Kucinich to vote YES on Obama care?

[highstreet]

You are really a lost cause.  It's like trying to get through to a Cheney supporter.

You really believe that giving the government any more control over your life is a good idea. 

I had hard core Rethugs tell me the same thing about how we needed Homeland Security and the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretaps.

You are of the same delusion. 

That somehow if we give the Fed Gov more of our power, they will swoop in and fix everything.  (What was the last thing they fixed?)

It's just that you don't remember that the other party gets into power, and they should never have that much control over our lives. 

So tell me then, why does most of Europe have better health care than the US? Is it because they decided that private businesses and the free market would do a better job than the government?

A) They just happened to socialize their health care delivery system during the oil boom rather than at the end of it, like we are trying.

B) Their nations are the size of our States.  We could probably do it as efficiently as they are doing it at the State level.  This argument is probably moot though, since their systems are as bankrupt as our SS, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Actually most of them socialized medicine while they were trying to rebuild their utterly destroyed economies after World War II. They were in a much worse situation than we are now. In fact, many countries with a lot more debt, lower GDP per capita, etc, moved to Socialized Medicine during very VERY hard times. The UK was in the worst shape it had been in centuries when it developed the NHS and NHS actually saved their economy money and got people to work.

As for the size issue, I think it's irrelevant. It's about money per-person and any system like this can scale. Most of the infrastructure is already in place. There are plenty of hospitals, doctors, and health care institutions around already. Many doctors argue (the Coffee Party for example) that without socializing medicine the cost will continue to go up and will eventually make our economic situation much worse.
Ralph Nader and many others have spent a lot of time researching this subject and the overall economic impact of rising costs and an aging public. I think what they have to say is much more accurate than the typical non-sense coming out of the teabaggers.

What does that have to do with them accidentally starting it during the Oil Boom?  What you are missing is that this National Health care idea can only work if we are stealing a good amount of resources from the third world.    Not to mention that most of their Social programs are bringing their economies to the brink also.  Check out Greece.

The size issue is not irrelavent.  Which of our current social programs hasen't been broken by the Fed Gov?  These don't scale which is proven by the fact that they are all broke.

[ninakat]

Pressure Drop: Brave Sir Dennis Ran Away
Written by Chris Floyd     
Wednesday, 17 March 2010 23:44 

(...)

Anyway, in the end, Dennis proved to be no menace at all to the Boondoggle Express. He got on board offering the same lame justification for junking his principles that a plethora of progressives have served up: the idea that passing the current HCR (High Corporate Returns) bill is somehow a step forward toward real reform somewhere down the road someday. The usual line is something like, "If we don't pass this horrible bill, we won't get another shot at real health care reform for 20 years." Or as Kucinich himself put it (somewhat inelegantly): "This is a defining moment for if we will have any opportunity to move off square one on health care."

This seems to me to be the exact opposite of the truth. In reality, if this horrible bill passes, we will be stuck with it for 20 years, because no Democratic politician -- "progressive," "pragmatist," or otherwise -- will want to go near the issue again.  You can already hear the "savvy" counsel party bigwigs will dispense if anyone tries to "move off square one" on health care in the foreseeable future: "For God's sake, don't rake all that up again! Don't you remember the hell we went through getting that damn thing passed in 2010? You want to give the Republicans another club to beat us over the head with? We've done 'reform.' Leave it alone."

However, if this bill (which almost every "progressive" has declared is a misbegotten, corruption-ridden, botulistic glop of indigestible legislative sausage -- even as they threaten to wage holy war against anyone who votes against it) is defeated, then the ground will be cleared for genuine reform. A real leader could then say: "OK, we tried it your way. We brought in the corporations. We courted the Republicans shamelessly. We gave away the game on day one, took all our cards off the table, compromised every value we profess to hold. We backed down, we turned tail, we sold out. And it didn't work. Now, we're going to do it for real. Single-payer, universal: that's where we start, and by God, that's where we finish, or somewhere damn near to it. And if you don't like it -- well, let us refer you to the famous words uttered by Dick Cheney to Patrick Leahy on the floor of the Senate on that historic day in 2004."

(...)

[fabuzi]

I've resisted so many times calling out specifically Grower and Wordnerd for their absolutely interminable tendency toward the democrat party.

It's so easy to pick on conservatives it's like picking on fat people or downs syndrome addled folks, it's just to the point where it's cruel. But being that if the proverbial gun were put to people's heads here and they were forced to choose left or right, they'd most of them pick left.

I think the tendency to align Obama, liberal, left (all these fucking words are devoid of pragmatic meaning by the way) is sort of understandable, based mostly on cultural, geographical, experiential whatever bias. BUT to perpetually come back after being kicked in the goddamn teeth is nothing short of masochistic. Derrick Jensen has it locked down tight when he compares modern society at large to the phenomena of the Battered Women's Syndrome where they just cannot for the life of them seem to see a way out.

Personally, I've never voted. Not one time. Do I think that places me in a higher intellectual category? You're damn right it does...

Kidding. First time I didn't vote because I simply had better shit to do. Now I do consider it and realize I still have better shit to do.

However I do often wonder about what the connection might be between this quasi-cultural Battered Humans/Stockholm syndrome thing and how you view yourself in relation to the world PHYSICALLY. As Matt likes to point out there's a major, crucial link between your body and your attitude/outlook/functional capacity and my guess is that part of the reason we as a people continue to roll over and spread our cheeks is because we are in fact physically pathetic-----by and large.

Pushing 60% of the populace is obese. That right there pretty much substantiates half of my theory--namely the part where we are a weak, flaccid people. The rest of the theory is I admit mostly conjecture but for the love of christ it just drives me up the wall to see seemingly intelligent people continue, over and over and over to enable these shitheels at the top of the heap; to turn cheek for them; to turn a blind eye to the discrepancy between their words and acts; to crawl back to them making excuses all the while for their behavior.

'Oh he just does it when he's drunk.'

'Well I shouldn't have gotten him riled up.'

'That's just how things are.'

On and on. There is, after all-- and despite the religious co-opting of the term--such a thing as the human spirit. And frankly I think that's what lost at this point.

Fuck Dennis Kucinich, what about yourself? What the fuck do you stand for? That's the important question.

Of course, I already hear the pseudo intellectual, blase response. That one laden with just enough cynicism so as to sound authoritative, that says: "The system is what's fucked, it fucked us. So now we're fucked." Yeah, no shit. Ready yet to get on with it?

The system was always pretty much fucked. The only differences throughout history have been made by the strength/weakness and intelligence of common, normal people to finally and flatly refuse to bend over even one more time. That's why not once and for all divorcing yourself from the two party paradigm drives me up the wall. Returning to the 'gun to the head' scenario I think the proper response is to either let them blow your head off OR fight. The other responses are not really fit for the human spirit, they insult it, they degrade your own sense of self deep down and erode the pathways to trust and be trusted. You think that's too strong or dramatic? Then take a look at the motherfuckin stakes on the table presently--geopolitically or in your neighborhood---and make your case telling me it's not a matter of spirit. Tough case.

But you do what you like.

You sound a bit like me. Could you possibly be that smart? 

[kushtaka]

You are really a lost cause.  It's like trying to get through to a Cheney supporter.

You really believe that giving the government any more control over your life is a good idea. 

I had hard core Rethugs tell me the same thing about how we needed Homeland Security and the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretaps.

You are of the same delusion. 

That somehow if we give the Fed Gov more of our power, they will swoop in and fix everything.  (What was the last thing they fixed?)

It's just that you don't remember that the other party gets into power, and they should never have that much control over our lives. 

So tell me then, why does most of Europe have better health care than the US? Is it because they decided that private businesses and the free market would do a better job than the government?

A) They just happened to socialize their health care delivery system during the oil boom rather than at the end of it, like we are trying.

B) Their nations are the size of our States.  We could probably do it as efficiently as they are doing it at the State level.  This argument is probably moot though, since their systems are as bankrupt as our SS, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Actually most of them socialized medicine while they were trying to rebuild their utterly destroyed economies after World War II. They were in a much worse situation than we are now. In fact, many countries with a lot more debt, lower GDP per capita, etc, moved to Socialized Medicine during very VERY hard times. The UK was in the worst shape it had been in centuries when it developed the NHS and NHS actually saved their economy money and got people to work.

As for the size issue, I think it's irrelevant. It's about money per-person and any system like this can scale. Most of the infrastructure is already in place. There are plenty of hospitals, doctors, and health care institutions around already. Many doctors argue (the Coffee Party for example) that without socializing medicine the cost will continue to go up and will eventually make our economic situation much worse.
Ralph Nader and many others have spent a lot of time researching this subject and the overall economic impact of rising costs and an aging public. I think what they have to say is much more accurate than the typical non-sense coming out of the teabaggers.

What does that have to do with them accidentally starting it during the Oil Boom?  What you are missing is that this National Health care idea can only work if we are stealing a good amount of resources from the third world.    Not to mention that most of their Social programs are bringing their economies to the brink also.  Check out Greece.

The size issue is not irrelavent.  Which of our current social programs hasen't been broken by the Fed Gov?  These don't scale which is proven by the fact that they are all broke.

Oh come on! Greece is crumbling because of Goldman and Sac's! It has nothing to do with social programs! That's pro-bank propaganda!

I don't agree with that. Nader and team's research has shown that socialized medicine will be much cheaper and more efficient on our society as a whole. If anything, going to socialized medicine would CUT COSTS in the face of crumbling resources.

I also think you're completely missing the trees in the forest of social programs. The social programs are not 'bankrupt'... How could they be? They don't make any money. They are broke because their funds are diverted to the war effort or some other massive cost cow or they were not budgeted properly in the first place. If the budget is $60,000 and a social program needs $100 to survive and the government only gives it $20 because it's wants to spend $59,080 on blowing up children in foreign countries you cannot say that program failed. The funding didn't come, the program never had a chance. That's what these slimy politicians do - they call a program a failure after they purposely starve it... It's total bullshit.

[kushtaka]

Also to point out, Cuba is the poster child for Peak Oil (they were completely starved of energy) and yet... they maintained a working socialized medical program right through it....

I think you're missing the point HighStreet, socialized medicine is cheaper, more efficient and more resilient than private for-profit programs. It actually works better in a scenario like ours.