Amazing when Democratic Party sacrifices its base...

Every progressive Democrat in the land knew that the plan for health care reform from Blue Dog Democrat Max Baucus would be a joke. And, thus, when Baucus finally delivered it, waiting so long that, in the meantime, town hall screamers from the right got publicity and health care advocate Ted Kennedy died, it was just that--a joke. It included no public option, a mandate placed upon the poor and lower middle class, and all kinds of gains for the insurance industry. It wasn't just a joke. It was also embarrassing, because it suggested that an "actual" Democrat and the Democratic Party was behind the awful Baucus bill. No, that was the Baucus idea as Baucus is a would-be Republican, like the rest of the Blue Dogs. Unfortunately, the plan is still tied to the Democratic Party.

This morning, President Obama was on ABC's This Week and he not only spoke in favor of the Baucus bill, but also made the analogy that people should have mandatory health care just like they have mandatory car insurance. He also said that it would not be a tax increase because people without insurance would be able to find "affordable" rates and people paying insurance right now would see their insurance rates go down when all the other mandated people are "forced" (my word for it) into the system. Huh?! Huh, to all of it!

Obama's logic is perplexing to me. I know he is an intelligent man, so this can only be either "rich man arrogance" or "rich man ignorance." He needs to go back, take a long look, talk to real people at the lower economic levels, and reconsider. Otherwise, the poor and lower middle classes, which have been the constant base of the Democratic Party, will find themselves economically-stretched, taxed, fined, and grappling for the cheapest insurance costs possible while probably not getting anything much better in insurance coverage. It will be a time when the Democratic Party sacrifices the poor for the sake of the rich. Talk about an impending disaster for the Democratic Party if that constituency is angered and driven away.

(And my complaints are not about the issue of taxes, either. I would be willing to pay more than my fair share of taxes for a single-payer system, knowing that my nation develops what's best in health care and that all American citizens finally get covered for health care. But I truly resent having mandated taxes or fees going to nothing more than the wealth of an insurance industry and the health care system then still lags behind systems in other industrial nations. The sad part is that most Americans want a single-payer system, but the politicians refuse to deliver it. Who do they serve?!)

There also is this myth--which I think is a rich person's fantasy--that if a person has health insurance, then everything is fine and dandy. No, some people, like myself, cut back the insurance coverage to the bare minimum to also find the bare minimum of costs. How does that make health care better in America?

And finally, to the "affordable" part, if there is no public option plan, there is no way to keep the prices from the insurance companies down.

So, I guess, at this point, I can say that I am now against the health care reform legislation. Geez, I never thought I'd say that, considering that America has a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress. Wow, truly amazing that this president, with his incredible oratorical skills, has lost me to the health care plan.

The result also is that I have already decided never to vote for anyone like Missouri Senator McCaskill who joins a "gang of..." in Congress, because that means they are Blue Dogs, trying to appease Republicans. I can't see how the Republicans don't win big out of this health care sell-out and that's unfortunate. But what are we to do? Vote for rich fools because they are better than the other rich fools? I have often said that the limitations of the two-party system just mean that we have no good choices. We have fewer options there than with insurance plans, for that matter. I thought we had good choices during the campaign. Wow, actions and attitudes sure can change. But there's no sense for progressives voting for people, in either party, who don't really represent them, their needs, or what's best for the country. Now may be the time for building a good third party option--one that supports single-payer health care.

The village idiot...

"We have a village idiot in this country. It's called fundamentalist Christianity," Frank Schaeffer, author of "Crazy for God," said on the MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show last night. He was on the show to speak to the recent poll that found that 35 percent of New Jersey conservatives think President Obama is the anti-Christ.

Schaeffer used the "village idiot" term because he said fundamentalist Christians have been "left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature."

This subculture of fundamentalist faith distrusts facts, he said. From birth to home schooling to religious school to evangelical college, they have been raised to reject facts. "They believe in a young earth, 6,000 years old." They think that all news is related to the end of time and Christ's return, he said.

"A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot," he said.

"The rest of us are getting on with our lives, while these people are standing on a hilltop, waiting for the end," he said. They are a slice of the population waiting for Jesus to come back, and looking forward to Armageddon, he said.

Schaeffer concluded by suggesting to the fundamentalist Christians: "Go wait on the hilltop for the end and the rest of us will reconstruct our country."

Information Station: Health care statistics...

Recent news items about health care:

A recent study noted that 45,000 Americans die per year because they don't have health care insurance for better medical attention.

The uninsured had a 40 percent higher risk of death.

The average cost of health care for an American family annually is more than $13,000.

Insurance premiums have gone up 131 percent in 10 years.

About 14 million young people are uninsured. They make up the largest group of uninsured Americans. About half of them earn less than $16,000 per year.

Why the public option...or a single-payer system...matters...

The biggest problem with the health care reform effort involves three words: "Rich people legislating."

We know that most of Congress, specifically the Senate, is made up of people who are way more wealthy than we are. We also know that they get great health care plans through the choice of the federal system or can afford the greatest private plans because they are wealthy. Most of them, like the American people generally, also have two incomes for one family, whereas some of us, which can mean single people or also the particularly vulnerable group of single women with children, rely on just one family income. We know that most, if not all, of the other industrial democracies in the world have universal health care coverage for their citizens. In Canada, England, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Australia, and many others. And, while some of those systems are different, there are two features they all have in common: They cover ALL of their citizens, providing national health care. And those governments pay less in comparison to the very high costs of health care in the United States. A third common aspect for most of them is that the health and medical rates (such as infant mortality and life longevity) are better there, as compared to the United States. And the social qualities are better in those other nations as well, as no one goes bankrupt or loses their homes or businesses because of medical expenses and no one dies because they can't afford to go to a doctor or hospital. Conclusion: Those countries have found a way and do it better than the United States does. You might think then that "rich people legislating" in the United States would have the "smarts" to look at those other systems and model the American system after them, selecting the very best parts. However, are "rich people legislating" concerned with "smarts" or other matters? Some would say that many in Congress are concerned about money first (though they waste so much of it on endless wars, unlike other democracies) and then they are less concerned about universal health care cost for citizens. Some people in Congress--they are called Republicans--are opposed to any governmental program, though they and others in their immediate families have individually benefited from many governmental programs. Those Republicans and what we now know as Blue Dogs, meaning Democrats who like to think like Republicans, are against a public option plan. A public option plan would allow the government to set up a health care program to accommodate people who can't afford the rates charged by the private-sector insurance companies. Who can't afford insurance? Well, millions of Americans. But, of course, not the "rich people legislating." Without a public option plan, the health care reform would mean some improvements, such as requiring insurance companies to not heartlessly refuse to cover the health care costs of people who the insurance companies have diagnosed as having pre-existing health conditions. But mainly, without a public option plan, the health care reform would mean: 1). A sweet deal for the drug industry; 2). A gold mine for the insurance companies; and 3). A mandate for everyone in America that requires them to get health care insurance...from private insurance companies, because there would be no public option. Some people argue--well, it is good that everyone has to purchase insurance and that it is a person's responsibility to have health care insurance in case they get sick. "Rich people legislating" particularly say that. The reality is, of course, that some people can't afford one more bill, or else they probably would have gotten health insurance already. Some people, but not the "rich people legislating" might prefer to put food on their table than to have one more monthly bill that blows the rest of their already small paycheck. The reality also is that for people who have health care insurance now, they may have reduced it to practically no coverage in order to just keep the monthly payment low. I can speak to that because that is exactly what I have done. I have insurance through my employer that I pay for on a monthly basis, but mainly it is aimed at the occurrence of catastrophic medical attention, such as the arrival of cancer or being suddenly hit by a car. I don't have dental insurance. I don't have vision insurance. I have trimmed my insurance coverage to the barest of bones in order to keep up with my other monthly bills--as a single person with a single income, unlike most "rich people legislating." So, as people like me or plenty who are far more worse off, with lower incomes or even jobless, look at the health care reform plan without a public option aspect, we are horrified that insurance companies will continue to control most everything about national health and most likely raise costs at their will, like they do with mandated car insurance. Thus, people like me, I hope, are drawing a line in the sand. If the public option plan isn't in the health care reform, then not only will Obama be a "liar" for supporting a public option before but accepting an absence of it later, but also I will not again vote for Obama or other Democrats (and had no intention anyway of ever voting for a Republican or Blue Dog). So, it is crucial to the future of the Obama presidency and the Democratic majority that people like me, on the progressive left, don't abandon them. Heed this, "rich people legislating": If you intend to provide an American future that only accommodates the wealthy and, in essence, says that the poor and lower middle class can make no real gains in the American system, then you will lose in upcoming elections...and deserve to lose. Line in the sand: Public option plan.

Eight years, so far...

"Our soldiers have been fighting in Afghanistan longer than we fought in both World Wars." --Bill Moyers, The Moyers Journal, Sept. 11, 2009

Obama stands for public option with health care...

In his speech to Congress tonight about health care reform, President Obama stood in support of the public option plan. And that was excellent and necessary. He stood strong for the safety net for people in need of health care. And that was excellent and necessary.

Obama talked about the "ability to stand in others' shoes" and care about them, especially when misfortune occurs. He said families should not go bankrupt because of medical costs and businesses should not have to close because of medical costs. He said people should not have to tell a loved one that they can't get them the health care they need because it's not affordable. He spoke to the vision of the late Senator Ted Kennedy for health care for the nation.

"We did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it," Obama said.

Labor Day news...

With Labor Day 2009, here are some interesting news notes:

There are about 15 million Americans who are unemployed at this time. That is close to 10 percent of workers in the nation.

Five million people have been out of work for more than one-and-a-half years. That is the highest amount since records started being kept in 1947.

On CNN today, there was a segment about Army soldier Greg Missman. He lost his job and thus also lost health care coverage for his family, including an infant son. So, he re-enlisted in the Army primarily so he could provide health care coverage for his family. Just last week, he was killed in Afghanistan. His father was interviewed for the TV segment. Another way that Americans are trying to provide health care for their families and themselves.

In 2008, the states with the largest percentage of workers who were members of unions were: New York at 24.9 percent, Hawaii at 24.3 percent, Alaska at 23.5 percent, Washington at 19.8 percent, and Michigan at 18.8 percent. The percentage of union workers in Missouri was 11.2 percent, with 8 percent in Colorado and 7.7 percent in Wyoming. The states with the lowest percentage of union workers were: North Carolina at 3.5 percent, Georgia at 3.7 percent, South Carolina at 3.9 percent, Virginia at 4.1 percent, 4.5 percent in Texas, and 4.6 percent in Louisiana. (Statistics from the Bureau of Labor, as noted in the AARP Bulletin, Sept. 2009.)