The Labor Movement has been losing to corporate power each year. The passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, which apparently President Truman described as a "slave-labor bill", was a tipping point in corporate power over Labor and effective negotiations. In the early 90's trade agreements of NAFTA and the WTO further consolidated power upwards, into corporate hands and, not only grossly exploited foreign labor with unsafe working conditions and slave wages, but undermined the U.S. labor force further by outsourcing millions of jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, which has now lost over 3 million jobs since 2000 alone.
Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate to meet these problems head on. As one of his first acts of office, he will notify NAFTA and the WTO that the U.S. will be withdrawing from the agreements to return to bilateral trade agreements, based upon worker's rights, human rights and environmental principles. He will work to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act and increase the minimum wage. He will repeal the Bush Administration tax cuts for the wealthy and double those for Americans earning less than $80,000/yr, while making sure corporations pay their fair share.
Finally, the Kucinich jobs program will put American labor back to work, creating millions of new jobs and more wealth among the middle and working class and small businesses, while simultaneously addressing our crumbling infrastructural problems and energy needs. Through his Works Green Administration, or WGA, Dennis is investing in the environment, as well as our future, while stimulating the national economy. Inspired by FDR's Works Progress Administration, the WGA utilizes the Environmental Protection Agency to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our schools, bridges, roads, ports, water systems, and environmental systems. Not only does the bold practicality of the plan lie in putting Americans back to work by investing in the national wealth of our own infrastructure, but the plan also incorporates environmental and energy concerns to further create wealth for the country and save individual families more money. For example, not only will the public works projects stress green building and renewable energy technology, but the plan will enable homes to be retrofit with green building, solar and wind microtechnology which will save families money on their energy bills.
Kucinich is the Labor Candidate:
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Kucinich Again Takes the Leadership For the Democratic Party
Here's Kucinich taking up the leadership against the hydrocarbon law in Iraq, which would in effect privatize over 90% of Iraqi Oil Reserves to foreign companies; particulalry U.S. Oil Companies. The hydrocarbon law, considered by the Bush administration to be one of the most important "benchmarks" for "Iraqi success"
would not only open the market to foreign companies, but allow for these same companies to serve on the Iraqi "Federal" Board responsible for evaluating and awarding the contracts, as well as the terms of those contracts.
How's that? So, these foreign companies, will serve on the "national" Iraqi board and thus have significant leverage in influencing the contracts themselves. Of course, it's called "fair distribution". Further, the law wouold parition the nation and increase the likelihood of more violence.
It really is amazing that no other candidate is speaking out about this, but then again Kucinich was the only candidate to show leadership in opposing the war from the beginning, call atention to the lack of credible intelligence (actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, which bothe Clinton and Edwards somehow didn't!) and consistently speak out against the occupation and vote against funding. Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.
Please listen to Kucinich explain the situation in more depth:
would not only open the market to foreign companies, but allow for these same companies to serve on the Iraqi "Federal" Board responsible for evaluating and awarding the contracts, as well as the terms of those contracts.
How's that? So, these foreign companies, will serve on the "national" Iraqi board and thus have significant leverage in influencing the contracts themselves. Of course, it's called "fair distribution". Further, the law wouold parition the nation and increase the likelihood of more violence.
It really is amazing that no other candidate is speaking out about this, but then again Kucinich was the only candidate to show leadership in opposing the war from the beginning, call atention to the lack of credible intelligence (actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, which bothe Clinton and Edwards somehow didn't!) and consistently speak out against the occupation and vote against funding. Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.
Please listen to Kucinich explain the situation in more depth:
Monday, September 24, 2007
Dear, Hillary, Barack, and John: It's About Universal Healthcare, Not Universal Insurance
Enough is enough. 47 million now uninsured, roughly 50 million underinsured, 18,000 people dying each year without care, medical bankruptcies accounting for half of all U.S. bankruptcies and astoundingly rising 2200% since 1981! There is only one answer: a national, single-payer, healthcare system.
Completely eliminating the private insurance system, with it's incredibley wasteful 31% administrative waste, is the only way we can achieve true universal, comprehensive healthcare. Enough cheap theatrical cries for "reform". Enough progressive posturing. Enough half measures that are set up to help the insurance companies get new clients and more money. Enough of the "frontrunners'" universal insurance proposals.
We've been told that the lobbyists don't affect policies, Mrs. Clinton. We've been told that we need a change in Washington, Mr. Obama. We've been told that "we have to take them on", that these people will not negotiate, Mr. Edwards. Then why do we keep the cruel, wasteful private insuracne system intact?
One has to wonder what good reason there is not to convert to a single payer, not for-profit healthcare system. We spend 2.2 trillion dollars a year on healthcare, twice as much as any other country, and yet we do not get better care. Study after study finds us lacking here. There are 45 million+ Americans who are without any coverage and 50 million+ who are underinsured: half of all bankruptcies being related to healthcare and 3 out of every 4 of these bankruptcies had health insurance! They were underinsured, many not even knowing so until the time of need came. And yet we spend 2.2 trillion? That’s because of the 30% waste. Take 30% of the hundreds of billions spent in private insurance and put it towards healthcare and you solve the problem.
This is the system that Dennis Kucinich has proposed, the only Democratic Candidate to do so. His co-sponsored bill, HR676, has already been introduced to Congress and gained the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The plan extends the non-profit Medicare system to all, using only 3% for administration. The Dean study found that 95% of families would save money by switching to this system. The average family premium is currently about $3,000, under HR676 it is only around $1,900. No more co-pays, no more not denial of coverage, free choice of provider for comprehensive medical coverage; including dental, vision and psychiatric. This is not socialized medicine, only government single payer insurance. The doctors are still private.
And what about costs? The current healthcare system is clearly unable to control costs. The rise in health costs has been astronomical in the last ten years. Only a single payer system can accomplish this by cutting out the overhead, setting rates fairly and according a national budget, and by being the only healthcare insurer, having enough clout to actually control the costs of pharmaceuticals. Really, the reason that single payer makes the most sense is because it makes the most financial sense. Not only are we spending less as a country, not only are 95% of families saving money, but businesses also save by not having to pay for employees, which has taken its toll on American companies unable to compete with foreign companies who have single payer systems. GM reports that the cost of healthcare adds an extra $1,500 to the price of each car.
But, the California Nurses understand this and have gone on the offensive against Clinton, Edwards and Obama. The nurses are pushing for H.R. 676, the only legislation available for true healthcare reform:
And if you don't think the nurses have been making a difference take a look at this poll. In the last nine months Californians' support for doing away with the current healthcare system in favor of a state run, read single-payer, system has jumped from 24% to 36%! That is, it is now more widely supported than making adjustments within the current system which was favored by 33%. Public opinion is changing. And it's getting closer to Dennis Kucinich. Here's Kucinich speaking at the California Healthcare Rally, put on by Once Care California and the CA Nurses:
Completely eliminating the private insurance system, with it's incredibley wasteful 31% administrative waste, is the only way we can achieve true universal, comprehensive healthcare. Enough cheap theatrical cries for "reform". Enough progressive posturing. Enough half measures that are set up to help the insurance companies get new clients and more money. Enough of the "frontrunners'" universal insurance proposals.
We've been told that the lobbyists don't affect policies, Mrs. Clinton. We've been told that we need a change in Washington, Mr. Obama. We've been told that "we have to take them on", that these people will not negotiate, Mr. Edwards. Then why do we keep the cruel, wasteful private insuracne system intact?
One has to wonder what good reason there is not to convert to a single payer, not for-profit healthcare system. We spend 2.2 trillion dollars a year on healthcare, twice as much as any other country, and yet we do not get better care. Study after study finds us lacking here. There are 45 million+ Americans who are without any coverage and 50 million+ who are underinsured: half of all bankruptcies being related to healthcare and 3 out of every 4 of these bankruptcies had health insurance! They were underinsured, many not even knowing so until the time of need came. And yet we spend 2.2 trillion? That’s because of the 30% waste. Take 30% of the hundreds of billions spent in private insurance and put it towards healthcare and you solve the problem.
This is the system that Dennis Kucinich has proposed, the only Democratic Candidate to do so. His co-sponsored bill, HR676, has already been introduced to Congress and gained the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The plan extends the non-profit Medicare system to all, using only 3% for administration. The Dean study found that 95% of families would save money by switching to this system. The average family premium is currently about $3,000, under HR676 it is only around $1,900. No more co-pays, no more not denial of coverage, free choice of provider for comprehensive medical coverage; including dental, vision and psychiatric. This is not socialized medicine, only government single payer insurance. The doctors are still private.
And what about costs? The current healthcare system is clearly unable to control costs. The rise in health costs has been astronomical in the last ten years. Only a single payer system can accomplish this by cutting out the overhead, setting rates fairly and according a national budget, and by being the only healthcare insurer, having enough clout to actually control the costs of pharmaceuticals. Really, the reason that single payer makes the most sense is because it makes the most financial sense. Not only are we spending less as a country, not only are 95% of families saving money, but businesses also save by not having to pay for employees, which has taken its toll on American companies unable to compete with foreign companies who have single payer systems. GM reports that the cost of healthcare adds an extra $1,500 to the price of each car.
But, the California Nurses understand this and have gone on the offensive against Clinton, Edwards and Obama. The nurses are pushing for H.R. 676, the only legislation available for true healthcare reform:
And if you don't think the nurses have been making a difference take a look at this poll. In the last nine months Californians' support for doing away with the current healthcare system in favor of a state run, read single-payer, system has jumped from 24% to 36%! That is, it is now more widely supported than making adjustments within the current system which was favored by 33%. Public opinion is changing. And it's getting closer to Dennis Kucinich. Here's Kucinich speaking at the California Healthcare Rally, put on by Once Care California and the CA Nurses:
Accountability on Iran
The war drums for Iran are beating loud and clear. Bush's placing their state army unit on the terrorist list, an uprecedented and unbelievable move, and his high gear "nuclear holocaust" rhetoric are just a couple more ridiculous episodes in his pre-emptive, corporate-war-economy policy known as "the war on terror". Confounding the latest intelligence concerning Iran's perceived threat with a dangerous sense of wish fulfillment, Iran has some how become more immediatedly threatening. Amazingly, Bush and company have answered the overwhelming public call for ending the war in Iraq and withdrawing from the region with a scheme to actually expand the war further and attack another country.
We know where Bush stands on Iran. If his increased fear mongering in the media, escalation of military presence in the gulf, and request for increasing the new "Iraq" supplemental by $50 Billion aren't enough, keep in mind his vow that he "will not leave office without resolving Iran". As diplolacy is a slow process, likely to last more than his time left in office (though, very reasonably, able to be accomplished within the 5-10 years we have before a nuclear Iran), we should know what to expect.
However, where exactly do the Democratic candidates stand? With all of the above mentioned events recently regarding Iran, the "frontrunners" are noticeably silent. A quick check to their websites will show that neither Clinton, Edwards, nor Obama released statements addressing the Iran issue. This is curious as they issued statements on everything from the Iraq progess report to Chinese imports. Doesn't this grave threat of further war warrant some clear statment, a responsible address?
Though it is certainly politically expedient to remain as silent and equivocal on the issue as possible, we who will soon be casting our votes cannot. I think it is entirely reasonable to expect statements on their positions now, before any action is taken (And let me painfully remind everyone that action may even be taken before Bush consults with Congress: courtesy of the Democratic majority who so curiously removed the provision in an earlier supplemental that would require the administration to do so). I think it is reasonable to demand accountability.
We must have them on record, either for or against further military action in Iran, with a detailed defense of their position. We can't let them dance around and hope to blame someone else when it goes wrong, as it almost certainly will. However, calling for accountability is not enough. We have to demand leadership on their positions.
If there is such a thing as an "audition for the presidency" this may well be it. I can't think of a more important issue right now than the direction we take in the region. For if, we extend the war into Iran, I think it goes without saying that the occupation of Iraq will continue and, moreover, that we will be seriously endangering the brave troops stationed there. It could completely destabalize the region, as well as the world econoomy through skyrocketing oil prices. Further, our national security will certainly be affected too. To call this situation critical would be quite an understatement. And yet these candidates are effectively silent?
If they support an attack on Iran, regardless of how insane I would consider it, they can only show the leadership of our highest office by addressing the American people, convincing us of their position, and lobbying for support in Washington. If they take opposition to military action we should know what solution they propose and, most importantly, should witness their leadership in gaining oppositional support and enactment of possible preventive measures; civil action, legislation, or even impeachment.
This can't be stressed enough. If these candidates are against this war they need to use their public platform to speak out and try to prevent this war. As frontrunners who garner more than enough political clout and media exposure they could very well prove instrumental in preventing an attack. If they support military action, then we need to know. In either case, we will hold them accountable.
As the media will undoubtedly jump on board,beating the drums like they did for Iraq, many may not be aware that some candidates have been speaking out. Dennis Kucinich in particular has once again taken up the leadership to do the heavy lifting for the party. A visit to his site shows a candidate willing to outline his position, take a stand and lead, just as he did in 2002. Forget about the money race, media market shares or public image. This is what marks a "serious candidate".
Immigration, Health Care and the Pro-Democracy Movement
Dennis Kucinich spoke at St. John's Well Child and Family Center in South central, Los Angeles. He was the keynote speaker at the forum organized in response to the local healthcare crisis of the closing of King Hospital in the area, which served thousands of the underpriviledged in the area. The event attracted about a hundred local activists, health care professionals, local news stations; one of the largest conferences of its kind.
After the speech those in attendance were allowed to ask questions. When the topic of immigration came up, one affecting many in the Los Angeles area, Mr. Kucinich answered eloquently. He addressed the issue with the genuine passion that we should expect from a national leader, speaking about equal rights, humane priciples and policies of peace, and a newfound American "Pro-Democracy movement". As Kucinich is the only candidate to offer a not-for-profit healthcare system, full withdraw from Iraq and exploitive trade policies like NAFTA and WTO, he is the only candidate to inplement this type of speaking into real policies for the U.S.
Here's the video:
After the speech those in attendance were allowed to ask questions. When the topic of immigration came up, one affecting many in the Los Angeles area, Mr. Kucinich answered eloquently. He addressed the issue with the genuine passion that we should expect from a national leader, speaking about equal rights, humane priciples and policies of peace, and a newfound American "Pro-Democracy movement". As Kucinich is the only candidate to offer a not-for-profit healthcare system, full withdraw from Iraq and exploitive trade policies like NAFTA and WTO, he is the only candidate to inplement this type of speaking into real policies for the U.S.
Here's the video:
ABC Tampers With Post Debate Poll After Kucinich Wins
The Kucinich Campaign sent a letter requesting an explanation regarding the suspect treatment on the ABC website of a post debate poll. Essentially, the poll asked voters to decide who won the Iowa debate airing on ABC and moderated by George Stephanopholous.
Apparently, as the results started to favor Kucinich the poll was removed from the website. After complaints, the poll was then replaced with another, which Kucinich then topped as well. The poll then was transferred to a less accessible position on the site and, effectively buried. That is, ABC never reported on it's own poll! Further, the debate photo on the ABC website noticeably cropped Kucinich out of the picture: the only candidate cropped out.
ABC never got back to the Kucinich Campaign or admitted any wrongdoing, only "mistakes"... For a full detailed rundown and reasons as to why these weren't "mistakes", go here.
Apparently, as the results started to favor Kucinich the poll was removed from the website. After complaints, the poll was then replaced with another, which Kucinich then topped as well. The poll then was transferred to a less accessible position on the site and, effectively buried. That is, ABC never reported on it's own poll! Further, the debate photo on the ABC website noticeably cropped Kucinich out of the picture: the only candidate cropped out.
ABC never got back to the Kucinich Campaign or admitted any wrongdoing, only "mistakes"... For a full detailed rundown and reasons as to why these weren't "mistakes", go here.
H.R. 676: Answering the Question and Debunking the Myths
Here's some responses to false, but commonly made, criticisms of single payer plans and why Dennis Kucinich's single payer plan, H.R. 676, is more efficient, a healthy for America.
1.) We already spend so much on healthcare, so we can’t afford a universal healthcare system that covers everyone:
This is false. In fact, H.R. 676 spends $56 billion less each year, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. The reason is because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31% of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-healthcare related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate profit. H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3% administration cost, saving roughly $600 billion a year. Utilizing this money is what makes true universal healthcare for all Americans possible.
2.) I’ve read about other countries with healthcare systems similar to H.R. 676 that have experienced rationing. Wouldn’t H.R. 676 lead to rationing:
No. There are quite a few things to be said about rationing, but first and foremost, H.R. 676 is designed to eliminate rationing. Though other countries operating with a single payer healthcare system have sometimes experienced rationing, they devote only half as much money towards the system. And that is the critical point involved here. Under H.R. 676, the U.S. will spend almost twice as much as other countries and get the best care because of it. Under the current private system, the U.S. also spends twice as much as any other country, yet ranks consistently lower on vital indicators of health, such as infant mortality, average lifespan, and rates of terminal illness like heart disease and diabetes. As stated above, this is because the current system wastes more than 1/3 of all healthcare spending on non-healthcare related costs. To paraphrase Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for other countries the problem is money, for the U.S. it is the system.
Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the current private system is already effectively rationing access to healthcare. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. is 33%, significantly lower than other single payers like the U.K. at 41%, Australia at 54%, and New Zealand at 60%. Poll after poll reports many Americans admitting to going without needed care because of out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. Moreover, 46 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are considered underinsured.
3.) H.R. 676 is socialized medicine:
This is false. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means that the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers (physicians, nurses etc.) who remain private. So, under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare provider. There is no out-of-network.
4.) I wouldn’t want my benefits to drop and also, I wouldn’t want to change physicians:
Under H.R. 676 the large majority of Americans’ benefits would dramatically increase. This is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision, and mental health services.
You will not have to change physicians unless you choose to. You have free choice of provider. Further, when changing jobs or place of employment, under the current private system people often must change physicians or even go without coverage temporarily. However, under H.R. 676 coverage is not affected and patients can continue to see the same physician.
5.) Isn’t government control of our healthcare system going to lead to a much less efficient and more bureaucratic operation:
No. In fact, the current private system is much more bureaucratic and much less efficient. Not only does the current system waste 1/3 of all spending, but it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, making doctors justify every test and procedure-while attempting to influence these decisions through financial penalties and incentives. Physicians have to hire administrators just to keep up with the excess of claims and administration. Insurance companies also invest in drug companies, so when covering medications they have corporate duty to cover these medications even if others are cheaper and/or more effective. When further considering the confusing mass of bills, E.O.B.’s, deductibles, co-pays and the up, down and in the middle communication of physicians to insurance companies, insurance companies back to physicians and then the patient’s to both, the current private system is one impressively bureaucratic system, indeed.
H.R. 676 eliminates the administrative waste, patient billing, co-pays and deductibles, by funding the system directly through tax dollars. Further, H.R. 676 leaves the medical decisions to the physicians themselves, reviewing their performance regularly instead of directly interfering with the patient-physician relationship.
6.) Isn’t the market based competition of the current private based system the best way to control costs:
Obviously not, since the costs of premiums rose 86% between 2000 and 2006; three times faster than inflation. The rise of income in the same period rose only 15%. Medical bankruptcies are up 2200% since 1981 and profits for the largest pharmaceutical companies hit $62 billion back in 2004.
H.R. 676 addresses cost control immediately by cutting out the profit and wasteful administration of the private system. Further, by being the sole insurer, the government will have the necessary influence to negotiate fair drug prices. Finally, the promotion of preventative medicine, which is virtually non-existent in the private based system, will control costs in the long term by reducing chronic diseases that require expensive treatment, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
7.) Isn’t the reason that healthcare costs keep rising is that we are unhealthy as a country:
Yes and no. First, through there are many factors to rising costs in healthcare, one important reason is poor health; with the consequent cost of treating chronic diseases. But, it is here again that the private system fails us. As a for-profit industry, there is no incentive to promote preventative medicine, the cost of such programs being immediate and the long-term financial dividends uncertain; uncertain because clients often switch coverage and companies. The fact is, not only do the private insurance companies rarely promote preventative medicine, they actually invest in industries that cause chronic illnesses. For instance, an insurer may invest in the tobacco industry.
However, the “no” is that there are other important factors in the rapid rise of healthcare costs, not the least of which are corporate profit, poor administration, and the outrageous cost of medication.
8.) I’ve read that trial lawyers and malpractice suits are driving up healthcare costs:
Yes and no. These do drive up costs, but only fractionally compared to the factors mentioned above, accounting for only 0.46% of our total healthcare spending. This is not the real problem.
9.) There seems to be a lot of factors involved in the high costs of healthcare. Can’t we just make reforms to the current system instead of changing over to another system:
This is the critical point: no matter what reforms take place, keeping the for-profit, private insurance healthcare system requires wasting billions of dollars on non-healthcare costs. This system exists first and foremost to make money, not provide care. In fact, as a business it is in their best interest not to pay on claims, to deny claims whenever possible. As for-profit companies, they must use money to market themselves to prospective clients, they must hire administrators and marketers to do the job, and this is factored in to every premium dollar. As for-profit companies they must profile clients and underwrite them, they must promote medications based upon money instead of efficacy. And they must generate billions in profit; billons which don’t go towards healthcare.
Consider further that as for-profit companies they have a vested interest in not insuring the elderly or the sick because they are too “expensive”, that they pass off the chronically ill to government programs in the long run anyway. And consider their inability to control pharmaceutical prices. With these considerations, as well as those of above, it becomes evident that reform is not really an option. For, it is the for-profit system that is the problem.
1.) We already spend so much on healthcare, so we can’t afford a universal healthcare system that covers everyone:
This is false. In fact, H.R. 676 spends $56 billion less each year, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. The reason is because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31% of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-healthcare related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate profit. H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3% administration cost, saving roughly $600 billion a year. Utilizing this money is what makes true universal healthcare for all Americans possible.
2.) I’ve read about other countries with healthcare systems similar to H.R. 676 that have experienced rationing. Wouldn’t H.R. 676 lead to rationing:
No. There are quite a few things to be said about rationing, but first and foremost, H.R. 676 is designed to eliminate rationing. Though other countries operating with a single payer healthcare system have sometimes experienced rationing, they devote only half as much money towards the system. And that is the critical point involved here. Under H.R. 676, the U.S. will spend almost twice as much as other countries and get the best care because of it. Under the current private system, the U.S. also spends twice as much as any other country, yet ranks consistently lower on vital indicators of health, such as infant mortality, average lifespan, and rates of terminal illness like heart disease and diabetes. As stated above, this is because the current system wastes more than 1/3 of all healthcare spending on non-healthcare related costs. To paraphrase Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for other countries the problem is money, for the U.S. it is the system.
Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the current private system is already effectively rationing access to healthcare. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. is 33%, significantly lower than other single payers like the U.K. at 41%, Australia at 54%, and New Zealand at 60%. Poll after poll reports many Americans admitting to going without needed care because of out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. Moreover, 46 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are considered underinsured.
3.) H.R. 676 is socialized medicine:
This is false. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means that the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers (physicians, nurses etc.) who remain private. So, under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare provider. There is no out-of-network.
4.) I wouldn’t want my benefits to drop and also, I wouldn’t want to change physicians:
Under H.R. 676 the large majority of Americans’ benefits would dramatically increase. This is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision, and mental health services.
You will not have to change physicians unless you choose to. You have free choice of provider. Further, when changing jobs or place of employment, under the current private system people often must change physicians or even go without coverage temporarily. However, under H.R. 676 coverage is not affected and patients can continue to see the same physician.
5.) Isn’t government control of our healthcare system going to lead to a much less efficient and more bureaucratic operation:
No. In fact, the current private system is much more bureaucratic and much less efficient. Not only does the current system waste 1/3 of all spending, but it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, making doctors justify every test and procedure-while attempting to influence these decisions through financial penalties and incentives. Physicians have to hire administrators just to keep up with the excess of claims and administration. Insurance companies also invest in drug companies, so when covering medications they have corporate duty to cover these medications even if others are cheaper and/or more effective. When further considering the confusing mass of bills, E.O.B.’s, deductibles, co-pays and the up, down and in the middle communication of physicians to insurance companies, insurance companies back to physicians and then the patient’s to both, the current private system is one impressively bureaucratic system, indeed.
H.R. 676 eliminates the administrative waste, patient billing, co-pays and deductibles, by funding the system directly through tax dollars. Further, H.R. 676 leaves the medical decisions to the physicians themselves, reviewing their performance regularly instead of directly interfering with the patient-physician relationship.
6.) Isn’t the market based competition of the current private based system the best way to control costs:
Obviously not, since the costs of premiums rose 86% between 2000 and 2006; three times faster than inflation. The rise of income in the same period rose only 15%. Medical bankruptcies are up 2200% since 1981 and profits for the largest pharmaceutical companies hit $62 billion back in 2004.
H.R. 676 addresses cost control immediately by cutting out the profit and wasteful administration of the private system. Further, by being the sole insurer, the government will have the necessary influence to negotiate fair drug prices. Finally, the promotion of preventative medicine, which is virtually non-existent in the private based system, will control costs in the long term by reducing chronic diseases that require expensive treatment, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
7.) Isn’t the reason that healthcare costs keep rising is that we are unhealthy as a country:
Yes and no. First, through there are many factors to rising costs in healthcare, one important reason is poor health; with the consequent cost of treating chronic diseases. But, it is here again that the private system fails us. As a for-profit industry, there is no incentive to promote preventative medicine, the cost of such programs being immediate and the long-term financial dividends uncertain; uncertain because clients often switch coverage and companies. The fact is, not only do the private insurance companies rarely promote preventative medicine, they actually invest in industries that cause chronic illnesses. For instance, an insurer may invest in the tobacco industry.
However, the “no” is that there are other important factors in the rapid rise of healthcare costs, not the least of which are corporate profit, poor administration, and the outrageous cost of medication.
8.) I’ve read that trial lawyers and malpractice suits are driving up healthcare costs:
Yes and no. These do drive up costs, but only fractionally compared to the factors mentioned above, accounting for only 0.46% of our total healthcare spending. This is not the real problem.
9.) There seems to be a lot of factors involved in the high costs of healthcare. Can’t we just make reforms to the current system instead of changing over to another system:
This is the critical point: no matter what reforms take place, keeping the for-profit, private insurance healthcare system requires wasting billions of dollars on non-healthcare costs. This system exists first and foremost to make money, not provide care. In fact, as a business it is in their best interest not to pay on claims, to deny claims whenever possible. As for-profit companies, they must use money to market themselves to prospective clients, they must hire administrators and marketers to do the job, and this is factored in to every premium dollar. As for-profit companies they must profile clients and underwrite them, they must promote medications based upon money instead of efficacy. And they must generate billions in profit; billons which don’t go towards healthcare.
Consider further that as for-profit companies they have a vested interest in not insuring the elderly or the sick because they are too “expensive”, that they pass off the chronically ill to government programs in the long run anyway. And consider their inability to control pharmaceutical prices. With these considerations, as well as those of above, it becomes evident that reform is not really an option. For, it is the for-profit system that is the problem.
H.R. 676: True Universal and Comprehensive Healthcare
H.R. 676 is a bill, co-drafted by Dennis Kucinich, which will enact a true universal health care system for the United States. The bill will create a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare program that provides all U.S. citizens with comprehensive medical coverage, including office visits, hospitalization, emergency care, long term care, prescription drugs, medical equipment, mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment, dental and vision care; with no co-pays, deductibles, or denial of coverage.
Moreover, H.R. 676 provides this comprehensive coverage to all citizens by spending $56 Billion less each year than the current for-profit, private insurance system; the private insurance system that leaves 46 million Americans uninsured and 50+ million underinsured; the same system that wastes 31% of every healthcare dollar (roughly $600 billion/yr) on non-healthcare related spending, such as marketing/advertising, an inefficient administration, rating and underwriting clients, denying coverage, and generating corporate profit; the system structured around profit that has undermined quality, affordable coverage, leaving Americans vulnerable to financial ruin in times of need because of excessive co-pays, deductibles, and medication costs.
As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 eliminates the waste by operating with a much more efficient 3% administration cost, utilizing the roughly $600 billion saved each year for actual healthcare and finally guaranteeing the same high quality care for every American. As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 creates a healthcare system structured for the purpose of providing the best care to all in the most economically efficient way, rather than maximizing profit. As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 finally presents access to healthcare as a basic human right, rather than just another corporate commodity. And, in his support of H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate considering what will truly strengthen and provide security for all Americans, rather than the healthcare industry. In supporting H.R. 676 Dennis Kucinich is considering:
Crisis: 46 million Americans uninsured and 50+ million underinsured; medically related bankruptcies, up 2,200% since 1981, account for half of all bankruptcies in this country and, yet ¾ of them were insured at the time. H.R. 676 guarantees full coverage for every American.
Quality: Not only does H.R. 676 provide all Americans with unparalleled quality of coverage, including free choice of provider and complete portability, but it finally allows medical decisions to be made only by those that should: medical professionals. H.R. 676 has the support of over 14,000 physicians and nurses associations because it eliminates the business of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies from influencing medical decisions to save money.
Costs: The private system has utterly failed to control costs as premiums have risen three times faster than inflation and pharmaceuticals go through the roof. H.R. 676 will not only spend $56 billion less, but go further in controlling costs by allocating budgets, eliminating profit and finally having the clout to negotiate fair rates with the pharmaceutical companies.
Families: As H.R. 676 is funded through tax dollars, 95% of families will pay less for health care than they do now. Under the current private system, the average family premium is up to $11,000/yr. However, under H.R.676, a family of three making $40,000/yr. will spend roughly 1,900/yr. For comprehensive coverage without any additional costs, such as co-pays,
deductibles or prescription medications.
Businesses: The current private system places a heavy burden on businesses to provide
healthcare for employees, the average employer contributing $2,600 per employee. Under H.R. 676 the average would drop to about $1,600. This financial strain handicaps U.S. businesses competing in the world market.
The for-profit system requires non-healthcare related spending and waste to operate, the whole system designed to create income, not care. In supporting H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who offers a solution for high quality, true universal health care in this country: eliminating the for-profit, private insurance system. In supporting H.R. 676 Dennis Kucinich is able to finally guarantee all Americans the security of affordable and fully comprehensive coverage. And through H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is reaching out to all Americans, bringing them together, to face the for-profit, private healthcare system and once again reclaim our responsibility as a great nation.
Moreover, H.R. 676 provides this comprehensive coverage to all citizens by spending $56 Billion less each year than the current for-profit, private insurance system; the private insurance system that leaves 46 million Americans uninsured and 50+ million underinsured; the same system that wastes 31% of every healthcare dollar (roughly $600 billion/yr) on non-healthcare related spending, such as marketing/advertising, an inefficient administration, rating and underwriting clients, denying coverage, and generating corporate profit; the system structured around profit that has undermined quality, affordable coverage, leaving Americans vulnerable to financial ruin in times of need because of excessive co-pays, deductibles, and medication costs.
As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 eliminates the waste by operating with a much more efficient 3% administration cost, utilizing the roughly $600 billion saved each year for actual healthcare and finally guaranteeing the same high quality care for every American. As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 creates a healthcare system structured for the purpose of providing the best care to all in the most economically efficient way, rather than maximizing profit. As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 finally presents access to healthcare as a basic human right, rather than just another corporate commodity. And, in his support of H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate considering what will truly strengthen and provide security for all Americans, rather than the healthcare industry. In supporting H.R. 676 Dennis Kucinich is considering:
Crisis: 46 million Americans uninsured and 50+ million underinsured; medically related bankruptcies, up 2,200% since 1981, account for half of all bankruptcies in this country and, yet ¾ of them were insured at the time. H.R. 676 guarantees full coverage for every American.
Quality: Not only does H.R. 676 provide all Americans with unparalleled quality of coverage, including free choice of provider and complete portability, but it finally allows medical decisions to be made only by those that should: medical professionals. H.R. 676 has the support of over 14,000 physicians and nurses associations because it eliminates the business of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies from influencing medical decisions to save money.
Costs: The private system has utterly failed to control costs as premiums have risen three times faster than inflation and pharmaceuticals go through the roof. H.R. 676 will not only spend $56 billion less, but go further in controlling costs by allocating budgets, eliminating profit and finally having the clout to negotiate fair rates with the pharmaceutical companies.
Families: As H.R. 676 is funded through tax dollars, 95% of families will pay less for health care than they do now. Under the current private system, the average family premium is up to $11,000/yr. However, under H.R.676, a family of three making $40,000/yr. will spend roughly 1,900/yr. For comprehensive coverage without any additional costs, such as co-pays,
deductibles or prescription medications.
Businesses: The current private system places a heavy burden on businesses to provide
healthcare for employees, the average employer contributing $2,600 per employee. Under H.R. 676 the average would drop to about $1,600. This financial strain handicaps U.S. businesses competing in the world market.
The for-profit system requires non-healthcare related spending and waste to operate, the whole system designed to create income, not care. In supporting H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who offers a solution for high quality, true universal health care in this country: eliminating the for-profit, private insurance system. In supporting H.R. 676 Dennis Kucinich is able to finally guarantee all Americans the security of affordable and fully comprehensive coverage. And through H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is reaching out to all Americans, bringing them together, to face the for-profit, private healthcare system and once again reclaim our responsibility as a great nation.
Kucinich Wins Iowa Debate According to ABC Poll
This is amazing! And, I'm starting to think a turning point not only for the Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign, but the way Americans are viewing this election.
ABC, which televised the Iowa Debate, had an internet poll to decide who won. The totals, as of today-7:00 pm Pacific, have Kucinich in first place with about 12,500 votes. He's ahead of second place Obama, who has about 9,000. So, Kucinich is a whopping 3,000 votes in the lead. More to the point, if you added up Clinton's, Biden's and Edwards' votes (3rd, 4th and 5th respectively), Kucinich would still be in the lead!
Now, to me, the significance of this poll is not so much Kucinich winning. The poll is not scientific and further refers specifically to the debate and not the primary, so I'm not trying to argue that, if the primary were held today, it would in any way reflect the outcome. However, there is significance.
The overwhelming response to this is a sign that people are fed up with a corporate media forcing certain candidates into the center, marginalizing alternative and equally viable voices, and ultimately trying to decide our elections. The response shows a public distrustful of current process and taking action to change it! I mean, really, one can't help but see Kucinich's plight at yesterdays debate as that of the American people themselves: He was allowed to attend, but utterly silenced. No wonder he is the candidate who represents the issues of so many Americans who are calling for an actual end to the occupation of Iraq, true universal-single payer-healthcare, defending the constitution and civil liberties, ending disastrous trade agreements that outsource jobs, etc. The American people know the frustration Kucinich must have experienced in Iowa. The American people know about being silenced.
Unfortunately, ABC (as other branches in the MSM) knows how to silence. "Tie Goes to Frontrunner" is on the ABC Politics front page The article goes on about how Clinton didn't win, but didn't lose either. Apparently, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson all had strong performances. But, the article doesn't even mention the poll though. So they never reported on their own poll? Do you think it would if any of the "frontrunners" had won?
Actually, the poll which used to be on the front page is now available in the bottom of "audience favorites". Apparently they had some troubles, earlier judging by the comments, because for a bit the poll numbers changed with Kucinich's votes diappearing, but then changed back? Whatever happened though you should read the comments to the article. If you think what I'm writing about people being angry and fed up is extreme, please read them before you decide. What's amazing is not any single comment itslef: Not the one denoucing the overwhelming coverage of the "fronturnners", not one claiming the MSM is afraid of Kucinich, who stands for the people more than any of the other candidates, not even the one telling ABC they will not be deciding this election. What's amazing is the unity in the responses. America is distrusful and beginning to become really angry. America is ready to hear different voices and ready for change. America is, well, ready for Dennis Kucinich.
ABC, which televised the Iowa Debate, had an internet poll to decide who won. The totals, as of today-7:00 pm Pacific, have Kucinich in first place with about 12,500 votes. He's ahead of second place Obama, who has about 9,000. So, Kucinich is a whopping 3,000 votes in the lead. More to the point, if you added up Clinton's, Biden's and Edwards' votes (3rd, 4th and 5th respectively), Kucinich would still be in the lead!
Now, to me, the significance of this poll is not so much Kucinich winning. The poll is not scientific and further refers specifically to the debate and not the primary, so I'm not trying to argue that, if the primary were held today, it would in any way reflect the outcome. However, there is significance.
The overwhelming response to this is a sign that people are fed up with a corporate media forcing certain candidates into the center, marginalizing alternative and equally viable voices, and ultimately trying to decide our elections. The response shows a public distrustful of current process and taking action to change it! I mean, really, one can't help but see Kucinich's plight at yesterdays debate as that of the American people themselves: He was allowed to attend, but utterly silenced. No wonder he is the candidate who represents the issues of so many Americans who are calling for an actual end to the occupation of Iraq, true universal-single payer-healthcare, defending the constitution and civil liberties, ending disastrous trade agreements that outsource jobs, etc. The American people know the frustration Kucinich must have experienced in Iowa. The American people know about being silenced.
Unfortunately, ABC (as other branches in the MSM) knows how to silence. "Tie Goes to Frontrunner" is on the ABC Politics front page The article goes on about how Clinton didn't win, but didn't lose either. Apparently, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson all had strong performances. But, the article doesn't even mention the poll though. So they never reported on their own poll? Do you think it would if any of the "frontrunners" had won?
Actually, the poll which used to be on the front page is now available in the bottom of "audience favorites". Apparently they had some troubles, earlier judging by the comments, because for a bit the poll numbers changed with Kucinich's votes diappearing, but then changed back? Whatever happened though you should read the comments to the article. If you think what I'm writing about people being angry and fed up is extreme, please read them before you decide. What's amazing is not any single comment itslef: Not the one denoucing the overwhelming coverage of the "fronturnners", not one claiming the MSM is afraid of Kucinich, who stands for the people more than any of the other candidates, not even the one telling ABC they will not be deciding this election. What's amazing is the unity in the responses. America is distrusful and beginning to become really angry. America is ready to hear different voices and ready for change. America is, well, ready for Dennis Kucinich.
"Actually, George, this debate is insufficient..."
Well another debate, another arbitrary attempt to marginialze certain vocies. It took 25 minutes for Dennis Kucinich to even answer a question and then, rouhgly another 25 for his second. By what criteria debate format is designed, I have no idea. Even if you confer a measure of credibility to public opinion polls (which is definitely not a given, but rather something to be debated). the only real constant in this primary has been Clinton, Obama, and Edwards as the "frontrunners".
True if you consult the Rasmussen, USA Today, NBC or ABC polls, Richardson and Biden will outpoll Kucinich, however, if you then go to consult the Newsweek, Pew, Diaego Hotline or Fox polls this will not be the case. Sometimes, Kucinich beats one or both Biden and Richarson, sometimes tied, etc. Further, if you gathered all of these polls you would find that Kucinich is ahead of Dodd in almost every one of them.
Kucinich is on the rise. His performances at the AFL-CIO and LOGO forums last week prompted none other than George Stephanopoulos, the same one who ignored Kucinich throughout todays forum, to have him on his weekly show where he introduced Kucinich with clips of his impressive forum performances and huge audience response. After Stephanopoulos asks Kucinich why he doesn't think his strong debate/forum performances haven't yet turned into more support, Dennis explains that as the early media focus has been on certain candidates, as the American people hear his message on the issues like true universal healthcare, actually ending the war, and ending detrimental trade agreements like NAFTA and WTO, his support will continue to rise. But, George, didn't ask Kucinich about any of those issues. You can see the interview below:
Though the corporate media is only going to be able to keep this up for so long. Kucininch is going to continue to gain support. Forbes Magazine just released an article that reports Dennis Kucinich's appeal rose more than any other canidate in the month of July. In fact, according to the report, his total appeal is higher than both Clinton and Edwards! "Toatl appeal" is measured by 46 different attributes: "the same traits it has used to select high-level spokespeople for advertising campaigns for more than a decade". And Irregular Times is now claiming that last week Kucinich sold more merchandise than any other candidate, an indicator, which to them measures a "strong and lasting and lasting commitment to show their support for a particular candidate in a public way". Here's the poll.
True if you consult the Rasmussen, USA Today, NBC or ABC polls, Richardson and Biden will outpoll Kucinich, however, if you then go to consult the Newsweek, Pew, Diaego Hotline or Fox polls this will not be the case. Sometimes, Kucinich beats one or both Biden and Richarson, sometimes tied, etc. Further, if you gathered all of these polls you would find that Kucinich is ahead of Dodd in almost every one of them.
Kucinich is on the rise. His performances at the AFL-CIO and LOGO forums last week prompted none other than George Stephanopoulos, the same one who ignored Kucinich throughout todays forum, to have him on his weekly show where he introduced Kucinich with clips of his impressive forum performances and huge audience response. After Stephanopoulos asks Kucinich why he doesn't think his strong debate/forum performances haven't yet turned into more support, Dennis explains that as the early media focus has been on certain candidates, as the American people hear his message on the issues like true universal healthcare, actually ending the war, and ending detrimental trade agreements like NAFTA and WTO, his support will continue to rise. But, George, didn't ask Kucinich about any of those issues. You can see the interview below:
Though the corporate media is only going to be able to keep this up for so long. Kucininch is going to continue to gain support. Forbes Magazine just released an article that reports Dennis Kucinich's appeal rose more than any other canidate in the month of July. In fact, according to the report, his total appeal is higher than both Clinton and Edwards! "Toatl appeal" is measured by 46 different attributes: "the same traits it has used to select high-level spokespeople for advertising campaigns for more than a decade". And Irregular Times is now claiming that last week Kucinich sold more merchandise than any other candidate, an indicator, which to them measures a "strong and lasting and lasting commitment to show their support for a particular candidate in a public way". Here's the poll.
The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine
There's an old addage that goes something like, "The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel".
There's something about the complete abandon of logic and consistency, the utter absurdity in claims and actions, that foils a rational mind and leads it into laughter. This is a lesson of so many great satirists: from Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss to Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. It includes Bush's "best of all possible wars" and how Hillary "learned to stop worrying and love the bomb". And it is a lesson not unlearned by the Edwards and Obama campaigns.
Apparently, it will be Edwards and Obama who will be "standing up to the special interests" for America. After repeated slams of Clinton for accepting money from registered lobbyisits they have imaged themselves as the clean candidates who refuse such special interests. At Yearly Kos, Clinton was challenged on lobbyist funds and rightfully booed when claiming that it would not affect her policy. Obama countered that these lobbyists wouldn't be spending Billions if they weren't having an effect, saying "They aren't spending that just because they are contributing to the public interest. They have an agenda".
Edwards was even more aggressive saying, "Why don't we start today reforming the Democrat Party by all of us admitting no more from this day forward, not a dime from the Washington lobbyists... We do not do business with these insiders". Then in a grand form of a common sense gesture, he asked the crowd, "does anyone here have registered lobbyists working for them?". Apparently, no one raised there hand.
However, it is unlikely that many in the crowd had money bundlers, members of hedge funds and 527 commitees working for them either. Edwards didn't ask that question. But why?
Before the campaign, Edwards started two nonprofit organizations and a 527 soft mony commitee that raised $2.7 Million. However, according to the N.Y. Times:
"So he set up a series of entities to finance his travel, to finance a political shop and to finance an issue shop. It all adds up to a remarkable feat of keeping a presidential candidacy alive without any of the traditional bases for it."Mr. Edwards depended for his activities in large part on donations from supporters. In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, he created a leadership political action committee and a 527 "soft money" organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts.
From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile.
And further added:
Of the explicitly political entities, Mr. Edwards' OneAmerica Committee 527 organization allowed donors to give without limitations. The money was transferred to his leadership political action committee. Leadership committees were initially created to allow prominent politicians to raise money for distribution to needy office-seekers. But Mr. Edwards spent the entire $2.7 million he raised for OneAmerica, including $532,000 raised by the 527, on himself, an increasingly common trend among politicians.
Edwards is also the the only Democratic presidential contender who has worked for a hedge fund: New York-based Fortress Financial Group LLC. And "received $182,250 in campaign contributions from employees of Fortress Fortress in the first thee months of this year".
And then there's the money bundlers: Edwards has 543 bundlers! That's more than double the number of Clinton and Obama (not that having over 200 each is great). What's worse Edwards doesn't even disclose who they are who they work for or even how much they raise!
And what of Obama? He has 262 bundlers and only discloses names after they raise $50,000. He hosts dinner like this one. He keeps talking about refusing money from lobbyisits and PAC's, but as this article shows, he secretly recives their help. From the article:
While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help......Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama's campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.
One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama's campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist's wife would be interested in making a political contribution.
"I was quite taken aback," he said. "He was very direct in saying that you're a lobbyist and we don't want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network."
Dutta declined to discuss his work.
It's also worth mentioning that both Edwards and Obama attended, and spoke at, the national convention of the lobbying group for trial lawyers. In fact, Fred Baron, former president of American Trial Lawyers of America is Edwards financial chairman. And Obama has accepted money from law firms with lobbying operations.
But, I'm sure none of this will affect their policies, right Dr. Pangloss? And I'm sure these are the two to clean up Washington, right Dr. Strangelove?
...or maybe I'll have to start writing tragedies.
Kucinich as Mainstream Candidate
Here's some Kucinich clips from the AFL-CIO debate, where Kucinich drew huge applause and cheers with his platform positions that the Media dubs "far left". Somehow that didn't seem the case to the crowd at the Union debate when they heard from the one candidate who was willing to withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO, enact a true universal, comprehensive NOT-FOR-PROFIT healthcare system and proposing the: only solution to end the war:
And this is the pre-debate MSNBC interview where he explains that his views are representative of the mainstream Democratic voters; hinting that the media has been shaping this election, as well as the reception of the issues:
Time to take a stand and reject the corporate framings of this election:
http://www2.kucinich.us/
And this is the pre-debate MSNBC interview where he explains that his views are representative of the mainstream Democratic voters; hinting that the media has been shaping this election, as well as the reception of the issues:
Time to take a stand and reject the corporate framings of this election:
http://www2.kucinich.us/
Kucinich at The Urban League With "Strength Through Peace"
Americans are fed up; fed up with the war, with healthcare, with our approach to the environment. Citizens are fed up with unconstitutional "patriotism", with unitary executive "order", with a "Vice-President" using unprecedented power, with "wars on terror"; with a now neurotic sense of national identity that reflects a broken constitution and that foreboding sense of irony that comes with these endless quotations!
We are fed up with a Legislative lack of constitutional integrity, of a Congress democratically elected to end a war and refuses to, of a government with a fundamental disconnect at the "representative" level. We are fed up with a corporate media controlled by so few shaping our elections, with lobbyists, bundling and hedge funds, with politics as usual.
America is fed up with our standing, both nationally and internationally, and desperate for real change: change that addresses not only policy, but citizens. Americans needs to feel connected again; to the world, their government and themselves. And this is what Dennis Kucinich is offering in his candidacy to represent the uNited States at the Presidential level: Strength Through Peace.
Strength Through Peace is not a simple anti-war campaign slogan, but, rather a holisitc approach to foreign and domestic policy that will take this country in a whole new direction.
Strength through Peace means restoring American leadership in diplomacy and respecting International Law and treaties. It means creating jobs at home and providing true universal and comprehensive healthcare for all Americans. It means ending the occupation in Iraq and preventing future strikes in Iran, while recognizing the link between global warring and global warming. It means then breaking our dependence on oil, as well as coal and nuclear, to aggresively pursue renewable and sustainable energy sources at home. It means ending disastrous wars, wasting hundreds of billion of dollars, and focusing money on domestic needs to provide universal pre-kindergarten and daycare. It means repealing unfair trade agreements like NAFTA and WTO to bring jobs back to this country.
Strength Through Peace is Dennis Kucinch reaching out to all Americans in order to reclaim this country from special interests like the insurance and drug companies, the oil industry and the military-industrial complex. The most outspoken and consistent critic against the war from the beginning and the only candidate to offer single-payer healthcare system that eliminates the wasteful private insurance industry, Kucinich recently spoke at the Urban League about his domestic policy and how he uses Strength Through Peace within it. If you haven't yet seen Kucinich speak at length, I would urge you to go here. He is a dynamic and passionate speaker who is utterly different than the image created in our media and many may be struck by the soberness of his views and bright promise he offers for this country. He appears about 1/4 of the way through the video and speaks about the things I have outlined above as well as his plans to create a works program, similar to FDR's WPA, repairing our national infrastructure like roads, schools, and water systems and incorporating sustainable energy solutions that would create even more jobs and save more money to families, retrofiting homes with solar and wind technology.
In the end, Strength Through Peace means creating the conditions for peace to manifest. Peace is a pragmatic issue, not a blindly idealistic one. Peace grows out of material conditions and relationships structured upon fairness and respect, not thin air or fantasy. And until this country implements policies to create conditions favorable to peace and conducts its relationships based upon fairness and law, our problems will remain the same.
Please notice I say this country and not politicians. Politicians can offer us platforms and leadership, but ultimately the country is in the hands of the people. And I'd rather hear no more media induced fear from our people. No more talk of "electability". No more anti-war voters who support candidates that won't faithfully pursue its end. No more avoiding policy answers that are in the best interest of the country because of the little hope that it can be passed through and become law.
Elections are decided by votes from an active citizenry. Representatives are elected by, and answer to, an active citizenry. And politically unpopular policies will only become law through this active citizenry.
We have to recognize the disconnect between our Representatives and citizens, stare it straight in the face, and begin our struggle to change it. What should be an outrage and treated as any other threat, has only become a deadened response to pain, a cynical shrug of the shoulders. For this disconnect has become so pronounced that what is politically unpopular often has very little to do with what is popular with the majority of the people. Yet, we don't vote to change it because of media fears like "electability", policies that won't pass...
As far as I can see, this really IS the problem. Nothing else. We have the power to change this country, but only if we take action. We can change this country by voting for what matters to us: by voting on the issues and nothing else. For if we voted on issues I can't help but wonder how different this country would be. If we voted on issues we may have a very different election.
I'll leave you with this final link: here. It is from an independent website poll taken by over 67,000 participants and voted strictly by the issue, without any refernce to the specific canidates. In the poll Kucinich is the first choice of 53% of those participants, dwarfing the next highest at around 12% (and, no it wasn't any of the "frontrunners").
We are fed up with a Legislative lack of constitutional integrity, of a Congress democratically elected to end a war and refuses to, of a government with a fundamental disconnect at the "representative" level. We are fed up with a corporate media controlled by so few shaping our elections, with lobbyists, bundling and hedge funds, with politics as usual.
America is fed up with our standing, both nationally and internationally, and desperate for real change: change that addresses not only policy, but citizens. Americans needs to feel connected again; to the world, their government and themselves. And this is what Dennis Kucinich is offering in his candidacy to represent the uNited States at the Presidential level: Strength Through Peace.
Strength Through Peace is not a simple anti-war campaign slogan, but, rather a holisitc approach to foreign and domestic policy that will take this country in a whole new direction.
Strength through Peace means restoring American leadership in diplomacy and respecting International Law and treaties. It means creating jobs at home and providing true universal and comprehensive healthcare for all Americans. It means ending the occupation in Iraq and preventing future strikes in Iran, while recognizing the link between global warring and global warming. It means then breaking our dependence on oil, as well as coal and nuclear, to aggresively pursue renewable and sustainable energy sources at home. It means ending disastrous wars, wasting hundreds of billion of dollars, and focusing money on domestic needs to provide universal pre-kindergarten and daycare. It means repealing unfair trade agreements like NAFTA and WTO to bring jobs back to this country.
Strength Through Peace is Dennis Kucinch reaching out to all Americans in order to reclaim this country from special interests like the insurance and drug companies, the oil industry and the military-industrial complex. The most outspoken and consistent critic against the war from the beginning and the only candidate to offer single-payer healthcare system that eliminates the wasteful private insurance industry, Kucinich recently spoke at the Urban League about his domestic policy and how he uses Strength Through Peace within it. If you haven't yet seen Kucinich speak at length, I would urge you to go here. He is a dynamic and passionate speaker who is utterly different than the image created in our media and many may be struck by the soberness of his views and bright promise he offers for this country. He appears about 1/4 of the way through the video and speaks about the things I have outlined above as well as his plans to create a works program, similar to FDR's WPA, repairing our national infrastructure like roads, schools, and water systems and incorporating sustainable energy solutions that would create even more jobs and save more money to families, retrofiting homes with solar and wind technology.
In the end, Strength Through Peace means creating the conditions for peace to manifest. Peace is a pragmatic issue, not a blindly idealistic one. Peace grows out of material conditions and relationships structured upon fairness and respect, not thin air or fantasy. And until this country implements policies to create conditions favorable to peace and conducts its relationships based upon fairness and law, our problems will remain the same.
Please notice I say this country and not politicians. Politicians can offer us platforms and leadership, but ultimately the country is in the hands of the people. And I'd rather hear no more media induced fear from our people. No more talk of "electability". No more anti-war voters who support candidates that won't faithfully pursue its end. No more avoiding policy answers that are in the best interest of the country because of the little hope that it can be passed through and become law.
Elections are decided by votes from an active citizenry. Representatives are elected by, and answer to, an active citizenry. And politically unpopular policies will only become law through this active citizenry.
We have to recognize the disconnect between our Representatives and citizens, stare it straight in the face, and begin our struggle to change it. What should be an outrage and treated as any other threat, has only become a deadened response to pain, a cynical shrug of the shoulders. For this disconnect has become so pronounced that what is politically unpopular often has very little to do with what is popular with the majority of the people. Yet, we don't vote to change it because of media fears like "electability", policies that won't pass...
As far as I can see, this really IS the problem. Nothing else. We have the power to change this country, but only if we take action. We can change this country by voting for what matters to us: by voting on the issues and nothing else. For if we voted on issues I can't help but wonder how different this country would be. If we voted on issues we may have a very different election.
I'll leave you with this final link: here. It is from an independent website poll taken by over 67,000 participants and voted strictly by the issue, without any refernce to the specific canidates. In the poll Kucinich is the first choice of 53% of those participants, dwarfing the next highest at around 12% (and, no it wasn't any of the "frontrunners").
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Kucinich as Mainstream Candidate
Here's some Kucinich clips from the AFL-CIO debate, where Kucinich drew huge applause and cheers with his platform positions that the Media dubs "far left". Somehow that didn't seem the case to the crowd at the Union debate when they heard from the one candidate who was willing to withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO, enact a true universal, comprehensive NOT-FOR-PROFIT healthcare system and proposing the: only solution to end the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzgbnjuBGN8
And this is the pre-debate MSNBC interview where he explains that his views are representative of the mainstream Democratic voters; hinting that the media has been shaping this election, as well as the reception of the issues:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5xgWei7Paw
Time to take a stand and reject the corporate framings of this election:
http://www2.kucinich.us/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzgbnjuBGN8
And this is the pre-debate MSNBC interview where he explains that his views are representative of the mainstream Democratic voters; hinting that the media has been shaping this election, as well as the reception of the issues:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5xgWei7Paw
Time to take a stand and reject the corporate framings of this election:
http://www2.kucinich.us/
Kucinich Still Fighting For Us
Always remaining civil and professional, Kucinich zeroes in on Rumsefled-never allowing him to evade the issue. Could you imagine if he ever had the opportunity to question Cheney?
Dennis is one of the few fighters left in Washington. It should be evident that Strength Through Peace never involves backing down to injustice. It means standing up against unlawful uses of power, special interests like insurance and drug companies to reclaim healthcare as a basic human right and the oil industry to pursue renewable energy sources; and... well people like Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration who attempt to manufacture the public's consent. Strength Through Peace means fighting for the constitution and holding the rule of law above individuals. I wish there were more fighting.
Dennis is one of the few fighters left in Washington. It should be evident that Strength Through Peace never involves backing down to injustice. It means standing up against unlawful uses of power, special interests like insurance and drug companies to reclaim healthcare as a basic human right and the oil industry to pursue renewable energy sources; and... well people like Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration who attempt to manufacture the public's consent. Strength Through Peace means fighting for the constitution and holding the rule of law above individuals. I wish there were more fighting.
When John Edwards Whispered
Apparently there really is two Americas in John Edwards eyes: His and Hillary Clinton's. After the presidential forum last night Edwards approached Clinton with the idea that it was time to start eliminating other candidates from future debates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-WsvQhVmhc
The perception of Mr. Edwards that it is legitimate for he and Clinton to decide who should or should not participate in the debates, thus limting free and open dialogue (as well as a true choice of elected official), is not only undemocratic, but thoroughly absurd in light of the "populist" image he has tried to cultivate.
Now he has denied any such proposition. "Apparently" he only wanted to seperate them into two groups picked randomly, though this part of the conversation never made it into his unwitting conversation with Clinton.
But, isn't Edwards the candidate who says "America needs to reclaim its Moral Authority"? Isn't he the candidate that has again and again stressed that importance of admitting when one has made a mistake? The candidate that stresses "leadership" over legisilation?
And it wasn't only Kucinich who expressed anger at this situation. Jaqueline Salit, president of CUIP - Committee for a Unified Independent Party, Inc., wrote a letter to Democratic Chairman, Howard Dean, saying "The statements made on Thursday by Senator Hillary Rodam Clinton and former Senator John Edwards calling for the narrowing of the field of allowable candidates requires an immediate response from you. You must stand up clearly for democratic dialogue..." And that "t would be the height of hypocrisy and partisanship to exclude insurgent candidates who have been critical of the frontrunners. Americans need to hear from more voices, including those that challenge establishment politics."
Kucinich appearced on MSNBC and other news shows welcoming a smaller format for everyone "to see who the serious candidate" is and has apparently presented formal challenges to each of the campaigns. He said he would gladly debate the issues against Edwards and Clinton. When an interviewer on MSNBC asked if he would like to come on the air with Mr. Edwards and debate about the debates themselves, Kucinich was quick to focus on something more important: Healthcare. He said, he would rather debate him on healthcare because there is a critical difference between his single-payer, not-for-profit plan and Edward's which leaves the private companies in the game to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and neglect millions of Americans. Some of the problems with Edwards plan and the merits of Kucinich's can be seen here:
However, I wonder how willing these candidates are to debate Kucinich. The presence of dissenting voices only weakens their positions. The top tier all say they are against the war, support universal healthcare, and oppose outsourcing jobs, for instance, however, a candidate like Kucinich who has consistently opposed the war from the beginning and offered the only solution to effectively end it, as well as the only one offering the U.S. a true universal, single-payer healthcare system and repealing disasters like NAFTA and the WTO threatens these candidates credibility. Consider the increase in support he claimed after the PBS forum last month:
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com/
Kucinich's support jumped 5 times over after the forum, which allowed equal time to each of the candidates answering the same question. Edwards did well here too, increasing 2 times in post forum support, but one has to wonder where these candidates would stand if all debates and media coverage were equal. I mean after this one forum, those who were polled had more support for Kucinich than Clinton! And both Clinton and Obama lost support. That's even after the millions in campaigning, advertising and free media coverage in the MSM that neglects so many other candidates and, sadly, attempts to decide who is/is not a viable canididate.
The challenge is now put to Mr. Edwards and Senator Clinton. And collusion and deception are only marks of fear. The American people need to know where you stand. They need leaders who will honor fairness and act accordingly. Do you have enough confidence in your posistions to welcome the critics? Do you really want the public to decide freely? Do you suppport a democratic election? We need to know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-WsvQhVmhc
The perception of Mr. Edwards that it is legitimate for he and Clinton to decide who should or should not participate in the debates, thus limting free and open dialogue (as well as a true choice of elected official), is not only undemocratic, but thoroughly absurd in light of the "populist" image he has tried to cultivate.
Now he has denied any such proposition. "Apparently" he only wanted to seperate them into two groups picked randomly, though this part of the conversation never made it into his unwitting conversation with Clinton.
But, isn't Edwards the candidate who says "America needs to reclaim its Moral Authority"? Isn't he the candidate that has again and again stressed that importance of admitting when one has made a mistake? The candidate that stresses "leadership" over legisilation?
And it wasn't only Kucinich who expressed anger at this situation. Jaqueline Salit, president of CUIP - Committee for a Unified Independent Party, Inc., wrote a letter to Democratic Chairman, Howard Dean, saying "The statements made on Thursday by Senator Hillary Rodam Clinton and former Senator John Edwards calling for the narrowing of the field of allowable candidates requires an immediate response from you. You must stand up clearly for democratic dialogue..." And that "t would be the height of hypocrisy and partisanship to exclude insurgent candidates who have been critical of the frontrunners. Americans need to hear from more voices, including those that challenge establishment politics."
Kucinich appearced on MSNBC and other news shows welcoming a smaller format for everyone "to see who the serious candidate" is and has apparently presented formal challenges to each of the campaigns. He said he would gladly debate the issues against Edwards and Clinton. When an interviewer on MSNBC asked if he would like to come on the air with Mr. Edwards and debate about the debates themselves, Kucinich was quick to focus on something more important: Healthcare. He said, he would rather debate him on healthcare because there is a critical difference between his single-payer, not-for-profit plan and Edward's which leaves the private companies in the game to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and neglect millions of Americans. Some of the problems with Edwards plan and the merits of Kucinich's can be seen here:
However, I wonder how willing these candidates are to debate Kucinich. The presence of dissenting voices only weakens their positions. The top tier all say they are against the war, support universal healthcare, and oppose outsourcing jobs, for instance, however, a candidate like Kucinich who has consistently opposed the war from the beginning and offered the only solution to effectively end it, as well as the only one offering the U.S. a true universal, single-payer healthcare system and repealing disasters like NAFTA and the WTO threatens these candidates credibility. Consider the increase in support he claimed after the PBS forum last month:
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com/
Kucinich's support jumped 5 times over after the forum, which allowed equal time to each of the candidates answering the same question. Edwards did well here too, increasing 2 times in post forum support, but one has to wonder where these candidates would stand if all debates and media coverage were equal. I mean after this one forum, those who were polled had more support for Kucinich than Clinton! And both Clinton and Obama lost support. That's even after the millions in campaigning, advertising and free media coverage in the MSM that neglects so many other candidates and, sadly, attempts to decide who is/is not a viable canididate.
The challenge is now put to Mr. Edwards and Senator Clinton. And collusion and deception are only marks of fear. The American people need to know where you stand. They need leaders who will honor fairness and act accordingly. Do you have enough confidence in your posistions to welcome the critics? Do you really want the public to decide freely? Do you suppport a democratic election? We need to know.
The Price of Applause
Corporate America has seen and heard enough. The presence of dissenting voices and the possibility of their leading to an informed public is viewed as a threat and must be eliminated. Enter the mainstream media.
It seems the succes of certain "fringe" candidates in the presidenatial debates has not gone unnoticed and the typical MSM modus operandi of gloss over and ignore has been coupled with direct confrontation and cheap ridicule. The attack is underway, only to get more aggressive soon.
You might trace it back to Ron Paul getting big applause for pointing out our foreign policy was instrumental in our current problems. Or you might trace it back to Kucinich in New Hampshire gaining huge rounds of clapping and cheers, challenging the other candidates allegiance to the Corporate Healthcare Industry and NAFTA. Or Gravel's railing about the war. But, it was the recent PBS forum, on June 28th, that has really set things in motion.
The forum, stressing equality in domestic issues, applied the same values to the candidates and the format. Candidates were positioned in random order on stage, each given the same question and allowed the same amount of time to answer. As you may have guessed, the more level playing field lead to a much different outcome.
Kucinich, again and again, drew huge applause for his stance on the war, the economy, racial equality, and crime. In fact, PBS ran a pre-forum/post-forum poll. Kucinich's support jumped by 5x! The next highest was Edwards at a 2x increase. Amazingly based on forum performance, Kucinich finished 3rd among the candidates behind Obama and Edwards! That is, he beat Clinton:
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com/
The MSM didn't run that story, but they did run something. The very next day, on June 29th, MSNBC runs this story about Kucinich:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19505871/
The ridiculousness of this is apparent. It immediately draws attention to concern that he is "neglecting his constituents" and then patiently spends 11 paragraphs considering the problem of his missing votes. Then in the next to last paragraph, the article blurts out "it's worth noting that of the ten presidential contenders — Democrat and Republican — who currently serve in Congress, Kucinich has the highest voting record so far this year".
So why didn't they run an article on any of the other candidates missing votes? Kucinich has missed only 2.3%, while Obama has missed 10.5%, Dodd at 25.8% and Biden at 27.1%!
http://2008central.net/?p=985
And now we have The N.Y Times Blog posting a mindlessly sarcastic little piece directly aimed at rooting out these candidates from future debates and, as always, indirectly aimed at telling the public who is/is not a viable candidate:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/lighter-campaign-schedules/
After the blogger writes that "leading candidates for president ramp up their campaigning this week" (without even explaining what ramping up includes) he wonders about "those who aren’t drawing many headlines or showing strength in the polls?" "Those" apparently only include Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel.
Never mind that Kucinich is ahead of Dodd in virtually every poll, ahead of Biden in more than a few, and beating Richardson in a couple while gaining fast in general:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/062807_release_web.pdf
But, "those" are the only candidates who have a dissenting opinion or challenge corporate interests such as the Military-Industrial Complex, Oil and Healthcare Industries. "Those" are the only candidates that have been aggressively outspoken against and GENUINE in proposing an END to this disastrous war. "Those" include Kucinich and Gravel who propose eliminating for-profit, private health insurance: Kucinich offering a true single-payer approach and Gravel proposing a voucher system.
The blogger finds it important to note that all three attend the debates, but are "devoting fair less time to solo campaigning, a costly endeavor that, unlike a debate, doesn’t guarantee free air time on national television."
But, I think it is important to note to the blogger a few things. First, I don't know Gravel's schedule, but Kucinich and Paul are very busy in Congress doing their job, as Kucinich's record above will attest to. Next, the candidates are very much more busy campaigning than the article mention. Kucinich's schedule included more than just the ONE event they listed, including events scheduled every day except Monday and Friday. In fact Kucinich was just In Los Angeles last weekend, speaking at six gatherings in one day, one of which was the National Mayors!
And then there's the money issue.
These candidates are able to challenge the corporate interests because they haven't accepted donations from them. I know this is the case with Kucinich. Sadly though, these corporate interests include the media:
http://www.corporations.org/media/
The media is now controlled predominantly by six companies. And they have wield their influence in politics from campaign finance to "news" coverage to poorly run debates... Before the NY Times so filppantly talks about "free airtime" they should look at the fairness of their own coverage and the amount of time that they give to certain candidates rather than others.
It seems the succes of certain "fringe" candidates in the presidenatial debates has not gone unnoticed and the typical MSM modus operandi of gloss over and ignore has been coupled with direct confrontation and cheap ridicule. The attack is underway, only to get more aggressive soon.
You might trace it back to Ron Paul getting big applause for pointing out our foreign policy was instrumental in our current problems. Or you might trace it back to Kucinich in New Hampshire gaining huge rounds of clapping and cheers, challenging the other candidates allegiance to the Corporate Healthcare Industry and NAFTA. Or Gravel's railing about the war. But, it was the recent PBS forum, on June 28th, that has really set things in motion.
The forum, stressing equality in domestic issues, applied the same values to the candidates and the format. Candidates were positioned in random order on stage, each given the same question and allowed the same amount of time to answer. As you may have guessed, the more level playing field lead to a much different outcome.
Kucinich, again and again, drew huge applause for his stance on the war, the economy, racial equality, and crime. In fact, PBS ran a pre-forum/post-forum poll. Kucinich's support jumped by 5x! The next highest was Edwards at a 2x increase. Amazingly based on forum performance, Kucinich finished 3rd among the candidates behind Obama and Edwards! That is, he beat Clinton:
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com/
The MSM didn't run that story, but they did run something. The very next day, on June 29th, MSNBC runs this story about Kucinich:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19505871/
The ridiculousness of this is apparent. It immediately draws attention to concern that he is "neglecting his constituents" and then patiently spends 11 paragraphs considering the problem of his missing votes. Then in the next to last paragraph, the article blurts out "it's worth noting that of the ten presidential contenders — Democrat and Republican — who currently serve in Congress, Kucinich has the highest voting record so far this year".
So why didn't they run an article on any of the other candidates missing votes? Kucinich has missed only 2.3%, while Obama has missed 10.5%, Dodd at 25.8% and Biden at 27.1%!
http://2008central.net/?p=985
And now we have The N.Y Times Blog posting a mindlessly sarcastic little piece directly aimed at rooting out these candidates from future debates and, as always, indirectly aimed at telling the public who is/is not a viable candidate:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/lighter-campaign-schedules/
After the blogger writes that "leading candidates for president ramp up their campaigning this week" (without even explaining what ramping up includes) he wonders about "those who aren’t drawing many headlines or showing strength in the polls?" "Those" apparently only include Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel.
Never mind that Kucinich is ahead of Dodd in virtually every poll, ahead of Biden in more than a few, and beating Richardson in a couple while gaining fast in general:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/062807_release_web.pdf
But, "those" are the only candidates who have a dissenting opinion or challenge corporate interests such as the Military-Industrial Complex, Oil and Healthcare Industries. "Those" are the only candidates that have been aggressively outspoken against and GENUINE in proposing an END to this disastrous war. "Those" include Kucinich and Gravel who propose eliminating for-profit, private health insurance: Kucinich offering a true single-payer approach and Gravel proposing a voucher system.
The blogger finds it important to note that all three attend the debates, but are "devoting fair less time to solo campaigning, a costly endeavor that, unlike a debate, doesn’t guarantee free air time on national television."
But, I think it is important to note to the blogger a few things. First, I don't know Gravel's schedule, but Kucinich and Paul are very busy in Congress doing their job, as Kucinich's record above will attest to. Next, the candidates are very much more busy campaigning than the article mention. Kucinich's schedule included more than just the ONE event they listed, including events scheduled every day except Monday and Friday. In fact Kucinich was just In Los Angeles last weekend, speaking at six gatherings in one day, one of which was the National Mayors!
And then there's the money issue.
These candidates are able to challenge the corporate interests because they haven't accepted donations from them. I know this is the case with Kucinich. Sadly though, these corporate interests include the media:
http://www.corporations.org/media/
The media is now controlled predominantly by six companies. And they have wield their influence in politics from campaign finance to "news" coverage to poorly run debates... Before the NY Times so filppantly talks about "free airtime" they should look at the fairness of their own coverage and the amount of time that they give to certain candidates rather than others.
John Edwards Universal "Insurance" Plan
Edwards plan for healthcare is a kind of seesaw game that tries to balance the public’s call for healthcare reform with an unquestioning obedience to the private insurance industry and all their financial and political influence. With the central problem of the today’s healthcare crisis lying in the outrageously inefficient and wasteful administration of our current healthcare system; 30% of every healthcare dollar spent going towards non-healthcare related spending such as marketing, paperwork and corporate profit; Edwards avoids the simplest and most sensible solution. He avoids standing up for the American people, in the name of what should be a citizen’s basic right: access to healthcare. He avoids doing what the majority of other developed nations, from Canada to much of Europe, have already done to ensure care and well being to all of their citizens. He avoids making the most economically sound decision, by enabling the U.S. to spend less each year on healthcare while proving all citizens with comprehensive coverage. He avoids doing away with private insurance. But, why?
One has to wonder what good reason there is not to convert to a single payer, not for-profit healthcare system. We spend 2.2 trillion dollars a year on healthcare, twice as much as any other country, and yet we do not get better care. Study after study finds us lacking here. There are 45 million+ Americans who are without any coverage and 50 million+ who are underinsured: half of all bankruptcies being related to healthcare and 3 out of every 4 of these bankruptcies had health insurance! They were underinsured, many not even knowing so until the time of need came. And yet we spend 2.2 trillion? That’s because of the 30% waste. Take 30% of 2.2 trillion dollars and put it towards healthcare and you solve the problem.
This is the system that Dennis Kucinich has proposed, the only Democratic Candidate to do so. His co-sponsored bill, HR676, has already been introduced to Congress and gained the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The plan extends the non-profit Medicare system to all, using only 3% for administration. The Dean study found that 95% of families would save money by switching to this system. The average family premium is currently about $3,000, under HR676 it is only around $1,900. No more co-pays, no more not denial of coverage, free choice of provider for comprehensive medical coverage; including dental, vision and psychiatric. This is not socialized medicine, only government single payer insurance. The doctors are still private.
And what about costs? The current healthcare system is clearly unable to control costs. The rise in health costs has been astronomical in the last ten years. Only a single payer system can accomplish this by cutting out the overhead, setting rates fairly and according a national budget, and by being the only healthcare insurer, having enough clout to actually control the costs of pharmaceuticals. Really, the reason that single payer makes the most sense is because it makes the most financial sense. Not only are we spending less as a country, not only are 95% of families saving money, but businesses also save by not having to pay for employees, which has taken its toll on American companies unable to compete with foreign companies who have single payer systems. GM reports that the cost of healthcare adds an extra $1,500 to the price of each car.
Edwards proposes a Medicare-like program that would compete with the private insurers, adding that the market may then "evolve" into a single payer system similar to the one I’ve just described. But, what he doesn’t mention is how unlikely this would be. In fact, the government program is bound to fail in this competition since the private companies are going to insure the healthy and let the government cover the sick and thus spiral in costs. This is against the whole idea of risk pooling which is the reason we have insurance in the first place. My question, is why not just use this program and do away with the privates altogether?
One has to wonder what good reason there is not to convert to a single payer, not for-profit healthcare system. We spend 2.2 trillion dollars a year on healthcare, twice as much as any other country, and yet we do not get better care. Study after study finds us lacking here. There are 45 million+ Americans who are without any coverage and 50 million+ who are underinsured: half of all bankruptcies being related to healthcare and 3 out of every 4 of these bankruptcies had health insurance! They were underinsured, many not even knowing so until the time of need came. And yet we spend 2.2 trillion? That’s because of the 30% waste. Take 30% of 2.2 trillion dollars and put it towards healthcare and you solve the problem.
This is the system that Dennis Kucinich has proposed, the only Democratic Candidate to do so. His co-sponsored bill, HR676, has already been introduced to Congress and gained the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The plan extends the non-profit Medicare system to all, using only 3% for administration. The Dean study found that 95% of families would save money by switching to this system. The average family premium is currently about $3,000, under HR676 it is only around $1,900. No more co-pays, no more not denial of coverage, free choice of provider for comprehensive medical coverage; including dental, vision and psychiatric. This is not socialized medicine, only government single payer insurance. The doctors are still private.
And what about costs? The current healthcare system is clearly unable to control costs. The rise in health costs has been astronomical in the last ten years. Only a single payer system can accomplish this by cutting out the overhead, setting rates fairly and according a national budget, and by being the only healthcare insurer, having enough clout to actually control the costs of pharmaceuticals. Really, the reason that single payer makes the most sense is because it makes the most financial sense. Not only are we spending less as a country, not only are 95% of families saving money, but businesses also save by not having to pay for employees, which has taken its toll on American companies unable to compete with foreign companies who have single payer systems. GM reports that the cost of healthcare adds an extra $1,500 to the price of each car.
Edwards proposes a Medicare-like program that would compete with the private insurers, adding that the market may then "evolve" into a single payer system similar to the one I’ve just described. But, what he doesn’t mention is how unlikely this would be. In fact, the government program is bound to fail in this competition since the private companies are going to insure the healthy and let the government cover the sick and thus spiral in costs. This is against the whole idea of risk pooling which is the reason we have insurance in the first place. My question, is why not just use this program and do away with the privates altogether?
The Corporate Media and the Election
I saw a list from MSNBC ranking the Democratic cadidates in descending order, as follows: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel.
The post didn't discuss the candidates or their policies, even intimating that the lack of a stance was unimportant! So for my first diary entry, Iwas wondering:
From what criterion is this list made? Well, first go to www.opensecrets.org and check out the fundraising rankings for these same candidates. You'll see that the ranking is identical, with the exception of Dodd and Richardson trading places. The interesting thing about www.opensecrets.org is that you can also break down their money by donors, corporate contributions and percentages of large vs. small amount donations. If you do this you will start to see a pattern that the "frontrunners" are also the top recipients of large individual donations, as well as corporate donations. Now, a few things to consider from this:
First, should the amount of money a candidate has actually mean more than the policies they propose and issues they support? I mean, the article said: " it doesn't matter that Obama lacks a health care plan, a comprehensive economic policy, any subtle foreign policy vision or even a concrete proposal to move the Middle East peace process forward". This is madness! Why wouldn't it matter? And just how could a candidate raise over 25 million without having definite plans on these things? WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE DONORS SUPPORTING?
And this brings us to a second consideration. If these "top candidates", even this early, have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from big special interests like the insurance and oil industries, pharmaceuticals etc. what will that mean in the shaping of policy?
Further, I would consider how the media shapes these campaigns in general. You can start by re-reding this article! The media is bogged down by special interests as well. They shape public opinion about who is electable, who has detailed plans etc.
Consider Dennis Kucinich. Many people don't know about his policies because the mainstream media doesn't cover them. The article didn't go out of its way either. But, the fact is he has many well reasoned and detailed positions on issues like healthcare, Iraq, the economy etc. Even cadidate Edwards has been quoted as claiming himself to be the only one with a detailed universal healthcare plan. But, this is patently false. Kucinich has co-authored a bill, HR 676, and introduced it to Congress, already gaining the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The bill would give ALL Americans comprehensive coverage while actually spending less. The way this works is by cutting out the private insurance companies with their 30% overhead-that's 30% of 2.2 trillion dollars. But, therein lies the problem; the profound influence of the healthcare industry prevents the media from covering it and any other candidate from proposing such a system.
But, we can't let special interests decide our government for us. Do you know how a corrupt government could be done away with? The same way that absurdly childish porpularity contests, headlined by those the corporate media calls "electable", and vapid power rankings such as this one could:
The public educates itself!
The post didn't discuss the candidates or their policies, even intimating that the lack of a stance was unimportant! So for my first diary entry, Iwas wondering:
From what criterion is this list made? Well, first go to www.opensecrets.org and check out the fundraising rankings for these same candidates. You'll see that the ranking is identical, with the exception of Dodd and Richardson trading places. The interesting thing about www.opensecrets.org is that you can also break down their money by donors, corporate contributions and percentages of large vs. small amount donations. If you do this you will start to see a pattern that the "frontrunners" are also the top recipients of large individual donations, as well as corporate donations. Now, a few things to consider from this:
First, should the amount of money a candidate has actually mean more than the policies they propose and issues they support? I mean, the article said: " it doesn't matter that Obama lacks a health care plan, a comprehensive economic policy, any subtle foreign policy vision or even a concrete proposal to move the Middle East peace process forward". This is madness! Why wouldn't it matter? And just how could a candidate raise over 25 million without having definite plans on these things? WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE DONORS SUPPORTING?
And this brings us to a second consideration. If these "top candidates", even this early, have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from big special interests like the insurance and oil industries, pharmaceuticals etc. what will that mean in the shaping of policy?
Further, I would consider how the media shapes these campaigns in general. You can start by re-reding this article! The media is bogged down by special interests as well. They shape public opinion about who is electable, who has detailed plans etc.
Consider Dennis Kucinich. Many people don't know about his policies because the mainstream media doesn't cover them. The article didn't go out of its way either. But, the fact is he has many well reasoned and detailed positions on issues like healthcare, Iraq, the economy etc. Even cadidate Edwards has been quoted as claiming himself to be the only one with a detailed universal healthcare plan. But, this is patently false. Kucinich has co-authored a bill, HR 676, and introduced it to Congress, already gaining the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The bill would give ALL Americans comprehensive coverage while actually spending less. The way this works is by cutting out the private insurance companies with their 30% overhead-that's 30% of 2.2 trillion dollars. But, therein lies the problem; the profound influence of the healthcare industry prevents the media from covering it and any other candidate from proposing such a system.
But, we can't let special interests decide our government for us. Do you know how a corrupt government could be done away with? The same way that absurdly childish porpularity contests, headlined by those the corporate media calls "electable", and vapid power rankings such as this one could:
The public educates itself!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
