Obama's healthcare horror

[notesdev]

Obama's healthcare horror

Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's!

By Camille Paglia

Aug. 12, 2009 | Buyer's remorse? Not me. At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at -- representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad. This is why I, for one, voted for Obama and continue to support him. The damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush will take years to repair. Obama has barely begun the crucial mission that he was elected to do.

Having said that, I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys.

Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/

[babylonsister]

1. Camille being critical? Oh noes!

:rofl:

[madaboutharry]

2. I think Camille Paglia

has a Ph.D in naysaying.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Why does Salon keep using her crap?

Camille Paglia is a pretentious twit.

[bluestateguy]

4. I don't know how much more of this I can take

Yet another column from a self-proclaimed "expert" instructing Obama on how to do his job.

:grr:

[RandomThoughts]

5. She calls herself a libertarian.

A quote from her article

As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives


How is private sector systems, where 'one share one vote' picks what systems are used, any different then a representative government system where 'one person is one vote'. The difference is is it money that determines who makes the decisions, not the thoughts of many people. So who would that society protect if they did not believe in equal dignity and value for every person?

The libertarian view wants government out of their lives. Why do they want that? Because government can set rules that control choices they have. With the current status quo, do you have the choice to change jobs or start a business? Is it a choice to pick one insurance company with 30% overhead, and another insurance company with 30% overhead? Especially when part of that money is pooled together to tell people lies and try and set social policy. When the insurance companies or any group works together for one goal, and use their industry to fund and fuel that goal, they are a governing system from taxation hidden as premiums. And if they work together, it is a monopoly system.

That is why their is something called government to regulate the natural tendency of capitalism to create monopolies or groups that control sectors for the profit of societal control of the few in that sector.

Libertarians want government smaller. Part of premiums paid to companies is used for social control or writing social legislation. But the Libertarians do not think of the part of their wages(as premiums) going to 'social control methods' of society as the same thing as a tax. Part of the money they think is paid for health care, does not go to health care. Currently the money that goes to companies to try and control societal opinion or laws is a tax for the corporate ruling system. Why not Corporations stay out of my wallet and preform the service your company sells, not promote a political or social system?

[BirminghamExaminer]

10. well that explains everything because libertarianism is DEAD

When the free market failed, libertarianism died. They just haven't figured it out yet.

[RandomThoughts]

6. Why not start real Libertarian movement.

Libertarians against Corporate taxation to support Corporate rule used for profit and control by the few.

Part of the health care premiums go to pay Lobbyist, they also use friendly face labeling for corporations, and marketing to make you think the corporations care about people before profit.

Freedom from unjust taxation by Corporations from part of your health care premiums, but used to lobby politicians for profit of the few.

No Corporate taxation without representation. And if you are not a share holder, you have no representation in the corporate governance system!


Why don't libertarians make that statement if they believe in freedom from types of social control?

[no bad days]

7. Health care concerns.......

I have concerns about the single payer option. Don't get me wrong I think we must provide health care to those in need but I just don't think we have thought this through. If and really when (it will happen someday)the neocon's come back to power THEY will be in charge of our health care if it is government run. I trust our current president but I unlike (apparently) many progressives have not forgotten the atrocities of the Bush/Cheney gang and anyone who would put it past their ilk to deny health care to people who don't think like them needs their head examined. Just imagine the giving Republicans control of health care and who/if you can get an abortion! I think we tread down the single payer road perhaps at our peril.

[RandomThoughts]

8. You make an argument for diversified control.

Quite simply you are saying that a single system is more vulnerable to a government that might use it for their own means against the people.

First transparency and oversight are required to help stop that. Also the government can be replaced, just vote them out. The opportunity to vote out a government is available to the people, the opportunity to vote out corporate control is not. Although corporations can be regulated by people voted into office.



People need many groups working in a sector in your argument. Your argument could be used against the insurance companies in the exact same way.

Just imagine the giving Republicans control of health care and who/if you can get an abortion! I think we tread down the single payer road perhaps at our peril.

How is that any different then giving shareholders and insurance company CEOs control.

Currently your insurance company premiums are paying for abortions.

You make an argument that only has weight if it ignores that sectors that work as one unit can also do the exact same thing under a guise of a free market system, but by using the sector for social control. Things like keeping people scared to leave job is an example of how health care can exert a social control. Fear of getting sick can exert a social pressure, and use of premiums to influence laws is a social pressure.


My point is that a public option is a push back against the system you speak of, where Republicans run the Insurance Health care system, and worse it is for profit without representation.

Since we currently have a sudo single payer system, where each company uses the same set of rules and all contribute for lobbiest for social control. How is it different then a single payer government system?

[no bad days]

9. Risky behaviors...................

My concerns remain in that I can picture a republican controlled government denying health care for what they define as "risky behaviors" such as according to them being gay since to their pea brains aids is a gay disease etc. It is certainly true that insurance companies do much the same now but at least there are lots of insurance companies to choose from and if worse comes to worse you can pay cash, something not allowed in most single payer systems. I don't claim to have the answers nor am I a corporate fan I just think we should cautiously approach handing our health over to any one option.

[RandomThoughts]

11. You make a point of 'authority of control.'

In the insurance industry private sector model getting care is based on the claim that if you have money you have the authority to set the policy and even get the care.

In the private only system the people that set who gets treated, for the most part, are based on who has money. And money is also the factor that determines the reason for care, is it profitable. The first part does prevent what you say, since money does not look at what many people call moral or majority societal thoughts. In that private insurance would not discriminate based on some potential future cultural dynamic like you explain. But the second part of money lowers care for other reasons, treating a disease is less profitable then not treating it. Even spending money on lobbyist instead of health care is perceived as more profitable by many industries.

(And when money from insurance industry is used to set policy, it actually comes from premiums for health care. And since insurance donate to such lobbyist, it becomes impossible to find an insurance company that does not work within a de facto monopoly control system. You can not pick one that does not want to use peoples health money to change policy for the profit of that company that is competitive within effects of economies of scale. So it should be noted, the insurance companies are not using their own money to try and set policy, they are using societies money meant to be paid for health care.)

The governmental program, and I think you are talking about a single payer system, does not have money as its determiner of who gets care. Instead it has an agreed upon standard set by proxy by the people of that society.

Since a governmental system is not bound by money, perception creep can enter into the system, in all forms of government control we see some areas where minorities have a more difficult time when majorities vote for policies. However our system, when in effect, has a Constitution that also protects minority groups, and in that protection there is an entire system to avoid some type of discrimination you worry about. Also it is done in the open transparently, unlike the money system.


Your comment of a majority getting people in office that would limit care, is saying that the money system, because of a lack of paying attention to possible wrong morals, would be safer. Money does not look at morals, it looks at cash. But in doing that money does not look at what most people consider good morals either. So if you ask would I risk a potential discrimination in a skewed governmental system, I would say the good things achieved, ignored by money, like caring for people because they are people, would be worth that risk. Although I agree that transparency and honest information should exist to stop the things you worry about.

Anyone can find a perceived flaw in any system that is not absolutely perfect, in that it becomes a comparison of systems, and when you compare representative government systems to money systems, government systems, are more just for more people, unless you think money is all that matters.

Note also that the public option allows both money systems and a governmental system.

[no bad days]

12. Still concerned......

I appreciate your time and effort, My concern is who defines the morals (i.e. right wing bible thumpers) where as (as you put it) money does not look at morals. I am by no means well off but when it comes to my health I would get a loan if I had to. Of course we must provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. I would just prefer an expanded welfare system like a health care "safety net" if you will that would cover people without any means to do so for themselves. No system is perfect and I do not think we should rush into a system that could potentially become a weapon of the far right.

[Jim Sagle]

13. Camille brings teh crazy. It's what she does, it's who she is.

Don't ever trust Camille, especially when she's spewing bile about Democrats. Pick a Dem, any Dem. Camille will chew on him or her like a rabid Rottweiler that was abused by Michael Vick.

As close to zero as my regard for "our" leadership may be, my regard for her truthfulness and stability is less than minus infinity.

And did I mention that she's crazy?