Obama’s Health Care Reform policy.

I knew this day would come. Organize for America has “activated” our Democracy for America chapter, even going as far as to give us instruction on when and how to organize pro-health care reform “parties”. Of course we couldn’t carry out these instructions, even if we wanted to, and despite spending the past two months preparing to do exactly this. Largely do to the fact that their instructions are a) unworkable given our limited resources, and b) completely superfluous and pointless.

But my question in specific can and should DFA-Wichita support Obama’s reform policy? (Yes, we are taking this very seriously.) We are prepared to “withhold our support” or even to oppose Obama on health care reform, but if we take such an action, we need to get out ducks in a row and spell out why, and index our concerns and/or objections.

My first stop in researching this question will be here at PI, where we have assembled the finest and largest population of Obama skeptics that I know of. For your perusal, I submit two youtube videos I have found on the subject, all though they don’t offer much to go on. (Please refrain from jeering, its not helpful.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvJmGHoy04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggVSAPt-HY
Taken from this search list;
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=health+care+reform+obama&aq=0&oq=Health+care+reform

Problem #1: The lack of actionable material.
As near as I can find, the only current health care reform plans available on the net are holdovers from the campaign. I have already dissembled much of this rhetoric (I think I will see if I can dig any of this out of my hard drive.) All we have to work with are promises and goals, but as yet no mechanics behind the policy. The progressive blogging group seems to concur with the lack of material, writing from roomers and leaks.

Obama’s 3 Principles for Real Health Care Reform: Fist, the rising cost of health care must be brought down. Second, American’s should be free to keep what ever Doctor or Health Care plan they have, or to choose a new doctor and health care plan that they want. Third, all Americans must have access to quality and affordable health care.

This is of course typical of Centrist Democrat strategies. “Just trust us, and do as you are told.”

Problem #2: The apparent reliance on “market based reforms.”
So called “market based reforms” is something else I have worked on, noting that Obama invoked them frequently on the campaign trail. So it should be no surprise that the few leaks about reform polity are centered on market centric initiatives.

One of the more disturbing leaks is the starting of a “health care exchange,” that is providers of health care insurance will “sell” insurance shares on a Wall Street style market, with individuals and clients buying insurance like how one buys stocks. Dose this sound familiar? It should, this W’s Medical Savings Accounts on fiscal steroids. The problem is that this is only roomer; nothing I can find on the net can confirm or deny that this is a part of Obama’s policy, or if it didn’t get tacked on by a DINO down the line some where.

But it dose have the right ring of desperations to be true. I am speculating that one reason why so many “health care reform opponents” are suddenly on board is because the Health Care Exchange has been placed on the table.

If this is true, than Obama’s health care reform will be the largest betrayal yet, and absolutely something that we can not support.

There will be a lot more on it, but it will boil down to The Oligarchy Rules vs how to get blood out of turnips.

How does anyone with any sense take Obomem as a representative of the general welfare or justice or peace? Just how?

We need to build the case against Obama's reform strategy. If we haven't built the case, we can't win the debate.

Go cry with the mourning.
The oligarchy owns the air.

I found this interesting propaganda piece.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYC2DJWU41s

Eating dinner. lol

CND, there is absolutely no reason to have private health care industry people involved at all. What do they have to do with anything? Nothing good can possibly come from them being involved.

Obama is talking about solving the problems of the health care industry, not the people. Their problem? They want to keep making oodles of cash, and not have the peons revolt and demand public health care. Why would any of us want to help them solve their problem?

How did the discussion become so confusing and convoluted? Whom does that serve?

And Obombem has been done in big picture after big picture. We just came out of an election. The subject will have a trickle of threads like everything else and not much will really get said at one time because everything important has been said a dozen times in all kinds of ways.

Most threads get little response and health care is no different. There are not very many of us here.

I think the Mike Adams move to Ecuador is significant, but there is no urgency to bring that up until somebody wants to talk about migration for purposes of health, health freedom, and health care. There are people here that know about the Mike Adams move but have just not worked it in, especially knowing people that follow Mike Adams and NaturalNews already know and the rest won't really care.

It all begs the question, what else is there to say?

Isn't it amazing? we are still talking about torture, about the wars, about detention, about the Wall Street bail outs, about DADT and EFCA, as though there were anything to debate.

As you say - it has all been done.

The fact that privet health care is already heavily involved in the system. It’s a lot easer to work with what is around you, than to come up with something else from scratch. You can’t build a house of stone if no stone is available to build with. Dispute all its flaws, we are surrounded by already existing privet operations. It will be easier to evolve the current systems, than to manufacture a new system from scratch. Not impossible mind you, just much harder.

See Medicare Bill of 2003 and medical fascism. I gave you the short answer. Industry would love universal health insurance. The problem is nobody can afford the medical system and the system does not work. If people are healthy, why do they need so many pills.

Unfortunately, the progressive community again falling down on the job. I have encounter the sentiment “been their, done that” before, but I don’t think its representative of progressive shortcomings.

The must likely culprit is “DLC take over.” As Obama campaigned for the White House, many of the liberal and progressive retooled from an advocacy mode, to grass roots volunteer mode. From their, they are eaten alive by the DLC which dismantles and consumes their resources, and exploits the good will of its members. New members, who are not critical or skeptical of Obama policies, become DLC minions. Those who are skeptical and critical are quickly outnumbers by the minions, and are either pushed into obscurity if not pushed out of the organization all together.

This is currently where DFA is at. We worked hard to get Obama elected (Actually, we here at DFA Wichita didn’t, instead focusing our efforts on neglected Democrats running for lower offices) and now campaigns such as for health care are slowly dismantling our resources. That’s why I am trying to examine the Obama health care strategy, to build a case for and/or against supporting the initiative.

In the mean time, just as the last youtube video shows, disinformation continues to be extremely prolific. And right now, they are thriving without the skeptical voice.

Going into the research in box.

Is the highway robber involved in the transportation system?

What is it that you think needs to be come up with from scratch? Nurses, doctors, techs are all in place. Nothing changes there.

You go to your doctor just as you do now. Nothing changes there.

What is it that you think we need to keep, and that you are protecting?

I guess it depends upon what you see as "the health care system." Corporations, insurance companies, investors, Wall Street? What do they have to do with health care?

Would you not have started a public school system, because we already had a private system and you didn't want to start from scratch? Would you let the owners of private schools set up the public system, because they were already in the education system? Would you worry about taking care of them at all when you set up a public education system? Why?

What I meant was that there should be no controversy here about this.
Taking it to the public - that job is never done.

For there to be “no controversy”, this implies that a community has arrived at a consensus about a universal concept; such as how there is no “controversy” regarding evolution. The scientific community has arrived at a consensus regarding the theory of evolution a long time ago.

For health care, I submit to you that there is no such consensus to point to; but also that there isn’t much of a health care reform community with which to look to for this consensus. For one thing, as you look to different countries and how they have done their health care, you find that there is a huge diversity in health care systems and how they operate. While no system is 100% perfect, by in large part, most of them work respectably well. Because there is no inevitable plan for us to arrive at, there is a great deal of legitimate debate that needs to take place regarding how our new system will operate. Will it be more scholastic, like Japan’s, or will it be more of a privet system, like Germany’s?

I also submit to you that there is no such consensus regarding health care reform, largely because non-industry voices have been shut out of the debate; not just in the media, but in congress as well. It was hoped (foolishly as it tuned out) that Obama would kick open the doors to let in the forbidden ideas such as universal coverage and de-marketeering the industry (Which would make our existing system more like Germany’s.)

As a result, the only thing that remains is the well published industry consensus regarding health care reform. (Such as the youtube examples I posted above.). This consensuses falls along three conclusions:

1. To have the states and Federal Government pay for more coverage. In other words, buy more inexpensive insurance that an ever growing segment of the population can no longer to buy for them selves.

2. T0 have the states and Federal Government “invest” in new technologies to “stream line the bureaucracy,” with the misplaced hope that this will bring down costs. This has been tried before, and the only thing is usually results in, is higher profit margins for the insurance industry as complexity and costs of the system continue to grow.

3. To have the states and Federal Government actively promote the insurance industry. This is promises through “clearing houses” our “exchanges”, where consumers can compare each plan side by side and pick the best plan. This has also been done before through Medicare Part D, which only mandated consumers wade there way an ocean of worthless statistics and pointless minutia to select plans that are not really all that different from each other.

These are the problems we have to respond directly too. And I do have direct experience regarding this as I have assisted Walt Chappell with his health care campaign. (You can see the results on my youtube page, DFAWichita.

Agreed. The community has not arrived at a consensus. I am expressing amazement that this is the case, and saying that I do not think anything could possibly change that.

There is consensus among the general public as to what they want.

I do not agree with your presentation of the areas that are important or need to be addressed. They are basically ways to avoid taking a stand for or advocating single payer - objections and considerations and mitigating factors. All of those objections have been addressed. I do not know what else could be said or done. Those who are still fighting against single payer are not persuadable, in my opinion. But they are in the minority - until and unless they can confuse and scare the public into supporting their positions.

I do not understand how you can claim to be talking about a public health care program and then try to lead the discussion into "industry consensus regarding health care reform."

Let's ask the foxes for their advice on hen house renovation while we are at it.

Do you or do you not support a public health care program? That has nothing to do with industry or insurance, any more than Social Security or public education do.

I think single payer health care is dead with this administration and will not happen. So be it. The discussion you want to have feels like an invitation to play with the corpse of a loved one, and invite the person who murdered them to the party.

The public is already convinced that single payer is the way to go, overwhelmingly so. The largely upscale and conservative party loyalists, sycophants and cheer leaders will never be convinced, no matter what we say - they are playing games with us - and they are working their asses off to defeat us and thwart the people's will. They will probably win.

I think what you are asking us to do is to pretend that whatever the Dems - on behalf of corporate industry and big money finance - are trying to float and call "health care reform" is actually a public health care plan, when it is not, or else you want us to stop telling the truth about it, or hope to confuse anyone who might be listening to us. Those are not going to happen, at least not with me.

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/




here is an example...

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/april/the-top-10-enemies-of-single-payer.html

The Top 10 Enemies of Single-Payer

By Russell Mokhiber
CounterPunch.org
April 16, 2009

The Profiteers of Suffering

Most people, when they arrive in Washington, D.C., see it for what it is – a cesspool of corruption.

Two reasonable reactions to the cesspool.

One, run away screaming in fear.

Two, stay and fight back and bring to justice those who have corrupted our democracy.

Unfortunately, many choose a third way – stay and be transformed.

Instead of seeing a cesspool, they begin seeing a hot tub.

The result – profits and wealth for the corporate elite – death, disease and destruction for the American people.

Nowhere does this corrupt, calculating transformation do more damage than in the area of health care.

Outside the beltway cesspool/hot tub, the majority of doctors, nurses, small businesses, health economists, and the majority of the American people – according to recent polls – want a Canadian-style, single payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital, national health insurance system.

Inside the beltway cesspool/hot tub, the corrupt elite will have none of it.

They won’t even put single payer on the table for discussion.

Why not?

Because it will bring a harsh justice – the death penalty – to their buddies in the multi-billion dollar private health insurance industry.

The will of the American people is being held up by a handful of organizations and individuals who profit off the suffering of the masses.

And the will of the American people will not be done until this criminal elite is confronted and defeated.

(Remember, virtually the entire industrialized world – save for us, the U.S. – makes it a crime to allow for-profit health insurance corporations to make money selling basic health insurance.)

Before we confront and defeat the inside the beltway cesspool/hot tub crowd, we must first know who they are.

To wit, we present the Top Ten Enemies of Single Payer (listed here in alphabetical order):

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).

AARP, one of DC’s most powerful lobbying groups, has worked inside the beltway for years to defeat single payer. Why? AARP makes about a quarter of its money selling insurance through its affiliate, United Healthcare Group, the nation’s largest for-profit insurance company. AARP must defeat single payer – which if enacted, would wipe out that revenue stream.

American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

The private health insurance industry. Public enemy number one. The health insurance corporations must die so that the American people can live. Of course, facing the death penalty, AHIP is the most aggressive opponent to single payer. No compromise with AHIP.

American Medical Association.

With a shrinking base of doctors (only 25 percent of doctors nationwide belong) – the AMA is the most conservative of the doctors’ organizations. I just returned from a health care policy forum at the Center for American Progress. As usual, not one of the panelists mentioned single payer. Only during the question period did a self-identified patient/citizen ask the single payer question. And a pit bull-like Nancy Nielsen, president of the AMA, ripped into the questioner. “Sounds more like a statement than a question,” Nielsen said. “And clearly you have a point of view about that. And I don’t happen to share that point of view.” Clearly she doesn’t. But just as clearly, the majority of doctors, probably even a majority of doctors who belong to the AMA, support single payer. Nielsen is in denial and must be defeated.

Barack Obama.

He was for it when he was a state Senator in Illinois. Now, ensconced in the corporate prison that is the White House, he says single payer is off the table. To get off the list, Obama needs to put single payer back on the table.

Business Roundtable.

Dr. David Himmelstein, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), was at a health care forum a couple of years ago sponsored by the Business Roundtable. And the moderator asked the audience – made up primarily of representatives of big business – to indicate their preference of health care reforms. And the majority came out in favor of single payer. Why then is the Business Roundtable opposed? Himmelstein put it this way: “In private, they support single payer, but they’re also thinking – if you can take away someone else’s business – the insurance companies’ business – you can take away mine. Also, if workers go on strike, I want them to lose their health insurance. And it’s also a cultural thing – we don’t do that kind of thing in this country.”

Families USA.

A major inside the beltway liberal foundation and long-time foe of single payer. It’s chief executive, Ron Pollack, was once an advocate for single payer. But no more. In November 1991, Pollack was at a Washington hotel debating Yale University professor Ted Marmor in front of then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Marmor was making the argument for single payer. Pollack against. A November 1994 article in the Washington Monthly, co-authored by Marmor, reported the result this way: “After the two advocates finished, Clinton looked thoughtful, pointed to Marmor and said, ‘Ted, you win the argument.’ But gesturing to Pollack, Marmor recalls, the governor quickly added, ‘But we’re going to do what he says.’ Even considering the Canadian system, everyone in the room agreed, would prompt GOP cries of ‘socialized medicine’ – cries that the press would faithfully report.”

Health Care for American Now.

The largest coalition of liberal groups promoting a choice between a public plan and private insurance companies. “They are saying – we can’t do single payer because Americans don’t want it,” said Kip Sullivan of the Minnesota chapter of PNHP. “That’s based on junk research conducted by Celinda Lake for the Herndon Alliance. It is bad enough to say we can’t do single payer because the insurance industry is too powerful to beat. But it is just plain insidious to say we can’t do single payer because the American people don’t want it. In fact, polling data indicates that two-thirds of Americans support a single payer system. And that level of support exists despite the fact that there is little public discussion about it.”

Kaiser Family Foundation.

One of the most prestigious liberal inside the beltway think tanks on health reform policy. Saul Friedman is a reporter for Newsday. In February, Friedman wrote an article for Newsday arguing that single payer is suffering from a conspiracy of silence. And he says Kaiser is the most culpable of the co-conpsirators. Kaiser, funded initially by insurance industry money, regularly keeps single payer off the table, Friedman says. When single payer advocates released a study in January asserting that Congressman John Conyers’ single payer bill (HR 676) could create 2.6 million new jobs and would cost far less than the private insurance currently paid for by individuals and employers, “the Kaiser Family Foundation’s daily online report on health care developments at kff.org didn’t mention it,” Friedman reported. “Nor has Kaiser, the most comprehensive online source of health care information, made any mention of single-payer or the Conyers bill since it was introduced in 2003, despite widespread support for such a

plan according to Kaiser’s own polls.” After a number of insistent inquiries, Kaiser told Friedman that they would publish charts in March comparing the Stark and Conyers bills. They never did.

The Lewin Group.

The go-to consulting firm for health reform studies. The most recent study, released last week and widely quoted in the press, of the public plan option, showed that the insurance industry would lose 32 million policy holders if a public plan is enacted. Lewin’s health reform policy guru, John Sheils, told the Associated Press: “The private insurance industry might just fizzle out altogether.” What the mainstream press didn’t report was that The Lewin Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingenix, which is in turn owned by UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health insurance corporation. Lewin Group has conducted studies on single payer at the state level – and their studies consistently show that single payer is the most efficient cost saving system. But Lewin Group has never done a study on HR 676 – which would create a single payer for the entire country and drive The Lewin Group’s parent – UnitedHealth Group– out of business. When asked why Lewin Group never has done a study on HR 676, Sheils said –

“the President didn’t propose single payer, did he?” No, he didn’t. That’s why he too is on this list. (Sheils says The Lewin Group has studied national single payer. He points to a recent comparison of the different health reform proposals floating on Capitol Hill – including one by Congressman Pete Stark (D-California). Stark’s bill would give every American the option of opting into Medicare. But that’s not single payer, because it keeps the private insurance industry in the game. Sheils counters that he modeled the Stark bill as single-payer. “The employer coverage option under the Stark bill is made so unfavorable that no employer would do it. We have everyone in Medicare, with the resulting savings.” Sheils says that of all the plans studied, the Stark bill saves the most money.)

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PHRMA).

PHRMA chief executive Billy Tauzin says that under single payer, the government would become a “price fixer.” By which he means, the government, as a single payer, will have the power to negotiate drug prices downward, thus costing the drug corporations millions in excess profits. In recent years, PHRMA has infiltrated liberal sounding groups like America’s Agenda – Health Care for All. PHRMA’s Vice President for Government Affairs and Law, Jan Faiks, now sits on the board of America’s Agenda and PHRMA contributes money to the group – which has worked in recent years to undermine single payer at the state level. (America’s Agenda Mark Blum won’t say how much money PHRMA gives to his group.)

We have met the enemy.

And they ain’t us.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of Corporate Crime Reporter and founder of singlepayeraction.org

For Immediate Release
January 14, 2009


Tell-a-Friend


First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages

Establishing a national single-payer style healthcare reform system would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study released today. It may be viewed at www.CalNurses.org.

The number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008.

http://www.calnurses.org/assets/images/home-page-banners/ihsp_sp_economic_job_growth_370.gif

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/january/first-of-its-kind-study-medicare-for-all-single-payer-reform-would-be-major-stimulus-for-economy-with-2-6-million-new-jobs-317-billion-in-business-revenue-100-billion-in-wages.html

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=378

which pretty much says it all about our crappy 'choice'

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/may/canadas_healthcare_.php

<snip>

“I want insurance for what could happen in the future — just in case,” she said. “That’s what insurance is for. But I can’t get it.”

I don’t blame Aetna or Anthem. If you offer health insurance as a for-profit business, it goes without saying that you’ll do everything you can to avoid making payouts. That means you’ll shun anyone with even a whiff of medical trouble.

But this is no way to run an insurance system, let alone to protect people from financial ruin due to catastrophic events such as being sent to the hospital by a drunk driver.

The Obama administration has already rejected the idea of a single-payer system similar to Canada’s — a mistake, in my opinion. Instead, it wants a smaller public program that would compete with private insurers and keep costs down.

Private insurers, not surprisingly, are lobbying aggressively to kill off that idea. They’d rather have a national mandate that would require all Americans to buy their product.

In return, they say, they’d stop sending rejection letters to people like Yount with preexisting conditions. But policyholders would still be subject to the companies’ various terms and conditions.

Maybe one compromise would be to let private insurers handle the small stuff and to have a public program that could tackle the catastrophic stuff.

I asked Yount what would have happened if she’d gotten into her accident in Southern California instead of Nova Scotia.

“I can’t say whether my care would have been better or worse,” she replied. “But I know this: I’d be bankrupt now.”

“I’m not a religious person,” Yount added. “But I thank God my accident happened where it did.”

David Lazarus’ column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com.

Good work. I am weary. Glad to see you are trudging on. You are a national treasure.

and if I remember correctly, lc has a diabetic son, so I am sure this issue is front and center for her.

damn shame about the distribution of wealth, not to mention income.
Maybe these things are worth mentioning?

It is a thoughtherding process and no fucking debate. Remember the no single-payer advocate at the congressional meeting.

The first thing you have to do is speak of conclusions. Obomem is the Chief Overseer of the Oligarchy. You are there or you are wrong. Debate all you want. Let their thoughtherding be met and be hit with the big conclusions that are true of our rule.

I've realized that much.

I will continue to pressure for singlepayer healthcare.

:DonQuixoteTiltingAtWindmills: smiley

I was the social worker that never gave up when I needed to get a family housing - until I got the family housing.

;)

If lc has a diabetic son, that makes the issue front and center for me.

I don't like the way we are painted into the corner by people saying "oh, I see. That issue is personally important to you" which then can lead to important matters of social justice being trivialized as "your cause" or "your pony" or whatever, and then people are lectured on "priorities" and how they need to "be patient."

As GLBTQ people were being isolated, marginalized, attacked and then banned at DU, I said "I am gay. Come after me."

"Whenever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Whenever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there... I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad an' - I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our folks eat the stuff they raise an' live in the houses they build-why, I'll be there."

I don't want to throw a number up, but two-thirds of people would be with you on single-payer health CARE. (Insurance is not care.)It is important to realize the power structure of the country has stopped that critical-to-life-and-happiness desire from happening.

We can sit here and agree on single-payer for the next hundred years and get up to 80% and it would not matter. Public opinion is not the controlling factor and the Lying Media will always call it controversy. We have no say and the Oligarchy is blind to what we call obvious.

Who is it you're debating? It is not anyone here that I could name, as collectively PIers seem to be an online conglomeration of single-payer Kucinich-lovers.

I am on Zoom Out Theory because where we go wrong is right at the start of our Personal Political Power Book. This is no democracy and we are ruled by oligarchs and heading toward totalitarianism. All debate is under that umbrella.

Single-payer is not on the table. It is not an option. Single-payer might be the only option with the democracy-believers, but it is not even an option.

There will be a lot written on this and it is another bankrupting factor as the medical industry examines the public carcass to see how it can get some remaining meat off those bones before that big day of recogning.

Congress has a debate. We are not in on it. Just watch the tube. I am sure it will be a good show with some good sound bites. The understanding of what is happening under yet another rape and pillaging bill under the guise of reform starts with understanding the power structure that rules us.

That is about all I can say. I am open to talk on the Political Power Structure- but I am not going to jump in and act like I watch The Purple Show or even give a shit about The Purple Show.

There are plenty of people here that were on full active at DU and read extensively on the industry victory that came with the passage of that bill.

Pelosi gave a good sinking-of-the-ship speech on the House floor as Rockefeller Medicine flexed its muscle. That is what we have here again but 5 pints have been sucked from the American body already by all the Tick Protection Rackets. Sure you want CARE and not Tick Protection Insurance, but that is what we have and it is to be improved for more profit.

It would be nice if we were bigger and did not rely on the efforts of a handful of people to get up for finding links. But if you followed the 2003 Pill Bill you might more fully understand how emotional this will be if you absorb everything and boil it down to the lessons.

It is very much Industry vs The Last Meat on the credit card. The bill is about profit when people don't have jobs. The national debt as a figurative chain can only be lengthened so far until it cannot be dragged.

The Evil Overseers will be fed lines and there will be some good lines. In 2003 Daschle said the bill was bad and everyone knew the magic $400 billion (The launch of Pull-a-big-number-out-of-the-hat) was bad too. He still voted for it saying that the Pukes would bring it back it was so bad. He could not have seen the debt explosion that changed the $5.73 trillion when Bushler stole office to twice that in less than 9 years. But Daschle had his great line memorized for the Evil Media to echo. It was great bullshit that went something like "We cannot let the imperfect stand in the way of the good."

If I were you and wanted to use PI, I would start a thread on the Medicare Pill Bill of 2003 and drive it with composition of what I learned applying intellectual gear on public health policy in Plantation/Occupied America.

===============

Part 2

There will be a great orchestration with this because it really means fortune to so many people pushing it. If you want single-payer my guess is that learning orchestration is more important that writing the Evil Purples of Congress.

BE HALF AN ASS- Get your significant other to be the other half. On your side logo on "Main" and on her half do "Entrance" and maybe a "Tax"and "Payer." If I showed up as Orchestrated Giant Prick, my prick would say "The Vast Treasonous Conspiracy Medical Plan." You form the ass and let the pricks find you- how is that?

There should be a wave of graphics when the Evil Media turns the Echo Chamber to The Vast Treasonous Conspiracy Medical Industry Profit Reform. (Saying "health" shows thoughtherding- it is a sickening misuse of definition) This is supposed to be railroaded through and get the money flowing before public opposition becomes vocal and visible. The soon-to-come wave of graphics would make a good thread.

I am soloist for The Song of The Sacred Grass: I must return to singing.

[b]Go cry with the mourning,
The Oligarchy owns the air.[b]

I have just met with my local leadership for DFA Wichita (of which I am apart), and we are in agreement, we are still skeptical of Osama’s yet unstated reform policy, and are alarmed with “market based solutions” found within his existing rhetoric. And, we will continue to demand universal access as demanded by Doctor Howard Dean’s proposal.

Dean’s plan is simple; remove any and all restrictions to enrolment to Medicare, regardless of income, status of employment, age, station, health, race, gender, or class. Those who are able to pay shall care the enrolment fees for those who can not pay. While this will not solve many of the problems found within the health care system, it will place the public in a commanding position, through the power of the health care purse found under Medicare. As of this writing, this is non-negotiable.

And we have a plan that perhaps every one here might consider following. On June 6th, Obama plans on holding a cost to cost “conference call” with hundreds of organizers. We will go their under the DFA banner to hear what Obama has to say, and make an effort to renew the demands for universal health care to the assembly.

And if universal care is not presented in some realistic form, we will publicly announce our opposition to the plan, and work for its defeat. We will do this to send a message to centrist Democrats such as Obama that we will no longer tolerate excuses or “comprises” to pro-industry politics. We will do this in hopes that a better bill, one that includes universal access, will take its place. And with any luck, we will get it on you-tube.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3665

Any webcam you buy in a major store is going to have software that makes it very easy to upload videos to YouTube and MySpace. You would probably enjoy video conferencing with Yahoo or even on Skype.

That kid that served you fries could probably tell you how easy it is. If you really have difficulty, I think we can help you with it.

Wireless webcams at Amazon sorted low to high- http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1243736311/ref=sr_st?keywords=wireless+webcam&rs=172282&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Awireless+webcam%2Ci%3Aelectronics%2Cn%3A172282%2Cn%3A!493964&sort=price

I was merely stating that I didn't want to give up and yield to those who want to preserve the status quo.

full and complete access to Medicare, for all, is the next best option.

I honestly did not think too much about the health care issue until it became personal for me. My husband's job is in the shitter and when he goes, so goes our health care coverage. I worry constantly now for my sons.