Healthcare Debate: The Republicans $700 Billion "Band-Aid"

On Wednesday, July 29, the Republican Party unveiled their Healthcare Plan. In short, "a $700 billion health care plan that would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance." (Yahoo! News)

What changed?
The $700 Billion are still going to have to come from "Somewhere" (Tax Raise), so how is this idea better than the previous Democrats Plan? How is transferring another $700 Billion Dollars to the "American Health Industry" to purchase a market tested "Not-so-efficient" & Overpriced product going to help the Majority of American People?

Well... It Doesn't!
It's quite clear that this bill favors the Health Industry and that it's not an acceptable proposal to address the Healthcare Crisis in America. More importantly, it does nothing in terms of the Health Providers accountability.

Why should we trust these people?
Yes... THESE people:

Ronald Williams, CEO of Aetna

H. Edward Hanway — CIGNA

Angela Braly — WellPoint

Dale Wolf — Coventry Health Care

Michael Neidorff — Centene

James Carlson — AMERIGROUP

Michael McAllister — Humana

Jay Gellert — Health Net

Richard Barasch — Universal American

Stephen Hensley — UnitedHealth Group

* I'd like to thank Tom Harper for this list of links:

These are the same people that have been "Investing" 1.4 Million Dollars every day to block President Obama's attempts to pass any Health measures that might not favor them.

According to the Washington Post the Health Industry Lobby has hired more than 350 "former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues... The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight." (Washington Post, July 6, 2009).

This is nothing new really, according to a report by Common Cause:
'Legislating Under the Influence' - PDF.

• The major health interests have spent an average of $1.4 million per day to lobby Congress so far this year and are on track to spend more than half a billion dollars by the end 2009. That comes out to about $2,600 per day per member of the House and Senate.

• The pharmaceutical lobby alone spent $733,000 per day in the first quarter of 2009. Since 2000, the industries have spent over $3 billion on lobbying, with the total increasing every year and rising more than 142 percent over the course of the decade.

• In each of the past four years health interests have been the number-one lobbying force in Washington, measured in expenditures, and have averaged over $1 million per day.

As far as I'm concerned, the approved Healthcare Bill must include strict regulation - both in terms of Health Insurance Providers and Pharmaceutical Companies. This is because they are a significant part of the problem; it's time to write a bill that protects the interests of the American people and not the pockets of the Health Industry Profiteers. Otherwise, we will continue to get ripped off by those who are supposedly looking after our health.

The American people are asking for Major Reforms. It's also painfully obvious that the American Economy needs Major Reforms in the Healthcare Department; not just another "Band-Aid" solution.

UK Inquiry to Iraq War: A Kangaroo Court?

Blair to be called before UK inquiry to Iraq war
Updated 1 hour, 23 minutes ago - LONDON, England (CNN)

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will be called before an inquiry into the country's role in the Iraq war, its chairman said during the opening Thursday.

John Chilcot told media he would not "offer a list of witnesses" but that "key decision-makers in the key phases of the Iraq affair" would be called.

Blair's successor, Gordon Brown, announced the inquiry last month, saying it would look in depth at the lead up to and conduct of the war.

After criticism, the government was forced to abandon its original plans to hold the inquiry behind closed doors.

Chilcot said the panel intends to make the proceedings "as open as possible, because we recognize that is one of the ways in which the public can have confidence in the integrity and independence of the inquiry process."

Some of the hearings may be televised or streamed on the Internet, and the panel will have a Web site on which information will be regularly posted, he said.

Hopefully it won't be just another Kangaroo Court.

Will they ask the Real Questions or the "Real" Questions...?

There's a high likelihood that Tony Blair will be sitting on a stand very soon. It's fair to assume that he won't be able to avoid it, because by not discussing his decision and the circumstances, he would be admitting guilt (at least to some degree), and from my observations it seems as though Politicians aren't too good at that - admitting to anything.

With that said, and if indeed the Tough questions will be asked, is it possible that somehow this will "Heighten Demand" for a similar inquiry in the United States. Will the American people want to hear what Bush and Co. have to say about Iraq?

This Inquiry is very interesting either way, this is Real News - you know, not "Real News"!

Where is the Health Care Debate around the World?

As I'm writing this article, the Health Care Debate in the United States is at full force. All you have to do is Google the phrase “Health Care Reform”, and this will lead you to around 100 relevant News articles published in the last hour and over 1,000 Articles published in the last 3 days. Give or take.

If only for a moment we could turn back the clock and remove the details that are being discussed in Congress at present. If we could go back to pre-Economic Meltdown & pre-Bailout times, back when there was a clear majority on two important issues regarding Healthcare in America.

1. Roughly 80% of Americans are dissatisfied with the total cost of Healthcare.



2. Over two thirds of Americans agree that there were (at least) major problems with the Healthcare system in the United States.



* Only 1% to 3% stated that there are 'No Problems'.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx

What I found interesting is that despite all of the negative information we hear about Universal Health Care, the horror stories about waiting lists and whatnot. I couldn’t find one poll or article calling for a complete reform or "Overhaul" of the Health Care System in Australia, France, Japan or any First World Country for that matter.

In reality, Universal Healthcare Systems are widely accepted wherever they are implemented - overwhelmingly so. The thought of removing these systems, by individuals/parties both Left & Right equates to political suicide.

Sure there are problems overseas, none of which erase the issues that we have right here in the United States of America.

On the topic of 'Problems' in the US, I would like to share with you a few informative pieces that I've come across in recent weeks:

In a study conducted by the Harvard Medical School they estimate that 1.5 Million Americans will go Bankrupt this year due to Medical Bills. In addition, they surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them. They say that overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance.

(CNN, June 5, 2009)

Apperantly, even if you have Health Insurance you are not immune from Medical Bankruptcy.

I recently saw an interesting program on PBS - Sick around the World - FRONTLINE, which visits 5 Capitalist Democracies, explains how their Health Care System works and draws the applicable comparisons between all of them. In the interviews that were conducted during this trip, it was evident that in countries operating under a Nationalized Health Care systems you simply cannot go bankrupt.

Beyond the issue of bankruptcy, the interviews seem to be quite fair in the sense that they expose both the Positive & Negative aspects of each system. The solution, as far as what I believe will bring the most positive outcome for the United States, is to take a serious look into all of these different systems and apply what would serve us best - at least in theory. Both in terms of the Economic implications and of course the Quality & Accessibility to Health in our country.

I'll close with a couple of Questions and Answers from the interview with Nigel Hawkes, the health editor for The Times of London and a longtime observer of Britain's National Health Service (NHS) - this is 1 of 5 interviews conducted by T.R. Reid.

We look at these comparative statistics of the United States versus other wealthy countries, including Britain. ... On most health indicators, Britain does better than the U.S.

Yes, it probably does, but other countries do better than Britain. The proper comparison really is with continental European countries like the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain. And on most measures, they tend to do a little better than us.

So the notion, "We're doing better than the U.S.," that's not an important notion to you?

No. The U.S. is always considered to be an outlier in health policy, because you've got this insurance-based and rather uncontrolled system that leads to very high costs and very great inequalities, as perceived from this side of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, I think the American experience has tended to put British people off insurance-based health care, because they say, "Oh, we don't want the American system." But you don't have to have the American system. You can have the French system or the Japanese system, which are not so expensive and which seem to work quite well.

Indeed, nobody thinks that their system is perfect. The question is therefore - Which set of problems do you you prefer?

It's apparent that no one in the Industrialized World wants to copy the American system. In a country that prides itself as being a World Leader, on this specific issue, one can only wonder why.

Gaza War Crimes: Who is Less Wrong?

Last weekend, the United Nations held a public hearing in Gaza where Palestinians had the chance to report their personal accounts of the 2009 Gaza War. In the next round of testimonies, it will be Israeli witnesses giving their personal accounts.

Just a few days ago, on July 2nd, Amnesty International released a report titled "Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction" which accuses both Israel & Hamas of War Crimes. The report also details the results of the Israeli Offensive which led to the death of 1,400 Palestinians, of which 900 were civilians and 300 of these being Children. In contrast, the Israelis incurred a total of 13 fatalities - a ratio of 107 to 1.

This was, without a shadow of a doubt, an atrocious showing of strength by the Israeli forces. The overt use of force was justified by the Israeli Government as a retaliation to the ongoing and long term firing of Qassam Rockets, which have been mostly directed at the Israeli city of Sderot.

The escalation of hatred between the two sides in recent years is evident. This sentiment has been clearly reflected in the voting booths, where Palestinians have chosen to elect Hamas, and the Israelis electeding yet another Right Winged Government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the 'Likud' Party.

It's difficult to understand/explain the intricacies of Israeli Politics and their 12 Party System. With that said, what occurred in the February 2009 Elections in Israel is a rarity, even within the context of Israeli political complexities. The victorious party ('Kadima') did not retain power - How often does this occur in Democratic Societies?

The 'Likud', led by Benjamin Netanyahu, received less votes than the 'Kadima' party (28 vs. 27 seats). Netanyahu then argued, in order to assume leadership, that the 'Right Wing' in Israel (Likud + Yisrael Beiteinu + Shas) had received a majority of seats from the Israeli constituents, which therefore legitimized his claim to be Israel's Prime Minister.

In my opinion Netanyahu's argument is futile, mainly because the definition of Left & Right Parties in Israeli Politics (specifically in terms of the Palestinian Issue) is ambiguous - particularly now. It's important to understand that 'Kadima' (founded in 2006), was created by like-minded ex 'Likud' and 'Labor' Party members. The idea was to create a unified centralist consensus in the country that would finally be able to move the peace process forward.

Make no mistake, 'Security' is the most significant issue in Israeli Politics at the moment. Three years under the 'Kadima' leadership, Two Wars during their tenure, and they are suddenly considered "Too Soft" to handle Israeli Security. The main problem that 'Kadima' had, which eventually cost them their leadership role, was an issue of discontentment. It was caused by their supposed losses and mismanagement of the recent Gaza Offensive & 2006 Lebanon War.

In any case, 'Kadima' are not as "Right Wing" as 'Likud' and not as "Left Wing" as the 'Labor' party. The fact that 'Kadima' were responsible for Two Offensive Wars is a clear indication that they aren't "Soft" at all. This leads me to the conclusion that there is no Left Wing Party in Israel, at least not of any significance - Definitely not on the issue of Security.

The fact of the matter is that at present, the Israeli Population can be divided into three Political categories: Hardline Right Wing, "Light" Right Winger, and The Overwhelming Minority.

And the bitter debate continues - Terrorism on one side, Oppression on the other.

Many people would argue that "Two wrongs don't make a Right", which indeed makes a lot of sense in this case, but maybe one side is less wrong than the other. The question therefore is one of legitimacy - Who is Less Wrong?
It's perhaps much easier to answer this question.

The Palestinian people (for the most part), are living in what can only be described as a collection of refugee camps. To ignore the conditions in which they are living and then blame them for being radical/violent towards Israel is absurd. Even Ehud Barak recognizes this aspect of social conditioning:

"If I were a Palestinian at the right age, I would have joined one of the terrorist organizations at a certain stage."

Ehud Barak, from an Interview by Gideon Levi, March 1998
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak

Considering the intimate knowledge that Mr. Barak has with the details of the conflict, the Israelis reasoning that the recent Gaza Offensive was due to 'rockets being fired at Sderot on a daily basis' is unsatisfactory.

Unfortunately, the Israeli people don't see it this way. Most Israelis are unwilling to accept any responsibility, which leads them to believe (for whatever reasons) that the Palestinian people are "bringing it on to themselves" and that "it's all their fault" while completely removing themselves and their history from the equation.

And the violence continues - Terrorism on one side, Oppression on the other.

If the Israeli Government is in fact oppressing the Palestinians (for nearly two generations), and the people that they are abusing are uprising against them, their rebellion doesn't make it legitimate to tighten the stranglehold. It should make the Israelis look inward, in search of ways to mitigate and improve the conditions that the Palestinian people are living in. Unless the playing filed changes, this vicious cycle will will never come to an end.

The Right Wing Media is Playing it Wrong

It was just over a year ago when it all started. At some point during the 2008 Presidential Primaries, as it was becoming clear that Barrack Obama was going to be the Democratic Nominee, I began to notice a Bizarre & Spooky Onslaught of Accusations flowing his way.

From the controversy surrounding his relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright onto the claim that he is somehow "Palling around with terrorists", it's apparent that Obama has been the Target of Right-Winged Mudslingers long before he received the title - 'President of The United States of America'.

Of course the "Slinging" doesn't end with the title. Au contraire, even the former President recently felt the urge to throw his two-cents into the mix.

The problem that I foresee - which is somewhat of a blessing in disguise if you're a Left-Winger like me, is that with all of this "Mud" flying around and with over 3 and a half years left to go, if President Obama will come out of this dirty game even relatively clean, then it's pretty much over for the Republican Party. The GOP as we know it will be gone forever.

It's obviously too early to discuss the 'Obama Legacy' and what it may or may not hold, but this fact hasn't deterred Conservative Media Outlets and Personalities from putting every ounce of their credibility on the line, predicting failure at every turn.

Beyond the Doom & Gloom Scenarios, in ways that can only be described as discombobulating, these people are blaming Obama for everything from Stock Market Drops to a South Carolina Governor cheating on his wive.

I believe that the realities of having a Democrat in the White House has in many ways exposed the Right Wing Media's true colors - which is yet another blessing. It is now clear to anyone with an IQ of 70+ that the slogan "Fair & Balanced", in relation to Fox News and the way that they operate, is completely absurd. It is becoming a borderline insult to ones intelligence that Fox use the word 'News' in their T.V Channels title.

Objectivity in News

News organizations are often expected to aim for objectivity; reporters claim to try to cover all sides of an issue without bias, as compared to commentators or analysts, who provide opinion or personal point-of-view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News

Aside from the people who comprise what is known as "The Base" of the Republican Party, the rest of the audience that tune-in are likely to be turned-off by the blatant and overwhelming bias shown by folks like Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and many others in the Fox "News" Crew.

Every time they use the words 'Communism', 'Anti-American', and/or any other form of "Unfair & Imbalanced" Obamabashing hate-speech during their broadcast, they are inadvertently losing more and more credibility as an actual source of 'News'.

And then there are guys like Rush Limbaugh.
I accept that Limbaugh is an entertainer, which means that his job by definition is to get good ratings. To the naked eye (or ear) he is no different than folks like Howard Stern, John Stewart, and David Letterman. Considering the amount of attention he's been getting recently - which I'm sure he is absolutely loving (as are his sponsors), he's obviously pretty competent at his job.

The fact of the matter is that Rush is an extremely hyper-biased dude with a Microphone & Audience, and he knows how good his outrageous remarks are for ratings. I truly wonder how many people actually take Limbaugh seriously vs. how many people simply tune in to hear what he's going to say next. In a weird and twisted way, Rush is like the Radio Talk Show version of a highway car-wreck, people are sickened by it and yet they can't control their sudden urge to slow down and have a glimpse.

With that said, what's good for ratings isn't necessarily good for Politics. If Rush Limbaugh and the folks at Fox "News" continue going down this path, they will slowly but surely create an antagonistic sentiment between their viewers/listeners and the Conservative Agenda, at least with the more Moderate factions of their audience.

This Agenda isn't defined by the amount of people that tune in to watch or listen on a daily basis, it is measured in votes and how many representatives they have in the Senate & Congress. It is measured every two years in Election Booths, where it becomes a question of How many Voters you have Attracted vs. How many Voters you have Alienated.

As a Self-Proclaimed Leftist, I sincerely hope that the Conservative Media doesn't take my advise.