Bill Clinton and then never said a mumblin' word as he turned the Democratic Party into GOP Lite, the Obama crowd has not shown any interest in what their man will actually do once in office. They have accepted his evangelical euphemisms on faith and faith alone.

There was a time when political activists in the Democratic Party were interested in issues rather than merely in icons. Which is why liberals stood up against Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Richard Daley. They knew where they stood and they knew where the others did as well.

Now it's not like that. Other than a vague commitment to end the war in Iraq - a commitment stunningly absent in detail - there is not a single major progressive issue that liberals can point to and say with any confidence, this is what Obama will try to do.

This is not a question of how you vote; it's a matter of how you treat politicians. Are they are your tool or are you their pawn?

If Obama were a Republican he would now damn well the answer; just the Christian right would keep him watching his every word. In fact, the GOP has it down to such a science that Obama feels he should talk about putting some of them in his cabinet. Have you heard about him talking about putting Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold in his cabinet? Of course, not.

So it will be when he is in office. He will gather his post-partisan assembly to discuss healthcare or whatever and you can almost bet the most progressive person in the room will be one of the secretaries.

Just about every day I get an email message saying that this union or that group has come out in favor of John Conyers single payer healthcare bill. Google it and you'll find 32,000 mentions. Now switch to the news media search on Google and you'll find six.

The only way Obama can be a good president is if he is pressed into it by progressives wise enough to realize that a vote should only be a ballot and not a free pass. The issue wars of the Obama administration should begin right now. A pro-single payer group called something like Labor and Doctors for Obama might start the revival of a Democratic Party which actually cared about what it did and not just whom it elected.

It is way past time to expect far more of candidates than just hope.


Poster Comment:

Interesting perspective from a progressive..sounds like the scales are falling from a lot of eyes with regard to Obama.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

#3. To: christine (#0) (Edited)

Obama's alternative is a bill that would expand the subsidy to the health insurance industry, a subsidy financed by expanded required use of said industry.

Instead of making the insurance companies even more rich and powerful it would be nice if he would give the American people back more of their tax money by cutting the size of government 50%.

No money or power in doing that though. It would decrease the leverage the two- party fraud has over those they have made dependent.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2008-07-06   12:53:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Hayek Fan (#3)

Instead of making the insurance companies even more rich and powerful it would be nice if he would give the American people back more of their tax money by cutting the size of government 50%.

No money or power in doing that though. It would decrease the leverage the two- party fraud has over those they have made dependent.

If 100 million Americans that filed last year simply refused to file anymore, changes would have to come. ;-)

Rotara  posted on  2008-07-06   12:57:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Rotara (#4)

If 100 million Americans that filed last year simply refused to file anymore, changes would have to come. ;-)

Yeah, well if my aunt were a he she'd be my uncle. LOL! Read DU, freik repugnant and LP to see why this will never happen. Too many of them 100 million people are on the government tit and receive more back from uncle sammy than they pay in and the others like being tax slaves to uncle sammy.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2008-07-06   13:00:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Hayek Fan (#5)

Too many of them 100 million people are on the government tit and receive more back from uncle sammy than they pay in and the others like being tax slaves to uncle sammy.

The tax slaves are referred to as "the rich."

scrapper2  posted on  2008-07-06   13:13:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: scrapper2, all (#6)

Interesting take on a BHO presidency from the NYTimes -

May 12, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor President Apostate?

By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK

Chevy Chase, Md.

BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership — a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.

One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.

This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obama’s election would raise America ’s esteem in Africa — indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his father’s native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.

But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran ’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan , a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy .

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.

Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of “Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace.”

Lod  posted on  2008-07-06   13:49:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: lodwick (#7)

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan , a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy .

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

Luttwak is really reaching here to do a smear job on Islam while pretending to do a critique on difficulties associated with Obama's religious conversion. What a laugh these Zionists are - trying 24/7 to seed fears about "Islamofascism."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak

Some cut and paste...

...In addition to his persona as a "public intellectual," Luttwak is also an independent intelligence operative who is involved in clandestine activities that include "field operations, extraditions, arrests, interrogations (never, he insists, using physical violence), military consulting and counterterrorism training for different agencies of the U.S., foreign governments and private interests," he told Laura Rozen of the weekly Forward newspaper. [2]

...On May 12, 2008, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Luttwak which claimed that U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has identified himself as a Christian, was instead Muslim by birth because his father's family was of that religion.[3] Luttwak argued that should Obama be elected, he would further damage American standing with the Islamic world, as he would be considered an "apostate".

Many readers of the New York Times website chastised Luttwak for "spreading ignorance and bigotry" about Islam.[4] Some pointed out that according to Islamic tradition, one has to embrace Islam as an adult, before rejecting it, to be considered an apostate. Additionally, it has been argued that since Obama's father had abandoned his family, Islamic law dictated that his mother's religion, Christianity, was controlling on any offspring.[5]

On June 1, 2008, the public editor of the Times, Clark Hoyt, wrote that he had interviewed five Muslim scholars who all argued that Luttwak's article was misleading, as it held a "rigid, simplistic view of Islam that failed to take into account its many strains and the subtleties of its religious law, which is separate from the secular laws in almost all Islamic nations." [6]

scrapper2  posted on  2008-07-06   15:35:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: scrapper2. all (#8)

Thanks for this additional information. It seems that there are as many variations and interpretations of Islam as there are of Christianity.

All to benefit some mullah or preacher, imo.

We should all start our own church: lodwickology, scrapper2ology, etc, etc.

Lod  posted on  2008-07-06   15:50:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 9.

#10. To: lodwick (#9)

We should all start our own church: lodwickology, scrapper2ology, etc, etc.

Subversive fronts if I ever saw any. You must be up to something.

Federal infiltrators are at the ready.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-07-06 15:54:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: lodwick (#9)

Thanks for this additional information. It seems that there are as many variations and interpretations of Islam as there are of Christianity.

All to benefit some mullah or preacher, imo.

Actually if you look more closely at the smears against Islam and Christianity, typically they come from one smear-proof quarter. The post 9/11 seeding of the idea that the West was facing a religious and cultural conflict between Christianity and Islam was hyped/produced by one criticism-proof religious faction.

The NYT article by Luttwak you pinged me on in this thread is a good example of this concerted effort by one single quarter to agitate and propagandize American rubes into believing this "us against them" theory. It's "them" against "us" all right, but the "us" is BOTH Christianity and Islam.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-07-06 16:46:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]