Selling Out Single Payer

Selling Out Single Payer
by Helen Redmond at CounterPunch

Helen Redmond has a nice piece up on CounterPunch about the effort Democrats are putting into killing single-payer/national health insurance. Which of course is also an effort they are putting forth to protect private insurance companies and their ability to gouge profits out of the sick and injured.

Its a nice piece, but there seems to be a basic misunderstanding on one point.

So the question becomes why don’t the Democrats and HCAN fight to get rid of the parasitic private health insurance industry (the source of the crisis) once and for all instead of constantly and unsuccessfully, decade after decade, trying to rein in, regulate, and do an end run around them?

For the Democrats, with the exception of John Conyers and a few others, they simply don’t want to abolish the private insurance industry. They are capitalists and believe in the capitalist system that makes health care a commodity to be bought and sold. For them, health care is not a human right. And importantly, they don’t want to take on President Obama who is opposed to single-payer. Like the true cowards they are, they will not oppose Obama on health care reform even though they disagree with him.

Actually, its a lot simpler than that. Why don't the Democrats fight to get rid of the parasitic private health insurance industry? Its because they are well paid by that industry to do no such thing. A trip to Maplight.org reveals the following total contributions (to all of Congress) from the 'health' industry since mid-2003.

Interest	Contributions	Bills
Health Professionals	$118,553,725	301
Health Services/HMOs	$15,485,897	75
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	$31,366,801	54
Misc Health	$6,939,601	26
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$39,181,959	67

$200,000,000.00 buys a lot of support, from both parties. This is a fundamental problem that people on the left tend to have. They tend to believe the Democratic propaganda that says the Democrats are on our side. This leads to all sorts of twisted reasoning being produced as to why they don't ACT like they are on our side. The problem is, people just don't realize that the Democrats are not on our side. They are on the side of the people who pump millions of dollars into their accounts.

Have you pumped millions of dollars into their accounts? If not, then the Democrats are not on your side. The key is to realize this, and thus not to listen to them when they spin their line of bull about how they are on our side. Don't fall for it. Vote for candidates that really are on your side.

Tour!

Tearing the Whole Building Down: The Dead in Greensboro by Ron Jacobs on Counterpunch.org

Ok, so I'm a Deadhead! Can't wait for them to work their way westward on this tour!

A jam that began with Haynes singing "Caution, Do Not Stop On Tracks" from the Anthem of the Sun album proceeded into a rhythm section performance that had its roots in the place in the human soul that resides somewhere between the Garden of Eden and the future we do not know. That's a mighty big space, but this rhythm crew can fill it like no other. Entwined in the rhythm section's recital were guitar notes that seemed to come from that space Sun Ra called the place. The rhythm section solo came back around with another hippie classic titled "Cosmic Charlie" from the 1969 album Aoxomoa and then bassist Lesh lent his vocals to "New Potato Caboose"--a song that sometimes sounds like it was written by Arnold Schoenberg after he attended a blues club on acid.

So, I'd always picked up some of the deadhead philosophy. When the world gets too crazy, throw a party and dance!

Heartless powers try to tell us what to think
If the spirit's sleeping, then the flesh is ink.
And history's page, it is thusly carved in stone
The future's here, we are it, we are on our own.

If the game is lost then we're all the same
No one left to place or take the blame.
We will leave this place an empty stone
Or this shinning ball of blue we can call our home

So the kids they dance, they shake their bones
And the politicians are throwing stones
Singing ashes,ashes all fall down, ashes,ashes all fall down

-- from "Throwing Stones" by the Grateful Dead

Why Sanjay Gupta is the Wrong Man for the Top US Health Job

Why Sanjay Gupta is the Wrong Man for the Top US Health Job By Vincente Navarro on counterpunch.org

I find it highly worrisome that Dr. Sanjay Gupta is likely to be appointed head of the USPHS. He is not an expert on public health and is not sufficiently knowledgeable, or competent, to do the job. Training and experience in neurosurgery do not provide the public health knowledge that the position requires. But, what is far more alarming is that he will most likely be the media spokesperson for the task force on health care reform. And this means that a person hostile to a single-payer system (the type of system that has most support among people in the U.S.); a person clearly unsympathetic to the principle of the government’s guaranteeing universality of health care coverage; a person who is part of the media that have been obfuscating, negating, and avoiding the real problems in health and medical care in this country , will be in control of selling the message of change in U.S. medical care. Is this the change we were promised by candidate Obama?

Killer in Chief

Killer in Chief by Allan Nairn at counterpunch.org

I first heard of Allan Nairn sometime back around the early nineties. He was one of the leading journalist going into East Timor and documenting the Indonesian attrocities there. At one point, him and Amy Goodman were hiding in the bushes outside a village that was being massacred.

Don't hear from him so often these days, but he's got a nice short piece up on counterpunch.org.

As Americans today justly celebrate their sweet win over the country's own racism they should at the same time see that they are now installing the world's new killer in chief. Obama , on taking office, will inherit a state pre-programmed in ways that kill civilians, a vast, globe-spanning machine on autopilot, unconstrained by murder law.

As president, Obama will instantly become the world's number one arms dealer, number one trainer of secret police, number one detonator of bombs, and number one sponsor of forces, US and foreign, that by objective definition do terrorism.

If Obama doesn't stop this immediately upon taking office ...

he'll become responsible for mass murders, and the first victims will likely fall sometime between today's swearing-in and the last inaugural ball.

What else do I see in the news today. Obama's team is working on a 'draft' order that would keep Gitmo open for up to one more year.

When do we start trying to impeach Obama? As Mr. Nairn points out, he probably became a war criminal yesterday before the million dollar balls were over.

Beyond Grief and Rage

Beyond Grief and Rage by Robert Jensen on counterpunch.org

We need to analyze and strategize about political realities, but let’s begin with an emotional reality: For the past few weeks the scenes from Gaza have been driving many of us mad.

For all the horrors in the world, there has been something especially brutal and barbaric about Israel’s use of fighter jets and other sophisticated weapons to pound this small strip of land, to target the 1.5 million people crowded there, to destroy a society. Out of that grief flows rage, not just at the sadistic Israeli violence but also at the “we must stand with Israel” declarations coming from Republican and Democratic politicians alike.

later ...

But I believe that authentic hope lies in seeing one movement with many fronts. The goals must be justice and sustainability, which are inseparably linked. The struggle goes on in Palestine and Iraq, in Venezuela and Bolivia, in Oakland and Austin. The targets are the empire and economic interests it serves. We have to continue to struggle against the corrosive effects of arrogance and affluence, in others and in ourselves.

We all have limited time and energy for political work, and we direct that energy toward activities that are meaningful to us. One person cannot do everything, but each one of us can work within our political groups and communities to develop the analysis needed to integrate these many campaigns for justice and sustainability, linking our efforts with others’.

The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza

The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza by Norman Finkelstein on counterpunch.org

An excellent piece laying out what's been going on over there. It starts with quotes from the IDF website stating how they broke the cease-fire and that its Hamas 'retaliating' against that by firing rockets and goes on from there.

I found this passage notable ...

The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.

So, the question becomes, when Obama is sworn in as President next week, will he stand by and uphold international law? Here's what he said in the campaign. Obama answered questions on international law in a survey found on the Harvard International Law Journal website ...

“Since the founding of our nation, the United States has championed international law because we benefit from it. Promoting – and respecting – clear rules that are consistent with our values allows us to hold all nations to a high standard of behavior, and to mobilize friends and allies against those nations that break the rules. Promoting strong international norms helps us advance many interests, including non-proliferation, free and fair trade, a clean environment, and protecting our troops in wartime. Respect for international legal norms also plays a vital role in fighting terrorism. Because the [George W. Bush] Administration cast aside international norms that reflect American values, such as the Geneva Conventions, we are less able to promote those values abroad.”

Obama could always speak pretty words during the campaign. My problem was that I never believed them. Well, eventually you get a chance to judge a person by 'actions' instead of words. So much of what Obama has said during the campaign has already been dismissed by him as 'overheated rhetoric' of the campaign.

So, will Obama stand by international law once he's sworn in? The Palestinians, including Hamas, and all of the Arab world have been repeatedly saying that they would accept a peace deal with Israel on the 1967 borders. Precisely those borders that the International Court of Justice has recognized as the legal borders of the State of Israel. Will President Obama demand that Israel pull its forces back to within those borders? Will President Obama demand that Israel stop killing the people who live outside those borders? Will President Obama demand that Israel dismantle all the illegal settlements that they've built outside those borders? Will President Obama demand that Israel dismantle the wall they've been building outside of those borders?

I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for Obama to do this. I've regarded him as a manipulator and a liar who would say anything to be elected. But, now we'll quickly have a test of whether Obama stands by his words and promises in the campaign to respect and stand by international law, or will he continue American support for a criminal Israeli regime as almost every member of the Democratic Party in Congress (Kucinich and a few others excepted) said he should do last week?

Eventually, we judge people by their actions, not their words. We've already seen the actions of Cynthia McKinney, who put her life at risk trying to journey to Gaza and who was almost killed by the Israelis to do so. Next week, Obama is sworn in and we will begin to see his actions.

Gaza Seen From Paris

Gaza Seen From Paris by By JEAN BRICMONT and DIANA JOHNSTONE on counterpunch.org

Since the article starts with sentiments similar to what I wrote below, I can't resist posting it ....

There are surely millions of us, invisible to each other, enraged and powerless as we watch the massacre of Gaza and listen to our media describe it as a "retaliation against terrorism", "Israel’s right to defend itself". We have reached a point where answering the Zionist arguments is both useless and unworthy of humanity. So long as it is recognized that the shells landing on Ashkelon are likely to have been fired by descendants of the inhabitants of that region who were driven out by the Zionists in 1948, talk of peace is a smoke screen for continued Israeli assault on the survivors of that great injustice.

What then is to be done? Yet another dialogue between "moderate" Arabs and "progressive" Israelis? An umpteenth "peace plan" to be ignored? A solemn declaration from the European Union?

All such mainstream gestures are mere distractions from the ongoing strangling of the Palestinian people. But more radical demands are just as futile. The call to create an international tribunal to judge Israeli war criminals, or for an effective intervention by the United Nations or the European Union will accomplish nothing. The real existing international tribunals reflect the relationship of forces in the world, and will never be used against the cherished allies of the United States. It is the relationship of forces itself that must be changed, and this can be done only gradually. It is true that Gaza is a dire emergency, but it is also true that nothing really effective can be done today to stop it, precisely because the patient political work that should have been done before still remains to be undertaken.

On the three modest proposals that follow, two are ideological and one is practical.

Prosecuting Bush and Cheney for Torture

Prosecuting Bush and Cheney for Torture by Dave Lindorff on Counterpunch.org

There is no mention of the obvious point that if crimes have been committed—and in the case of the authorizing of torture, which is banned by both international treaties to which the US is a signatory, and by US law, which folded the torture bans into the US Criminal Code for good measure, they clearly have been—the president and his incoming attorney general have a sworn obligation to prosecute them. That’s what “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” means, after all.

A “politically fraught” step? That should apply to not prosecuting criminals, should it not?

Mr. Lindorff is making a point that I've been trying to make for awhile about the Democrats. This thread runs back through events like the launching of the Iraq war and the question of impeachment of President Bush. That is that the Democrats are willing to sell out the Constitution of the United States for their own short term political gain.

We see it here. As Mr. Lindorff points out, President Obama is about to take an oathc to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foriegn and domestic. The very core idea of the Constitution is that we are a nation of laws. This is different from the rule of kings where the whim of the king sets the law. Instead, the principle at the very foundation of the American system is that there are laws that apply to all people, and that all people are subject to the same laws.

It is the duty of a government official, or an 'officer of the court' to report crimes that they know about. It is the duty of the Justice Department to investigate crimes they know about. This is not a political decision. This is not optional depending on the political situation. If laws have been violated, then its the responsibility of officials in the Justice Dept to investigate these and prosecute these as needed. And when Mr. Obama takes that oath of office, surrounded by 20,000 troops and police, in January, then he is giving his solemn oath that he will make sure this happens.

The Democrats have been very critical of the Republicans for 'playing politics' with the appointments of US Attorneys, and also of the various politically motivated investigations aimed at Democrats.

But, isn't it exactly the same thing if President Obama and his Justice Dept are making decisions to not to prosecute government officials who have broken the law based on politics? Obama promised 'change' in his campaign. But it looks like we still have the same old same old where its politics who determines who gets investigated and prosecuted, and not the law or the facts.

The Man in the Hat

The Man in the Hat by Phillip Doe on counterpunch.org

Newspapers like the Denver Post refer to Salazar as a centrist. Apparently this is some sort of code meant to suggest a person Obama can be comfortable with, just as he seems to be comfortable with Ivy League retreads from Wall Street and the Clinton administration. But the Obama campaign was about “CHANGE” – I still have that sign. I hope it means something because millions of people who don’t give a damn about centrism or any other ism are depending on it.

Unfortunately, from where I sit, Ken Salazar as Secretary of Interior does not represent change, as Obama promised. Salazar represents defending the status quo and always has.

I'm also a Colorado resident these days. And likewise, I wasn't all that thrilled with Ken Salazar being given a cabinet appointment by President Obama. Ken Salazar has always been generally a reliable Republican vote in the Senate, despite the (D) after his name. For instance, he was a part of the 'Gang of Seven', which were Senators who got together to block any filibusters of Bush's judicial appointments ... thus insuring all of the worst of Bush's right-wing judges successfully made it to the bench.

Waiting on a President to Do the Right Thing

Waiting on a President to Do the Right Thing by Ron Jacobs on counterpunch.org.

One of the main 'antiwar' groups, "United for Peace and Justice" has decided to abandon any attempt to protest the wars and instead protest Wall Street. Not that I don't think Wall Street should be protested, but its a strange action for an 'antiwar' group. Apparently they only oppose wars while Republicans are in the White House.

Like I said before, as long as these groups continue to speak for us without listening to what we have to say, nothing will change. As long as self-avowed leadership organizations like UFPJ refuse to unite with other segments of the antiwar movement and work all-out to end the occupations now and not in 2012, the antiwar movement will never be effective. Even if you voted for him, if the man in the White House is not ending the wars and occupations you are against, then that policy must be opposed.

Given the recent decision by the 100 or so UFPJ delegates to reject a spring 2009 unified protest against Washington’s war and to move away from protest politics that might be seen as against Obama (the future face of Washington’s policies), it might be time for the antiwar rank and file that have appeared by the tens of thousands at protests in DC and elsewhere to create a new movement that does want to end the occupations and wars before the end of 2009.

Amen! Remember, WE are the antiwar movement. Not a bunch of self-appointed 'leaders' who have the time and money to go meet at a conference somewhere. WE need to be organizing an anti-war march in DC. From the article, it sounds like there might be some attempt to do this in April 09. The article just says that UPFJ has decided they can't join a protest against Democratic wars, but the hint is that someone else is. I'll see if I can find out more.

If not, WE need to start such a protest on our own. People are dying every day, and that doesn't become 'right' just because a Democrat is President.

An Obama Public Works Program?

An Obama Public Works Program? by Steve Conn on counterpunch.org

More Ralph Naders are needed, not less. New Ralph Naders who are not looking for jobs in the Obama administration or tickets to one of the Balls. Ralph Naders who say what millions of Americans do not hear on TV about class warfare, the rich getting richer and the middle class disappearing when illness and job loss strikes a family member. People ready to be under constant surveillance and challenged by the troops to be stationed in America to deal with complainers.

Barack Obama has dumped the progressive agenda of his campaign, piece by piece, that he used to delude liberals who actually begged to be deluded. So where did he find a public works program? From Ralph Nader’s writings and platforms in 2000, 2004 and 2008 and even before. Back when the country had a national surplus and only corporate flaks to tell Clinton, Gore, and candidate Bush how to spend it.

Obama, Emanuel and Israel

Obama, Emanuel and Israel , by John V. Whitbeck published on counterpunch.org

In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" -- i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.

Hail to the Chief of Staff

Hail to the Chief of Staff, by Alexander Cockburn published on www.counterpunch.org

The first trumpet blast of change ushers in Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s chief of staff and gate keeper. This is the man who arranges his schedule, staffs out the agenda, includes, excludes. It’s certainly as sinister an appointment as, say, Carter’s installation of arch cold-warrior Zbigniev Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor at the dawn of his “change is here” administration in 1977.