Skip to main content

Deadly serious deja vu here.

Time to go mano a mano with the right wing extremists determined to stick a knife in the back of the American Cancer Society.

First, some critical history about how the right wing killed the Clinton Health Plan in 1993/1994.

It's happening all over again. Today, they're targeting the the American Cancer Society. Tomorrow, as sure as day follows night, they'll be targeting all the Democratic healthcare reform plans.

This carefully orchestrated campaign of lies, deceit, fear, smears, swiftboating and disinformation is being led by the very same people who crushed the 1993 Clinton Reform Plan.

Please keep the name Elizabeth McCaughey in mind as you read.

This is an excerpt from a JONI (Journal of Netroot Ideas) article which was written for YearlyKos by blue jersey mom about the campaign to defeat the 1993 Clinton Health Care Plan.

LOST OPPORTUNITY

The Harry and Louise ads were not the only sources of mis- and disinformation about the Clinton health care plan. Elizabeth ("Betsy") McCaughey wrote an allegedly non-partisan article about healthcare reform in the February 1994 issue of The New Republic. The article, titled titled "No Exit" claimed that the Clinton health care plan would make it illegal for an individual to pay cash to a doctor for services.

The claim was picked up by George Will in Newsweek and spread throughout the mainstream media. In fact, one of the first provisions of the Clinton Bill stated that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) an individual from purchasing any healthcare services."   McCaughey subsequently announced her intention to run for Lieutenant Governor in New York as a Republican.

Let's take a look at the lies--the old ones and the new ones. This is all they have left. The nation is collapsing after eight years of Republican crimes, corruption and malfeasance, so they resort to the tried and true remedy--frighten and mislead the American people.

Flash forward to 2007. Elizabeth McCaughey is still hard at work doing her dirty deeds.  She's written a similar screed denouncing universal healthcare, this time against the American Cancer Society. This time for the op ed page of the Wall Street Journal. She wants you to know that she's the right wing is against the newly announced American Cancer Society decision to devote its entire advertising budget to the collapse of our healthcare system. Please note: The op ed is behind the WSJ firewall, but here it is, in its entirety on a blog.

This is the same woman who as a fellow at the extremist right wing think tank  The Manhattan Institute wrote the legendary article, "No Exit," in The New Republic in 1993. In this article, she claimed to have read the entire Clinton health care plan and deduced myriad nightmare scenarios which would befall the American people were the plan to be signed into law. This is the same "Betsy McCaughey Ross" who, solely on the credential of having discredited the Clinton health care plan, was elected Lieutenant Governor of New York in 1995.

These were the 1993 lies. Please keep in mind the only bullet these people the extremist opposition has in its empty chamber is fear. But fear is a very potent and dangerous weapon. Fear worked in 1993. We cannot and will not allow that to happen again. What follows is a brief excerpt from Ms. McCaughey's 1993 lying manifesto  No Exit.

If you're not worried about the Clinton health bill,
keep reading. If the bill passes, you will have to settle
for one of the low-budget health plans selected
by the government. The law will prevent you from
going outside the system to buy basic health coverage
you think is better, even after you pay the matidatory
premium (see the bill, page 244). The bill guarantees
you a package of medical services, but you can't have
them unless they are deemed "necessary" and "appropriate"
(pages 90-91). That decision will be made by
the government, not by you and your doctor. Escaping
the system and paying out-of-pocket to see a specialist
for the tests and treatment you think you need will be
almost impossible. If you walk into a doctor's office and
ask for treatment for an illness, you must show proof
that you are enrolled in one of the health plans offered
by the government (pages 139, 143). The doctor can
be paid only by the plan, not by you (page 236). To
keep controls tight, the bill requires the doctor to
report your visit to a national data bank containing the
medical histories of all Americans (page 236).

Speaking of the Manhattan Institute, as a very incredible aside, does everyone know that  White House shill disgraced New York Times reporter Judy Miller is now an
adjunct fellow of this awful organization?
I wasn't aware of this until about ten minutes ago while I was checking out their web site.

Back to the courageous policy decision of the American Cancer Society.

This is the circa 2007 garbage from the same woman, Elizabeth McCaughey. Published in the Rupert Murdoch Wall Street Journal.

Last week the American Cancer Society announced it will no longer run ads about the dangers of smoking and other cancer-causing behaviors and the benefits of regular screenings. Instead, the Society will devote this year’s entire advertising budget to a campaign for universal health coverage. John Seffrin, the Society’s chief executive, said, "[I]f we don’t fix the health-care system . . . lack of access will be a bigger cancer killer than tobacco."

Sadly, these ads will waste money that should be used to continue the Society’s educational campaign about prevention and detection. The evidence shows that universal health coverage does not improve survival rates for cancer patients.

http://martygrn.wordpress.com/...

What follows is the letter to the editor from The American Cancer Society in response to Ms. McCaughey's predictable attack.

Cancer Society Was First To Issue Awareness Ads
September 24, 2007; Page A17
Betsy McCaughey ("Cancer Killers," editorial page, Sept. 14) says the American Cancer Society's new awareness campaign to make sure all Americans have access to quality health care would be better spent educating Americans about cancer prevention and early detection. The society was the first traditional health charity to engage in paid advertising and, to be sure, for years our ad budget, which is less than 2% our revenues, was spent raising awareness of things such as colorectal cancer and breast cancer screenings and tobacco prevention. These and other efforts to emphasize the lifesaving benefits of prevention and early detection measures have proven effective. But they are not enough.

Today, 47 million Americans lack health insurance, and untold millions of others have insurance that will prove inadequate when faced with a diagnosis of cancer or another major illness. Research proves that people without insurance are more likely to be diagnosed at advanced and less curable stages of cancer. That's why we've launched a nationwide public education and awareness campaign this month. We support a health-care system that gives all Americans access to prevention, early detection and treatment services. We openly acknowledge that such a system can be achieved in different ways. Our objective is to help define what the country needs and to encourage an open and productive dialogue about how to achieve it. The solution could be private, public or some combination of the two. What we are certain of is that the answer should be in the hands of the American people, and that elected officials must take the lead and work with all concerned to find an answer that saves more lives from cancer and improves our health-care system.

Richard C. Wender, M.D.
National Volunteer President
American Cancer Society
Los Angeles

http://online.wsj.com/...

I'll leave you with this.

Elizabeth McCaughey is now a "scholar" at another extremist think tank, The Hudson Institute.  The Hudson Institute prominently announces on its web site things like celebratory dinners featuring Bill O'Reilly.

Originally posted to nyceve on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:01 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Like night follows day . . . (207+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clio, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, zzyzx, vicki, miriam, Upper West, eugene, vivacia, SarahLee, Cali Scribe, Powered Grace, Spinster, Shockwave, Sherri in TX, Xan, jakbeau, Byron from Denver, Lainie, GayHillbilly, John Campanelli, rlamoureux, TarheelDem, caliberal, RFK Lives, Carnacki, Norwegian Chef, DBJ, PanzerMensch, musicsleuth, RubDMC, loudGizmo, opinionated, joyous, monkeybiz, bronte17, Nellcote, sfgb, KibbutzAmiad, CoolOnion, RabidNation, Dont Just Stand There, Glic, roses, Ignacio Magaloni, Boston to Salem, Miss Blue, ClickerMel, bustacap, antirove, NMRed, slippytoad, psnyder, Dallasdoc, bogdanmi, Samer, Caldonia, defluxion10, mcfly, snakelass, annetteboardman, lcrp, Brian82, bwintx, zerelda, lurker123, AlwaysDemocrat, xxdr zombiexx, Demfem, macmcd, vivens fons, TexH, Gowrie Gal, sxwarren, rapala, madaprn, G2geek, maybeeso in michigan, tribalecho, Bluesee, denise b, el dorado gal, Alegre, Chinton, PBen, Alice Venturi, Simplify, ChemBob, catleigh, Brooke In Seattle, reflectionsv37, fixxit, Heartcutter, Pam from Calif, Sharon in MD, Buffalo Girl, Overseas, blue jersey mom, illyia, wiscmass, serrano, dsteffen, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, playtonjr, Ekaterin, Dania Audax, noweasels, martini, gwilson, New Deal democrat, Sura 109, sherlyle, virgomusic, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, stonemason, Gorette, Hear Our Voices, Mensor, Naniboujou, arlene, dewey of the desert, chainsaw mary, Partially Impartial, kck, aepm, Aly, Lashe, gatorcog, Crashing Vor, condoleaser, DSPS owl, real world chick, happy camper, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Preston S, myrealname, ER Doc, droogie6655321, means are the ends, frankzappatista, Dreaming of Better Days, NYPopulist, MadMs, AmySmith, Bernie68, sea note, mapman, illusionmajik, AndrewOG, OHdog, Aaa T Tudeattack, goon 01, AmericanRiverCanyon, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, DrSteveB, LakersFan, donnamarie, Cronesense, Cocker Mom, bxu2fan, moodyinsavannah, army193, NovatoBon, FishOutofWater, Nespolo, Owllwoman, Ninepatch, drchelo, masslib, lizpolaris, millwood, pioneer111, madgranny, scardanelli, feelingsickinMN, sable, Bikemom, willb48, Lena, TomP, MKinTN, Light Emitting Pickle, TheSilence, zerone, dave1042, Judge Moonbox, wagdog, beltane, pamelabrown, dewley notid, MsWings, NogodsnomastersMary, Tam in CA, Pitias, moneysmith, Chrispy67, Readrock, echatwa, DixieDishrag, junta0201, Tennessee Dave, Chad Michaels, El Yoss

    This begins a careful and well-executed roll out of their campaign of lies and deceit to turn the American people against all the Democratic healthcare reform proposals.

      •  I just can't understand (27+ / 0-)

        Why they think this is a good thing?  It is like keeping a population uneducated by taking away public education.  Who does this benefit in the long run.  Shooting themselves in the food, when we are worried about plagues, epidemics spreading with people not going to the doctor, emergency rooms shutting down because if you have one you HAVE to take people who come in, etc.  Who does this benefit?  Or am I expecting rational thought where none exists?

        •  typos galore (15+ / 0-)

          I meant "shooting themselves in the foot" as "shooting themselves in the food" really makes no sense.  I guess I need another cup of coffee and then to go to work, where I can mess up other peoples' views of what the English language can do for you...

        •  You're expecting rational thought where... (18+ / 0-)

          none exists.  ExxonMobil making record profits while a war that was initiated, at least in part, for its benefit becomes a serious drain on the treasury, is not rational.  Letting a great American city literally drown and then not doing much to help it recover is not rational.  Ignoring global warming is not rational.

          Slavery was not rational.  Engaging in a ruinous war that destroyed much of your "nation" in a vain attempt to maintain slavery was the height of irrationality.  The century of segregation that followed was not rational.

          Hoover's attempt to cure the Depression by balancing the budget was irrational.  Maintaining laissez faire while a Bonus Army was marching on DC and people were living in shacks was even more irrational.  Rich people complaining as FDR saved capitalism in this country was the height of irrationality.

          W/ all due respect to Al Gore's fine book, reason has often not prevailed in American public policy.  I hope to God that it will start prevailing on occasion come 2009.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:51:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Civil War was about states' rights, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Philpm, Aaa T Tudeattack

            not

            a ruinous war that destroyed much of your "nation" in a vain attempt to maintain slavery was the height of irrationality.

            The North had no problem with slavery, Northern companies were the ones that brought the slaves over in the first place, and made good money doing it. The Civil War was over how much control the Federal government had over the states and the states' rights to make their own laws. Slavery and abolition ended up being the "hot buttons", but only after the war started. Freeing slaves was never what the Civil War was about until the Union decided they needed that platform to get support for the war. Until after the Civil War, most Northern states had laws requiring slaves to be returned to their owners if they could be caught and identified. Why do you think the Underground Railroad went to Canada?? Because the North wasn't a safe haven for slaves.

            What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

            by Demfem on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:30:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fugitive Slave Law disproves Slavery apoligism. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RFK Lives, Samer, homogenius, TKK

              The Civil War was over how much control the Federal government had over the states and the states' rights to make their own laws.

              Do you expect us to believe that South Carolina seceded because they wanted to protect Massachusetts's right to resist the Fugitive Slave Law???? Anyone who really knows the politics that led up to the Civil War knows that the FSL was a far grosser violation of "States' Rights" than anything the abolitionists wanted that had a remote chance of getting through Congress.

              The North had no problem with slavery, Northern companies were the ones that brought the slaves over in the first place, and made good money doing it.

              Oh, the Poor Southerners! Forced to own slaves despite their consciences!

              GET REAL! The agitation prior to the Civil War was not in any sense pure, but Northern public opinion was coming to see that slavery was a threat to their own interests (especially in the territories), and Southern demands wouldn't grant any leeway.

              This amounts to the Wingnut riff that Liberals are not perfect, therefore we shouldn't object to the massive corruption that the Conservatives engage in. I find this highly objectionable.

              I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

              by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:48:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not saying the Southerners were right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Philpm

                I am saying that the self-righteous Northerners were just as responsible for slavery as the Southerners were. The major slave shippers were out of Boston, rum and slaves built some of the biggest shipping companies in the North. Slavery was the fault of everyone who either made use if it, profited from it or simply stood by and let it happen. So, everyone bore some of the responsibility for slavery, except the slaves.

                What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

                by Demfem on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:42:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, Please! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AmericanRiverCanyon

                  I am not saying the Southerners were right
                  I am saying that the self-righteous Northerners were just as responsible for slavery as the Southerners were.

                  Consider a head-on car crash. One of the drivers tries to avoid the collision but too late. If that driver had been speeding, does that absolve the other driver who did nothing to avoid the crash?

                  I will admit that there were some Northerners in the faction called "Cotton Whigs." Does that mean we should deny the "Conscience Whigs" (and "Free Soil Democrats") any credit for existing?

                  The North was gradually awakening to the evils of Slavery; and it sounds to me like you're saying that because they hadn't all finished breakfast and gone to work, we should hold them equally guilty.

                  Your argument was that the Civil War was about State's Rights, but your denigrating all Northerners for the fault of a fraction doesn't justify your conclusion. The South can't even be called hypocritical on the issue, they were only using it when it suited their agenda.

                  I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

                  by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:57:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  While that is somewhat fair, I do not know of any (0+ / 0-)

                  northern state or northern school that wants to maintain the "tokens" of slavery such as the confederate flag, KKK hoods, and nooses in trees as societal remnants of the good old days.  I cannot name specifics but I know people who proudly display these items and have read of lawsuits over the flag and nooses.

                  •  Hello?? What does that have to do with (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Philpm

                    the causes of the Civil War?? I don't know why people keep equating 1864 with 2007. What was normal behavior in past times is today unacceptable, that is the norm for the flow of history. To apply today's standards to something that happened 143 years ago is silly. Society has evolved, those people have devolved. The people who try to perpetuate the old racist standards are wrong. Every society has groups like that. In this country their unfortunate opinions are protected by the Constitution. So are yours. The fact that they are free to express them doesn't make them right, or palatable.

                    What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

                    by Demfem on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:05:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  States rights. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Judge Moonbox

              Yeah--conservatives are all about states rights--unless they're not. They don't seem to have a problem enforcing weaker federal consumer and environmental protections to preempt state regulations.

              I call trollshit on DemFem. Go back to your plantation, Scarlett.

              I live in hope that I will live long enough to piss on the grave of George W. Bush.

              by homogenius on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:25:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We were discussing the reasons for the Civil War (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annetteboardman, Philpm

                not today's problems with the conservatives. And the conservatives do pander to the Southern states' rights meme, starting campaigns in Philadelphia, Mississippi for instance. Here are a couple of interesting links on the Repug modern use of "states' rights".

                Wikipedia

                And here is an article by Jesse Jackson on Reagan and states' rights.

                And I am interested in history, accurate history. I do not like to befog the actual facts with emotional buzz words. That is how the Republicans operate, remember?

                What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

                by Demfem on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:50:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, trollshit. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Judge Moonbox

                  You are conflating the causes of slavery with the causes of the civil war. The North was giving up slavery. The South was not.

                  States rights absolutely is slavery apologism. Just because Northern interests contributed to the establishment and continuance of slavery does not excuse or justify Southern slavery or secession.

                  I live in hope that I will live long enough to piss on the grave of George W. Bush.

                  by homogenius on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:00:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Slavery was dying anyway (0+ / 0-)

                    When I took a Civil War history class in college, my instructor (one of the top Civil War historians in the country) laid out how in approximately 30 years from the time of the start of the war, slavery would have been abandoned in the South, as the main impetus behind it (the plantations) were becoming few and far between and only the largest plantation owners had slaves anyway.  The vast majority of southerners didn't have the means to own their own land, much less slaves.

                    You can call trollshit all you want on the state's rights argument, but most historians familiar with the issues behind the war will tell you you're wrong.

                    Not knowing what the hell you're doing does not absolve you of responsibility for doing it.

                    by Philpm on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:25:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Was this before or after Foner? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Philpm

                      When I took a Civil War history class in college, my instructor (one of the top Civil War historians in the country) laid out how in approximately 30 years from the time of the start of the war, slavery would have been abandoned in the South, as the main impetus behind it (the plantations) were becoming few and far between and only the largest plantation owners had slaves anyway.

                      I need to know the dates of your classes to judge this claim. A lot of our received History has been muddied by the apologists for Slavery.

                      Gabrielle Spiegel, incoming head of the American Historical Association, said in a Baltimore Sun profile that "History is actually not always written by the winners. I think that it is often the losers who write it because they feel the need to justify themselves, to claim a kind of ideological legitimacy. That is one of the great motives for doing history.

                      "Think about Southern history in America. That was impelled by a desire to understand their own past as losers in the Civil War. That loss was actually a great generator of history, a way to finally vindicate themselves."

                      While the North could move on to more present-day issues, Southerners maintained a sense of victimization that skewed their politics almost as badly as the Dolchstosslegende skewed Germany's in the 1930s.

                      The argument that slavery was dying doesn't make all that much sense because people weren't acting as though it was. The Southerners thought that if htey could get as many new slave states as free, they could deal with it in their sweet time; and the Northerners thought, "That may be true, but what becomes of us in the meantime?"

                      I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

                      by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:18:57 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This would have been around 1987-88 (0+ / 0-)

                        Not sure what your reference about Foner is, could you explain this further?

                        The argument that slavery was dying doesn't make all that much sense because people weren't acting as though it was. The Southerners thought that if htey could get as many new slave states as free, they could deal with it in their sweet time; and the Northerners thought, "That may be true, but what becomes of us in the meantime?"

                        I think the reason that weren't acting as thought slavery was ending was the fact that the South had an almost entirely agricultural focus with very little industry, most of which tended to be in the North.  If they thought the supply of slaves was limitless, they would continue, but the fact is, the supply wasn't limitless.  Shipments of slaves from Africa had already stopped by the time the war started, and the supply from the slaves already here was determined by how many children born to slaves survived childhood, which was also not enough to keep enough slaves around to perpetuate the system.  Hence, it was going to end on its own merits sooner rather than later.

                        Not knowing what the hell you're doing does not absolve you of responsibility for doing it.

                        by Philpm on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:27:12 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It took a while for the History profession... (0+ / 0-)

                          Not sure what your reference about Foner is, could you explain this further?

                          The received version of our history has been severely contaminated by Slavery apologists. Even after the Civil Rights struggle in the 1960s, it took a while for historians to get around to looking at the story from the point of view of Blacks and other Civil Rights workers. I am under the impression that Eric Foner's Reconstruction was the first major study to break through the logjam. I think I read some critiques of other books that mentioned Foner's impact, but I could be mistaken.

                          I think the reason that weren't acting as thought slavery was ending was the fact that the South had an almost entirely agricultural focus

                          The point is, they were acting on the assumption that slavery would go on. If Northerners could reassure themselves that Slavery would die out quietly, they  would not have turned Kansas into a battleground. If Southerners had accepted the inevitability of Slavery's demise, they would not have insisted that Dred Scott's owner had the right to drag him to Minnesota. It's because everyone thought slavery would go on that they thought they needed to protect their interest vis a vis the peculiar institution.

                          I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

                          by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:42:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, trollshit again... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Philpm

                      .... I did historical research on a small farm we owned in a border state in the mid eighties to the last 1990's.  There is no way this 40 acre hardscrabble farm could have been considered a "plantation" (trust me, we renovated the fracking house..., and I knew exactly how many animals the pastures could support, which wasn't that many considering the size of the place, and the topsoil was lousy)  yet the original stakeholders owned 6 slaves when I checked the census records.

                      Many other farms and families in the area also had slaves.

                      It was like having hired help or servants only with the added bonus you didn't have to pay them, only feed and provide very rudimentary shelter for them, and could sell them at will.   These owner people had a lot of children die at a very young age, so they just purchased their farm workers on the open free market. Harsh assessment, I know, but my God, some of the slave's ages (older children or younger teens)  were heartbreaking.

                      Fast forward to the present day. Slavery and human trafficking is alive and well.  The only difference is you don't have to pay them but enough money to barely feed themselves, half of the minimum wage,** don't have to provide shelter, they're on their own, and you can deport them at will. Where am I talking about? The US territory of the Commonwealth of the Marianas Islands.
                      Where "everybody" has a maid.

                      (**due to go up at an extremely slow pace by 50¢/hour increments per year)

                      The Civil War was an economic conflict which was fuel by part of the country using enslaved labor force with no citizenship rights, which could be bought or sold, which gave it somewhat of a unique financial advantage over the other part of the country in processing natural resources.  They used African Americans because they were easily identifiable in appearance (and most of the Natives had the bad habit of dying from imported diseases to which they had no resistance in the previous centuries)  So there was absolutely no incentive on the part of the slave owning states to change.  They would have used slaves in other business endeavors as their economies changed, if not forced by the Civil War to free them. BUT, the Civil War was ALSO a human rights conflict on what makes a person a human being and was also fought on those grounds.

                      So now you have the situation whereby workers are bound to many jobs because they just can't afford to lose their health insurance, with all this pre existing condition crap and waiting periods and sky high premiums, and they can't afford to go off on their own and start new businesses and self employed endeavors AND afford health care coverage at the same time.  
                      Which is similiar to being enslaved.

                      If you come from a poor background, or find yourself starting your adult worklife in a bad economic downturn, and the only job you can get with benefits for yourself and your family is to enlist in the military, or getting a government job, which latter may depend on your political affiliation, at least unofficially, then you again have the situation of being enslaved to a certain political ideology which may be based on a theological belief.

                      That "Manifest Destiny" stuff had a lot of apologists whom loved to quote the Bible. Still does, if you think of Bush's mid East policy of being a modern version.

                      This is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended when they created the separation of Church and State.  Monarchists used Religion to justify their actions against their subjects. Our country was supposed to be different.

                      Today the expression "state's rights" is ususally code talk by ultra conservatives for both closet racism, letting the listener know the person spouting it is a race supremist without the hassle of the white sheets, and also code talk for wanting to preserve a pay scale system of such inequalities that the gap between employer and employee creates conditions that are suppressing the freedom of the employee in being able to choose a better employer and a better way of life.  It's also code for absolute free market predatory practices without government regulation.  Oh, and it's basic southern for "we're still really pissed about loosing the Civil War."

                •  So why use the buzzphrase "States' Rights?" (0+ / 0-)

                  And I am interested in history, accurate history. I do not like to befog the actual facts with emotional buzz words.

                  That may be true, but it shines a harsher light on your inaccuracy. You may not like befogging the actual facts, but that didn't stop you.

                  Now, can you answer my question, "If the Civil War was about States' Rights, does that mean South Carolina seceded to insure that Massachusetts could ignore the Fugitive Slave Law?" Or is their something you're not saying that overrides your dislike of befogging?

                  I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

                  by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:01:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Demfem was making a reasonable (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Philpm, Aaa T Tudeattack

                (if off-topic) argument.  I don't see any trollishness.

                "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                by Reepicheep on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:42:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

              Don't buy it.  Had there not been slavery, there would have been no Civil War.  There was no other appreciable difference between Northern and Southern culture or law that anyone has ever been able to highlight that would have contributed as much as slavery did.

              Ergo, it was about slavery.  It cannot be dressed up into anything more noble than that.

              Olaf(upon what were once knees) does almost ceaselessly repeat "there is some shit I will not eat"

              by slippytoad on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:38:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Keeping the population uneducated (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SadTexan, Simplify

             ensures an ample supply of new Republicans.

          What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

          by happy camper on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:07:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Makes us easier to control. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CoolOnion

          Increases centralized power.
          Totally rational, if one is an authoritarian royalist.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:09:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Huge political benefits is why (6+ / 0-)

          The old line is that once a government program exists it's impossible to get rid of it, but once government program becomes popular it becomes another dreaded "third rail."  Remember the attempt to privatize social security was the first real blow Rove and Co. took to their entire political agenda.  

          Bill Kristol had it right way back when on this issue.  Government healthcare, once created, will never be undone.  Thus, another huge lift for the D's that like social security, will give them political benefits for generations to come.  The Norquistites cannot and will not accept this without a fight.  If we get national healthcare we will never politically lose on that issue. Americans will love the security of knowing they will always have healthcare - and that it will always be there for them.  The forces of the Right know they need to stop this before it gets enacted, so look for them to scare the life out of any mind feeble enough to believe their bullshit.

          The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

          by Dont Just Stand There on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:19:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ignorant people are easy to enslave (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mollyd, junta0201

          thats why the catholic church in the middle ages prevented  on pain of death anyone not a priest from having the Bible or even parts of the Bible,thats why Blacks where forbidden to learn much before and after the Civil War and look at now the republicans do their best to keep people from learning and becoming Enlightened when people know things and can think for themselves the people have the Power thats why the Republicans use ingnorance and fear like the old saying goes "when your scared you don't think straight",fear kills like in fires most of the deaths happens when from fear people panic instead of staying calm and thinking about what to do.I read of someone dying in a fire because they couldn't get the locked door to open and next to the door was a big plate glass window that he could have broke out and stepped out of and walked away from the fire and lived but in the fear and panic he could not think of any thing but opening the door.

        •  I agree with your point, but it occurs to me (0+ / 0-)

          there is some element of mental illness in this. The lying and destructiveness is not the product of healthy beings.

      •  If we had adopted Clintoncare in 94... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, Samer, MichiganGirl

        I think the point we should be making is that a lot of the trouble industries are facing is that they have to pay for their workers' and retirees' health care. If the government had taken over that responsibility, would Delta and USAirways have found it so difficult to reposition themselves in the face of new competition from the startup airlines? Would Big Auto and Big Steel have had so much trouble?

        The Right Wing is probably thinking that it serves those companies right for having been unionized, but they won't say that out loud; so we have an opportunity to argue that we tried to make things better but they resisted.

        I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

        by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:36:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The CEOs of GM, Chrysler, Ford, and Toyota (6+ / 0-)

          all petitioned to save Canada's universal health care when the Canadian government was considering doing away with it.

          They said that they pay $1400 per car in Health benefits for their employees in the US and Canada's healthcare was a big incentive to do business in Canada.

          I had never even heard about that until last week. After the tens of thousands of Michigan jobs that were lost because of the trade agreements, I was shocked that I hadn't heard about this when it happened several  years ago.

          I guarantee you that if the manufacturers would have let the US workers know that providing health benefits was too expensive, so they were moving to a country with universal health care.... The American people would have made damned sure that we got universal health care.

          The state of Michigan has been decimated by this and we never heard this? WTF? This should have been frontpage news of every Michigan Newspaper, instead though... Not a peep. I wonder why Canadian papers reported about this and Michigan papers didn't?

          "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

          by MichiganGirl on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:54:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DSPS owl, MichiganGirl, Judge Moonbox

            I really think that big business may turn out to be our most important ally in the health care debate.

            •  IMO little businesses would do the same. n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DSPS owl, MichiganGirl

              "One can always burn a cross in the sanctity of one's bedroom." Supreme Court Justice Scalia 9/21/7

              by sailmaker on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:31:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I have never gotten why businesses that have (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SadTexan, MichiganGirl

              supported Republicans were so opposed to a Universal Health Care system when it would take the burden of health care benefits away from them in exchange for taxes. I am sure that the differences in the amount of money would be neglible. I can only surmise that their hatred of taxes no matter what they are for are just so ingrained in them that they cannot see "the forest for the trees". Unfortunetly the way that health care expenses are going there will come a day when the whole system will just come to a gridlock. It scares the crap out of me personally. My husband and I are self employed and have to buy our insurance ourselves. We pay $366.00 per month for both of us for a PPO with a high deductable. What happens if we were to get a serious illness. Dropped like a hot rock that is what. So then what? Death!!! It has to be changed and fast. Why is it that the other industrialized nations have universal healthcare. IMO it is because they were where we are as a nation a lot sooner and realized they had to do something and were willing to do so.

              •  Because (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SadTexan, LucyTooners, MichiganGirl

                they don't want to pay taxes. They don't want to pay healthcare. They don't want to pay employees, if they could find a way to get out of paying them.

                They only want to pay CEOs and upper level management.

                Of course, CEOs and upper level management could go away tomorrow and if there were competent and skilled workers in every other level, the company would STILL make a profit.

                However, if the only workers left were CEOs and upper level management, there wouldn't BE a company.

              •  There's an interesting article about "why" (0+ / 0-)

                http://www.inthesetimes.com/... "GMs Healthcare Double Standard -- In These Times"

                GMs Healthcare Double Standard
                Bad ideology trumps good business
                By Dave Lindorff

                Canadian healthcare in action.
                Tags    corporations medical and health
                Share   Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine

                What a difference a border makes. General Motors executives say soaring health costs in their U.S. plants are forcing them to seek health benefits give-backs from unionized workers, yet they insist national healthcare is not an appropriate solution for America. As company spokeswoman Sherri Woodruff puts it, "GM thinks there has to be closer cooperation between the government and the private sector, but we don’t advocate a single-payer system for the U.S."

                Yet just across the Detroit River in Ontario, the company’s subsidiary—like the subsidiaries of Ford, DaimlerChrysler and other U.S. firms————strongly endorses Canada’s national health system.

                "The Canadian plan has been a significant advantage for investing in Canada," says GM Canada spokesman David Patterson, noting that in the United States, GM spends $1,400 per car on health benefits. Indeed, with the provinces sharing 75 percent of the cost of Canadian healthcare, it’s no surprise that GM, Ford and Chrysler have all been shifting car production across the border at such a rate that the name "Motor City" should belong to Windsor, not Detroit.

                ...

                How can the same corporations that in Canada recognize the bottom-line logic of a national health system be so opposed to the idea here?

                One answer is ideology. The notion of having the government take over an industry that represents about 15 percent of the U.S. economy gives U.S. executives the willies. But in backing insurance company interests, GM runs counter to both its own business interests and the sentiments of many customers.
                ...

                http://www.counterpunch.org/... "Dave Lindorff  What's Good for Canada is Good for GM"

                That politically motivated opposition, however, may be beginning to weaken-at least according to some unlikely proponents. While he doesn't advocate a wholesale appropriation of the Canadian model, Paul O'Neill, President George W. Bush's first Treasury secretary (he was fired during Bush's first term) and former CEO of Alcoa Corp., claims that "socializing" the cost of catastrophic insurance-the real bank-breaker in the healthcare cost crisis-is a likely prospect and should be supported by companies. "That employers are the primary providers of health benefits is an unfortunate accident of history," says O'Neill, who until recently served as CEO of the Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative, a health reform project in western Pennsylvania. "It dates from wage and price controls during World War II, when employers turned to health benefits as a way of getting around limits on what they could pay their workers." O'Neill argues that the primary responsibility for providing health coverage needs to be taken off the back of business.

                Some experts point out that healthcare would hardly be the first "business" that government would be in charge of running. "After all, the government runs defense and law enforcement, so why not healthcare?" asks Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard and co-founder of the 30,000-member Physicians for a National Health Program. "Businesspeople don't like to think of the government taking over any industry and doing a better job of it."

          •  That's a great point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichiganGirl

            The CEOs of GM, Chrysler, Ford, and Toyota (6+ / 0-)

            all petitioned to save Canada's universal health care when the Canadian government was considering doing away with it.

            Here's where you can read Congressman Jim McDermott's speech on this issue.  I think from 2002 or so.

            http://www.house.gov/... U.S. Auto Industry Supports Universial Healthcare... in Canada

      •  And thanks to tax policy, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aaa T Tudeattack

        you pay for 40% or so of a rich person's health insurance.

        Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

        by elfling on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:36:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can you think of any other people in History (0+ / 0-)

        that would have loved to kick away the support of medical services from the poor?

        Perhaps existing in Germany in the mid to late-1930's?

        Yes.... them.

        Same mentality today from the "Right".

        The same people celebrate and support torture, by the way.

    •  "There she goes again!" (32+ / 0-)

      "Elizabeth McCaughy is at it again: Lying on behalf of Big Insurance.  She did it before when she said, in a piece in The New Republic, (insert quote here), whereas the very first thing in the Clinton plan was, (insert quote here).  

      "Now she's claiming that any alternative to the completely broken system we have today, will take away your right to choose health care providers and services.  That is simply a lie.  And it's a lie in league with Big Insurance, who have been taking away Americans' health care for the last two decades.  

      "Decide for yourself: who do you believe?  The American Cancer Society, or the shills who are bought and paid for by for Big Insurance."

      (This ad was brought to you by (whoever)....)

      •  Elizabeth McCaughey: paid liar (27+ / 0-)

        How do these dishonest propagandists get away with waving titles like "scholar" around?  She's a political hack who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped her upside the head, and who doesn't give a damn about cancer prevention.  Where are her bona fides on this topic, that allow her to lecture the American Cancer Society on it?

        Harry and Louise need to work for us this time round.  We need to make ads featuring the couple eating cat food and worrying about how to pay for their medicines.  They should complain about how the insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants sold them a bill of goods back in 1994, and how they'll never trust those greedy bastards again.

        Why can't we ever learn anything from past losses?

        Don't expect to live in a democracy if you're not prepared to be an active citizen.

        by Dallasdoc on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:43:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Democrats need to learn to use symbolism (12+ / 0-)

          we try to convince the American public with facts, when symbolism is far more powerful.

          Are there no Democrats working for Madison Avenue advertising firms? I find this hard to believe.

        •  On the contrary... (7+ / 0-)

          I am quite sure these folks know exactly what the truth is. They have to know it to subvert it effectively.

          The truth is that in a liberal democracy where a good well rounded education and great health care are free for all, where the rights of individuals are respected and protected and where a transparent government works for the common good the rich elite have very little power. In fact when the above is true, wealth will naturally slowly distribute relatively equitably which is one of their greatest fears. They know that is true which is why they fight so hard and so long to prevent it.

          •  This is certainly true for some of them (6+ / 0-)

            But for the majority of authoritarians, I no longer believe they recognize what we consider the truth.  For them, belief trumps facts or evidence and creates its own reality.  That's why they're so stubbornly resistant to evidence or logic, and such shameless liars.

            Don't expect to live in a democracy if you're not prepared to be an active citizen.

            by Dallasdoc on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:52:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And it's why they continually say (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc

              I BELIEVE this or I BELIEVE that. Never do they say I THINK.

              Because they DON'T think. They BELIEVE. Thinking implies that you've actually done some research, that you have some solid reasons for what you think.

              Belief, on the other hand, requires none of those things.

              I believe for every drop of rain that falls
              A flower grows
              I believe that somewhere in the darkest night
              A candle glows
              I believe for everyone who goes astray, someone will come
              To show the way
              I believe, I believe

              I believe above a storm the smallest prayer
              Can still be heard
              I believe that someone in the great somewhere
              Hears every word

              Everytime I hear a new born baby cry,
              Or touch a leaf or see the sky
              Then I know why, I believe

              Everytime I hear a new born baby cry,
              Or touch a leaf or see the sky
              Then I know why, I believe

              And that said, I believe I'll have a glass of fine old whine...

        •  Elizabeth McCaughey bogus Reduce Infection Death (8+ / 0-)

          Committee is an organization with the first priority of undermining Medicare apparently. She has been very successful in this stealth operation.

          The government is going to denying payment for certain hospital stays.

          But starting in October 2008, Medicare will stop paying hospitals for infections or injuries that occur in the hospital. Under new rules published Wednesday, Medicare will soon stop payment for at least eight conditions, including common hospital-acquired infections, blatant surgical errors, and injuries that result from a fall.

          Medicare's Herb Kuhn says that Medicare specifically chose conditions that hospitals can prevent. He hopes the financial disincentives will force hospitals to change the way they do business. The hospitals are forbidden from passing the additional costs on to patients.
          ........ snip................................

          One problem, Foster says, is that hospitals don't know how to prevent certain things — like falls.

          "People may wake up in the middle of the night, need to use the restroom, not remember that the nurse instructed them to call for help first — or think they were OK, go to stand up and find out that the surgery they had has weakened them so that they are unable to support their own weight and fall to the floor and be injured," Foster explains. "No one wants that to happen. We just don't have a perfect strategy to prevent it."

          Foster also says that it may be hard to implement the rules. For example, starting in October, hospitals will have to check for certain infections in every Medicare patient coming into the hospital. That's the only way to know whether those infections started in the hospital. But Foster says getting that information from a patient being admitted through the emergency room might not be appropriate:

          "They're in a great deal of pain, struggling to get their breath. They're scared because it's a life-threatening condition. Is that the right time to focus on determining whether they have a urinary tract infection?"

          "It's the planet, stupid."

          by FishOutofWater on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:51:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is draconian (9+ / 0-)

            Certainly hospitals need to reduce the incidence of these problems, and there are substantial inducements to them to do so.  But rules like these are far too likely to be interpreted too broadly, and to serve as budget-balancing tools rather than quality incentives.

            Better for Medicare to monitor the incidence of such events, and deny payment broadly to outlying hospitals.  This would be much fairer and more effective.  Of course, such monitoring is already being done, and accreditation to receive Medicare is already being denied on this basis.  Oops.

            Don't expect to live in a democracy if you're not prepared to be an active citizen.

            by Dallasdoc on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:56:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I personally think this is worth a try (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joe Bob, Dallasdoc, junta0201

            My mechanic was telling me about how all of his workers now use electrical grounding straps, because static discharge was inadvertently setting off air bags - which cost him $1,000 per incident. He never told his customers, "Oh, I'm sorry, there's been a complication and you owe me an additional $1,000." He apologized to his customers and ate the cost.

            Hospitals all over the US have been cutting nurses as a cost-cutting measure. The fact is, additional nurses save money and improve patient outcomes. Hospital administrators currently pay no cost for forcing their people to work too hard and make mistakes. Maybe this rule will cause them to rethink their penny-wise, pound-foolish ways and make the obvious changes that are proven to work: lower patient-nurse ratios, better infection control procedures, etc.

            Improving working conditions for nurses saves money and saves lives

            Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

            by elfling on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:43:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I was hospitalized in 1982 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc

            and a resident spent a lot of time checking into my health status.

            hospitals will have to check for certain infections in every Medicare patient coming into the hospital.

        •  That would be PERFECT! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, junta0201

          There is some new research that says it is better to replace false information with new (true) information than to refute, and therefore reinforce, the old false information.

          That's why there are so many people who still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. They persistently lose the "not" in the phrase "Iraq did not plan 9/11".

          Happy the man and happy he alone--he who can call today his own ... John Dryden

          by ohiolibrarian on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:39:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That whole argument (4+ / 0-)

        about chosing providers is bullshit.  The only providers I get to choose are the ones my HMO does business with.  

        "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

        by Reepicheep on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:45:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Great diary. Thanks. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nyceve, blue jersey mom
    •  She's baaaaack! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nyceve, DSPS owl

      I am sick and tired of the lies from the right-wing news machine. Our failure to address healthcare in this country is killing us--people are dying needlessly, jobs are going offshore. 47 million uninsured Americans is a crisis.

    •  I'm a lot less concerned about this (0+ / 0-)

      for two reasons.

      Remember that the top-tier Democratic candidate health care programs are either "Hillarycare" or generic hillarycare. All "solve" the problem of health care delivery by requiring Americans who don't have employer-paid health care to buy it ourselves, whether we can afford to pay for it, food, and rent at the same time or not.

      First: the national health insurance industry is no longer opposed to national health care. Remember that they are one of HRC's major campaign contributors. They now see a national health care program that channels our money into their bank accounts as the foundation of their next massive profit increase.

      Second: National health care using private health care insurance as the primary delivery mechanism with the sick and the poor dumped into a "public" plan seems to be to be a plan for national bankruptcy, it isn't a fix, it's simply an expansion of our current unsustainable non-system. The only way a nation can affordably deliver health services to everyone is with some form of single-payer. One set of claim forms, one set of eligibility rules, one set of covered procedures and pharmaceuticals. This is a large part of the basis for the claimed savings in national health care, and it's not part of Hillarycare, either HRC's or generic.

      This is a fight where the proper course for Kossacks is to follow the example of our Democratic leadership. . . keep our powder dry.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:49:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Blech (19+ / 0-)

    Whether it's lung cancer caused by the tobacco wingers fight to keep cheap and everywhere, or the cervical cancer caused by the lack of access of a vaccine that wingers think is immoral -- wingers are friends of the number-one killer in this nation.

    New Rule: People who call others "sheeple" are no longer obligated to be listened to.

    by droogie6655321 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 05:58:24 AM PDT

  •  So what are they going to do, (31+ / 0-)

    say cancer doesn't kill if you, out of poverty, neglect the condition?
    Are they going to say my husband is not dead?
    Or that perhaps he killed himself fairly?
    I wouldn't mind engaging in a campaign that counters these lies.  
    I also wouldn't mind confronting these people to their sorry faces.

    •  vivens fons, the reason this needs to . . . (23+ / 0-)

      be addressed is beacuse they want to get a meme going that universal health care isn't important.

      They want the American people to believe that everyone is getting care.

      After they've done this, like vultures eating a carcass, they'll attempt to discredit and  destroy all the Democratic plans.

      •  The great raven's wing of experience (9+ / 0-)

        will defeat them and compel people to demand single-payer universal health care.
        The weight of all those corpses is probably difficult to carry.  That's what I'd say to anyone who advocates the market-oriented solution.

      •  So when will the Dems cave in and say (4+ / 0-)

        That Private healthcare is the only way??

        Who will do it first?

        2-1 Hillary
        3-2 Obama
        10-1 Edwards

      •  I see this campaign (4+ / 0-)

        as tilting at windmills since most of this nation has had problems with health care delivery.  They are racheting the rhetoric up but their plan is doomed to fail.  Because we all suffer and we all know why.  Even wingers, albeit only the less wealthy ones, know something has to change. We must keep the pressure up.  The suggestion up thread that says we need Harry and Louise ads showing the truth is an excellent one that the ACS should look at.

        "Do you want to tumble? Let's tumble." Stephen Colbert

        by tobendaro on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:03:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  tobendaro, this is what the ACS is doing . . . (7+ / 0-)

          I haven't seen any ACS ads yet, but I've heard from people who have that they're incredibly powerful.

          This is one reason the r/w is going to push back hard.

        •  However, many conservatives, particularly (5+ / 0-)

          those that have to work for a living, are extremely cynical about any kind of government program to deliver services.  They may be paying a staggering sum for health care, but they will remain convinced that private is better than public.  If the government runs it, it will be screwed up, wasteful, full of corruption and loaded with red-tape.  Any campaign needs to address this mindset first.

          "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

          by Reepicheep on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:52:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You know what they should do? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ohiolibrarian

          Find the actors who played Harry and Louise, if they're still alive. Get them to play in new commercials, for the ACS, that talk about how wrong they were, how they wished that healthcare had been fixed before. Let them go on about how they're not as young as they used to be, but not old enough for Medicare, and how they have to fight with their insurance company.

          Then let them talk to their friends in Canada, who don't understand why we have this crappy non-system, and isn't it great that they have those auto factory jobs that USED to be in Detroit, but healthcare costs drove the factories to Canada?

          Then they can talk to their poor cousin in France, who got off when their child was born. Or their niece living in England who's complaining because her doctor took too long to get to the house when she called him. Or their email friend in Norway who gets not only healthcare but education paid THROUGH COLLEGE.

          Let's talk about all that, shall we? Because then people may start to get REALLY REALLY pissed off.

          As they should be.

      •  Keeping people isolated and ashamed... (7+ / 0-)

        is the right-wing way.  There are parallels between the way health care and credit debt are treated - keeping knowledge away from people (by defunding research and information gathering) so that they blame only themselves, and are too ashamed to talk to other people about their credit debt or their lack of health care. We can't have people seeing the pattern of abuse here - heaven's no - they might rise up and organize.

        •  Also true about jobs. (6+ / 0-)

          I've been unemployed for months, and all I ever hear is how much the economy is booming and there are jobs everywhere. My own family is shunning me because they think I'm doing this on purpose and that anyone can get a job if they just try harder.

          Well, apparently there are not jobs that I can do, especially as a 50-year-old female, or otherwise I'd already be working.

          I'm sick to death of all the lies, and of all the people who spout them and all the people who believe them.

      •  A little useful info for you (0+ / 0-)

        Finally had time to look into this: source

        And it's source is the OECD HealthData 2004

        Don't fall for the "cancer survival rates" B.S. the right wing is spouting as proof that universal health care won't save you from cancer.  Surviving 5 years from diagnosis doesn't mean much if what we are diagnosing are a lot of insignificant cancers which is likely the case.

        What we car about, what we are afraid of, is DYING from cancer and cancer death rates per capita (per 100,000) are high in the U.S. compared to the "socialized medicine" countries:

        Cancer Death Rates Per Capita
        Norway 289.4
        Sweden 268.2
        Finland 255.4
        U.K. 253.5
        USA 321.9

        If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

        by trillian on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:46:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Women - want to reach age 65? (0+ / 0-)

          You are more likely to do it if you are living in these countries:

          Japan
          France
          Norway
          Canada
          Germany
          UK
          Costa Rica

          Than if in the US

          What a great site I linked to above - all kinds of health statistics you'd be happier not knowing but need to now

          Compared to most other European countries, we have
          fewer acute care beds, fewer nurses, we live a greater percentage of our lives in ill health, we have a shorter "healthy" life expectancy, we die from diseases in higher numbers per capita and on and on.

          But we are first in one horribly shameful statistic "child maltreatment deaths."  Good lord.

          If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

          by trillian on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:05:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If fear works -- (6+ / 0-)

      Why not try an ad like this?

      You've got a great health plan that covers everything.  You've got nothing to worry about, right?

      But your kid's in school, right?  What about that uninsured kid next to him? Could he or she be carrying an undiagnosed communicable disease?

      Universal Health Care -- It's in everybody's interest.

      Crude, I know, but this is a war.

      The Democratic Message: Security, Privacy, Justice

      by Upper West on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:26:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And follow up with... (5+ / 0-)

        You go to the shopping mall.  Is that person next to you uninsured?  Do they have a communicable disease, like tuberculosis, that they don't know about because they can't afford a routine checkup?  

        Or you go to a ball game.  Or movie theater.  Or get on a plane.

        You could also show a crowded sidewalk and start numbering the people who are uninsured.  With 47 million, that would be at least 1/6 people walking down that sidewalk (on average).  Emphasize how they look like anyone you know.  You know six families.  On average, one of them has no insurance coverage.

        "Universal Health Care -- It's in everybody's interest"

        •  Yes -- Great examples (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee, vivens fons, DSPS owl, ColoTim

          I think this approach should be used.  But what does it say about our society that we must resort to fear in order to get a majority to support something for those less fortunate?

          The other fear factor is directed at the insured losing their insurance or becoming uninsured:

          John Doe thought he had protected himself and his family from unexpected medical problems. Until .  .  . [Insert narrative from almost any NYCeve diary.]

          Universal health care:  It's in everybody's interest.

          The Democratic Message: Security, Privacy, Justice

          by Upper West on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:00:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as I recall, fear (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Upper West

            of exactly what you're talking about was the concept that sold public health care to begin with.

            With pandemics in our future, we might all be a lot better off if people get to their doctors with the problem at 'a few sniffles' stage because they can and get quarantined while people figure out how to treat it.

            This concept could have some very dramatic ads written around it.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 01:17:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Tuberculosis (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Upper West, SarahLee, ColoTim

          The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that approximately one third of the world's population is latently infected with M. tuberculosis.
          ....
          The United States has a considerably lower prevalence of infection; recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates suggest that only 4 to 6% of the population - 1 to 15 million persons - harbor latent infections.

          Page 1724 of Cecil's Textbook of Medicine, 21st edition (2001)

          •  1 to 15 million (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Upper West, SarahLee, ColoTim

            is a pretty wide range.

            Hmmm... that guy sitting next to you on the plane, coughing most of the flight...

            Or maybe it's the guy who's working at WalMart, breathing on everybody who comes in the door.

            Yes, compared to most places, our incidence is pretty low. But it's gone up DRAMATICALLY in the last few years. Do we wait until it's 10% to worry about it? 20%? More?

    •  Well, watch your inbox (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nyceve

      Because the spam mails the GOP is so great at getting circulated have already started.

      I used to delete them.  Now I hit "Reply All" and counter every bit of misinformation.

  •  Thanks nyceve. (18+ / 0-)

    These right wing neo-cons are everywhere. They don't want Americans educated. Its harder to brain wash them if they have the facts at their disposal. Keep on keepin on. This is a fight we must win.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:03:12 AM PDT

  •  Will the wingers be successful at (30+ / 0-)

    vilifying the American Cancer Society?

    When I heard they had devoted their entire ad budget to advocating reform to cover the 47 million uninsured I thought, "this is what's needed to combat the right wing noise machine and bring real change." Apparently, the right wing thought the same thing.

    "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

    by Chrispy67 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:03:29 AM PDT

  •  I note that Betsy M. Ross (11+ / 0-)

    believes that the health insurance industry should be reformed, but not health care.
    In other words, preserve the industry, the lobby, and the accountants with life and death authority over us at every cost.
    Long time, no change in her I'm sure.
    The only change is that things have gotten worse for patients and doctors.

    •  Her type believes that the government (7+ / 0-)

      should not regulate or otherwise interfere with markets - all market regulation and interference should be left up to the corporations and oligopolies.

      "You are coming to a sad realization. CANCEL or ALLOW?"

      by sxwarren on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:47:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course... (5+ / 0-)

        It's natural law that us peons be ruled by our 'betters'. We pathetic serfs should be glad they don't just gas us and we should be happy when they toss us some crumbs whilst on their merry way to some joyous gathering of others like them.

        Gosh it's hard to snark that.. the sarcasm makes me sick, because it's so friggin true! I know these people, I lived right along side them when my father worked in Venezuela and I went to the 'American school' in Maracaibo with the huge solid walls topped with razor wire to keep out the poor. That was where the ultra elites of Venezuela learned english to go attend yale or harvard or Oxford. The attitudes of those children disgusted me... To them, lower class people are simply cattle. I have zero doubt that they are any different than the Danish elites or the Singapore Elites or the US Elites.

        •  Yes, that's Aristotle. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Judge Moonbox, junta0201

          What these people don't want us to know about is the Enlightenment and Romanticism.  
          It was a redefining of the Classical legacy toward humanitarianism, and a critique of society that in some quarters, questioned why social injustice should be endemic to the nation-state.
          The same current of thinking produced the Declaration of Independence and the lavender socialist experimentation that happened in the early 19th century on both sides of the Atlantic.
          Natural law preserves only the strong, civil law works to preserve the well-being of all on the basis of human fraternity.

  •  This quote: (22+ / 0-)

    If you're not worried about the Clinton health bill,
    keep reading. If the bill passes, you will have to settle
    for one of the low-budget health plans selected
    by the government. The law will prevent you from
    going outside the system to buy basic health coverage
    you think is better, even after you pay the matidatory
    premium (see the bill, page 244). The bill guarantees
    you a package of medical services, but you can't have
    them unless they are deemed "necessary" and "appropriate"
    (pages 90-91). That decision will be made by
    the government, not by you and your doctor. Escaping
    the system and paying out-of-pocket to see a specialist
    for the tests and treatment you think yoti need will be
    almost impossible. If you walk into a doctor's office and
    ask for treatment for an illness, you mtist show proof
    that you are enrolled in one of the health plans offered
    by the government (pages 139, 143). The doctor can
    be paid only by the plan, not by you (page 236). To
    keep controls tight, the bill requires the doctor to
    report your visit to a national data bank containing the
    medical histories of all Aniericans (page 236).

    Sounds like most insurance policies I've heard of - just substitute "health plan" with "Kaiser/United/Cigna".

    But it's that oh-so-scary tack on of the name "Clinton" that people focus on. Bah.

  •  float more misinformation to the public (8+ / 0-)

    through the right-wing noise machine. It's just like making sausage, isn't it! Thanks again Eve for your perseverance on this issue. I don't comment much, but your work is appreciated.

    Americans. Bush is not our king.

    by musicsleuth on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:11:27 AM PDT

  •  If anyone thinks it will not be a fight (21+ / 0-)

    to get Universal Health Care, they are kidding themselves.  Billions of dollars of profits are at stake.  For these folks, money is more important than lives, that is, the lives of working people or middle class people.  

    This is one reaosn why I support Edwards and his plan over Clintons.  Edwards will fight them; we know the Clintons will sell out progressives in a Little Rock minute at the first sign of trouble.

    "The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement." John Edwards

    by TomP on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:12:10 AM PDT

    •  all of the plans are better than the for profit (10+ / 0-)

      insurance reality we all live with. It's more important to fight the misinformation on all fronts, not just your favorite candidate. It's time to fight on a unified front here.

      Americans. Bush is not our king.

      by musicsleuth on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:15:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not my point at all. (9+ / 0-)

        Fighting misinformation is fine.

        But I want to see universal health care enacted, not just to be used to get votes and then have the candidate throw it away.

        "The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement." John Edwards

        by TomP on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:23:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tom, get off it. Hillary Clinton is already (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Samer, Caldonia, Judge Moonbox

          working on expanding health coverage.  She was the first to announce an amendment for a major expansion of SCHIP(far more expansive than what passed in the Senate, though her House counterpart passed it in the House).  There's no indication Hillary is using universal health care to "get votes" and then will "throw it away".

          I'm voting for the Hill woman

          by masslib on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:29:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't buy it. (4+ / 0-)

            She will sell out progressives in a Little Rock minute.  Just like the war in Iraq.  Under Clinton, it will not end.  

            Universal health care?  Remember she was saying she would do something by the end of her second term.  She has been running for president since 1999, but had no plan.

            If John Edwards had not proposed his plan in January, we'd have never seen this from Hillary.  She iwll not fight the interests, some of whom fund her campaign, to make it happen.

            Elect her and by summer 2008, UHC will be forgotten by her administration.

            "The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement." John Edwards

            by TomP on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:34:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fine. I'm not going to ruin a great diary (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Caldonia

              by getting into this with you.

              I'm voting for the Hill woman

              by masslib on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:37:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not out of line. (5+ / 0-)

                The point of this this diary is that there are forces at work who will stop at nothing to prevent any meaningful reform re healthcare in the US.
                Whoever wins the Democratic nomination looks as of now to very likely be our next president, the questions then are: who is the least likely to engage in the sort of behind the scenes arm-twisting that will be absolutely necessary to pass heath care reform, and, who is it that is that is most beholden to many of those who are among those who would fight tooth and nail in opposing such legislation?
                TomP could hardly be more on point here.

            •  Actually, that is (0+ / 0-)

              summer 2009.

              The election is in November 2009.

              "The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement." John Edwards

              by TomP on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:39:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Too early, (4+ / 0-)

                Okay. the election is in November 2008.  The new president will take his or her oath of office in January 2009.

                Anyway, it will be hard for right wingers to villify the American Cancer Society.

                The American Cancer Society is anti-cancer and working against cancer. I guess these right wingers are pro cancer, at least for the non-rich!

                "The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement." John Edwards

                by TomP on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:41:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Saskatchewan had to fly in doctors (0+ / 0-)

      to get universal health care in 1962.  THe doctors closed up shop.  They refused to see patients for three weeks.

      http://findarticles.com/...

      The 1962 battle over Canadian health care: Labor pains
      Whole Earth Review,  Winter, 1995  by Steven A. Lyons

      I was less than sixty seconds into my interview with Dr. Barootes and things were not going well. People familiar with my subject's disposition had warned me to expect a less-than-warm reception. They were optimistic.
      ...

      What the government called "universal coverage" the doctors called "compulsory state medicine." The doctors in Saskatchewan received publicity kits with the reminder: "The concept of universal medical coverage is not new and the approach by government to seek support is just the same as when first enunciated by Karl Marx in his Communistic theories...." The kit contained a "personal letter which you may wish to send to your patients." The canned letter informed the patient that the doctor's office would be closed until "the government will allow me to treat you, as I have in the past, without political interference or control."

      "We used threats and so on, which incidentally worked very well," Barootes recalls. "The KOD was formed because so many doctors said they would leave. You're a mother with kids or you're pregnant and expecting your doctor to deliver you, and all of a sudden the doctor you've been attending with for years says 'I'm leaving.'. . . Another fear tactic we used, and I may have been part and parcel of it, was directed at the Roman Catholics and the Evangelicals. We said' The way this act is structured, the government could order us to do sterilizations and abortions.' We made a political cartoon about it."

      July 1 came and, except for a few emergency centers, doctors withdrew their services.
      Advertisement

      Allan Blakeney, later to become the premier of Saskatchewan, was a minister in the cabinet at the time: "I have never seen anything approaching this level of public hysteria about an issue," he remembers. "It lasted from late June to mid-July. People were enormously upset. The hysteria was further whipped up by our newspapers. At that moment in time I would guess that 75 percent of the people would have wanted us to suspend the Medical Care Act. We felt we had a mandate to let the people look at it in operation, so we went forward."

      Going forward was certainly an act of courage. Six days after the strike began, the Keep Our Doctors committees held a rally. Father Murray, a seventy-year-old priest, gave the most sensational of the speeches. "There has been death, there will be violence, and there could be bloodshed," he cried. Tearing off his coat and clerical collar, Father Murray shouted, "You Communists may think we're naive and hollow-chested, but we gave a hundred thousand boys fighting for the freedom you're fighting against." Now in full stride, he stormed, "Tell those bloody Commies to go to hell when it comes to Canada. I loathe the welfare state and I love the free-swinging freedom." The priest warned: "I wouldn't be surprised if someone put a bullet in me -- I am as likely to get it as Woodrow Lloyd." (Lloyd was the new premier. Tommy Douglas had left Saskatchewan to join the party in Ottawa.)

      On July 11, thousands of demonstrators marched on the legislature, carrying effigies of Premier Lloyd and Tommy Douglas, with the caption "Down With Dictators."

      Meanwhile the government had initiated an emergency airlift of doctors from England to mitigate the crisis. In response, the acting chairman of the KOD wrote to Premier Lloyd ". . . We do not want doctors you and your commission can find in distant lands. We do not want card-carrying Communist doctors. . . ." One KOD committee sent a telegram to the United Nations, concluding: "Our freedom is at stake. Urgent."

      This is what will happen in the US.
      What really worries me is the watered-down plans that Clinton, Edwards, et al have, since who knows if it will really reduce costs.  Very easy to attack.

      •  The key point of the article (0+ / 0-)

        was that Tommy Douglas did not back down, the doctors and healthcare groups did.  Now Dr. Barootes would not trade the system in Canada for what they had before.

        It will be a brutal fight.

        It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

        by pioneer111 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:56:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's alaming that the Right Wing would go (12+ / 0-)

    after ACS, but it is heartening that ACS has decided to focus on universal healthcare.  There are so many more groups oranizing for universal coverage this time around than last.

    Great diary, nyceve.

    I'm voting for the Hill woman

    by masslib on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:18:00 AM PDT

  •  "Early detection" without coverage? (18+ / 0-)

    How, exactly, does that work?

    Would the Wingnuts at Fox Street Journal suggest we all put MRI machines in our basements?

    •  You really should. (5+ / 0-)

      "Early detection" without coverage? How, exactly, does that work?
      Would the Wingnuts at Fox Street Journal suggest we all put MRI machines in our basements?

      You really should have an MRI machine. Can't afford one? Get a better job. Can't get a promotion? What kind of loser are you, that you'd blame America for your own failures. There are thousands of good jobs out there, and if the hundreds of millions out there aren't getting them, that just shows their lack of initiative.
      /snark

      I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

      by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:57:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Universal health INSURANCE! (5+ / 0-)

    For god's sake, we are not fighting for universal health care; the fight is for single-payer nonprofit insurance.  If we can't get this concept straight, how the hell are we going to stand up to the Betsey McCaugheys?  

    There is ample proof that lack of money (insurance) leads to lack of care and is devastating for cancer patients.

    This is going to be a take no prisoners fight and it's less than sure that we'll prevail.  At least let's get the terms of the debate correct!

    •  not quite.... (13+ / 0-)

      Insurance does not guarantee care, as anyone who has suffered "murder by spreadsheet" can tell you (or their surviving relatives can tell you).  

      This isn't about having a card in your wallet or a piece of paper with words on it.  It's about seeing a doctor, getting tests and treatments, medications and surgery, and having all of it paid for via general tax revenues at lower cost than the Iraq war.  And I'm a Llibertarian Democrat for whom tax increases are generally a no-no unless there is a truly serious need.  This is a serious need.  

      There is no such thing as a market when you're having a life threatening condition, any more than there's a market in who you call when your house is on fire.  "Hi, is this Ajax Firefighting Corporation?  Yes, we're having a house fire right now, the TV started making smoke, and caught the draperies on fire in the living room.   Yes, we're shopping around right now, can I get a price quote?   Thanks, we'll call you back..."

      •  Where I live in Florida (0+ / 0-)

        a fire company gets $800 for showing up under state law.

        I'll send them $75 when I get a request the first of October so they won't charge me the $800 anytime within the next year.

        It would be cheaper to take a chance, but I know they need money upfront.

        •  Bull (0+ / 0-)

          And bull again.
          We have a volunteer fire department. They send out donation letters every year.

          But if you call them, they come. They're excellent, well trained, and have SOME paid personnel, who are paid by the city. The more rural towns have all volunteer departments.

          NONE of them charge if they have to come out. NONE.

          Do they get some subsidies from the county/state? Yes. They deserve them.

          They save the city and county a hell of a lot of money.

      •  Repspectfully disagree. This is about insurance. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        junta0201

        Nonprofit, single-payer insurance that sets a level of coverage that is fair and affordable for every American citizen.  Health care cannot be 'free', and it isn't 'free' anywhere on the globe.  In any other industrialized nation, it is paid for through taxes, just like fire, police and EMT, and the money is put into a nationally administered insurance pool from which the provider is paid upon making a claim. Even in a multi-payer system, private insurers must provide the same minimum level of care at the same price as the government.  (The rich will always be able to purchase more health care than any of the rest of us.)

        Since health care is not free, the debate is about insurance, who pays, and what is covered.

        •  agreeing to disagree (or otherwise)... (0+ / 0-)

          Of course it's going to be paid for.  And it needs to come out of taxes one way or another, so as to not create another huge paperwork monster that eats a big chunk of what it takes in.  (That's where I'll draw the libertarian line in the sand: taxes I can live with if the need is valid; but as for slogging people with more paperwork, I'd sooner eat worms.)

          The key points are that it has to be universal and unconditional.  By unconditional I mean, the righties don't get to rig it against abortion and contraception and other rightie lifestyle issues, and the lefties' side of the bargain is that they don't get to rig it against smoking and other leftie lifestyle issues.  (The way to deal with smoking, drinking, mountain climbing & other extreme sports, and suchlike, is to apply "health risk taxes" on the products & services that are based on the empirical costs of health care, paramedic/rescue services, etc. etc. incurred by these voluntary lifestyle choices: thus making them cost-neutral and also depriving righteous puritans of the "joy" of having someone to scapegoat, but that's another topic for another day...)

    •  NO, no, no. Health "insurance" must be abolished (11+ / 0-)

      Insurance is simply not the correct model for provision of health care. Health care is something everybody needs on an ongoing basis. Insurance is a system which works to protect against exceptional needs, not regular ones.

      We keep reinventing the wheel in this country. Every other (relatively advanced) nation on earth has a working healthcare system which applies to everybody. None is perfect, none is without flaw, certainly none keeps everyone youthful and vibrant and alive forever, which seems to be the level of care the rich expect for themselves.

      But none leaves some massive percent of their citizenry with no healthcare at all except at the cost of bankruptcy and destitution.

      The only purpose of insurance is to say "no." To deny coverage. To take your money--month in, month out--and then when you need some of it back, to stall, to obfuscate, to deny and then dump you.

      Good on the Red Cross, I say. What the hell is the point of running ads telling people to "get tested for X" if the only result is to find out that you indeed have X but no means of paying to be cured of it?

      Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?

      by Xan on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:52:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  An important point (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, ohiolibrarian, DSPS owl

      There is a distinction here that is important to get across to the public. A lot of people don't understand it's only the insurance, i.e.: the payment scheme, which would be universal. The government isn’t taking over hospitals, clinics, and pharmaceutical companies, and doctors and nurses aren't all becoming federal employees.

      This is one of the ways that entities who oppose single-payer are able to sow fear: by misinforming people that Democrats are proposing a system akin to the NHS in Britain, 'government-run health care', where the government does own the system.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

      by Joe Bob on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:13:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to say (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe Bob, jakbeau

        "Universal health care financing" to emphasize the point. We need to say "public payer, private providers" (assuming that's what we're for, and I think we should be for it).

        I do like conducting hearings in an actual hearing room -- John Conyers

        by ebohlman on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:00:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "financing" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mmacdDE, junta0201

          "Universal health care financing" --

          that's a good line.  The Norwegian system, for example, is indeed called a universal "insurance" system, and that's what the USA needs.  But perhaps the word "insurance" is so tainted in the US that one should avoid it.  Universal financing may be just the right words.

          The Republicans are defunding, not defending, America.

          by DSPS owl on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:41:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But having lived in England (0+ / 0-)

        and having a sister that still lives there, I'd say the govt is welcome to take over the entire system anytime they want.

        As long as you don't put DHS in charge of it.

  •  Bring it on (14+ / 0-)

    I’m not sure who is advising Republicans on health care but I sure don’t want them to change.  

    If there is any one issue that can unify the Democratic Party and attract large numbers of independent and Republicans, it is the issue of health insurance.

    This is a middle age, middle class, pocketbook issue.  They are the highest percentage voting demographic around with the potential to influence other voters.  The ones most affected by bankrupting costs are those who have tried to be thriftily and responsible with their money.  Health insurance companies, or as I like to call them, "economist rapists," are devastating retirees, the self-employed and owners of small businesses.

    Even staunch Republicans understand $900 a month health insurance premiums.  

    I say let the Republicans vilify Clinton and other Democratic Candidates reform ideas.  If we can keep from eating each other alive, we have a real Democratic issue.

  •  The Right Wing Noise Machine... (16+ / 0-)

    ...sees its only recourse to common sense (and common decency) is smear, lie, libel, and mis-lead.  I'm afraid that they may be over-reaching when they take their Swift-boat approach to the American Cancer Society - f'goodness sake, even in Repuglican Dallas, the biggest Society Event of the season is the Cattle Baron's Ball - an event that raises money for the ACS, and it is so expensive to attend that only Repuglicans and the very richest Democrats can afford to attend.
     The Rich Repuglican do-gooders are not going to like seeing their favorite Society Cause smeared like that...hmmm.  Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
     They are reaching, and it may come back to bite them on the behind.

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

    by drchelo on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:26:41 AM PDT

  •  Nightmare scenario? (8+ / 0-)

    An apt description of the system now in place. The sad thing is that people don't realize it until they are denied coverage, or lose a job resulting in a loss of coverage.

    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,,,they never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and neither do we" G W Bush

    by irate on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:28:05 AM PDT

  •  Heavens to Betsy! (9+ / 0-)

    You mean to tell me that the underling for a do-nothing so-called moderate Gov. George Pataki is now a schill for the same big business groups that were a foundation of the Pataki administrations support.  Perish the thought.

    /snark

  •  They already oppose (18+ / 0-)

    the UN, UNESCO, the ACLU, the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court, Planned Parenthood, civil rights, and the Constitution. The American Cancer Society was about all that was left.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:30:44 AM PDT

  •  Reminds me of Digby's (9+ / 0-)

    post a few years back regarding the privatization of Social Security where she provides a timeline of how the right wing destroyed Clinton's health care plan and used that as the launching point for the final demonization of Hillary in so many eyes.

    Here...

    Give me ten lines from a good man and I'll find something in there to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu

    by lgrooney on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:32:10 AM PDT

  •  Frankly (17+ / 0-)

    The bill guarantees you a package of medical services, but you can't have them unless they are deemed "necessary" and "appropriate" (pages 90-91). That decision will be made by he government, not by you and your doctor

    This is not much different than it is now except that now the decision is made by the insurance company who personally profits from the assistance that you will be denied. I would rather have the government make the choice.

  •  didn't McCaughey (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, NogodsnomastersMary

    switch to the Democratic party, only to be strongly rejected by NY Dems?  Good job, NYers.  

    Early detection and regular screenings are the best way to stop cancer.  And most people could never afford to do that in a "free-market" health care system.  Good diary, as usual.

  •  Elizabeth McCaughey and Judith Miller- (12+ / 0-)

    well-paid liars, shilling for cold-blooded murderers.

    It never ceases to disgust me what some people will do for money.

    For a little easy cash these two are willing to condemn millions of Americans to an early grave.

    SiCKO is right.

    "We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims." R. Buckminster Fuller

    by scoff0165 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:47:16 AM PDT

  •  I guess they hope to convince people (9+ / 0-)

    that cancer has a liberal bias?

    If they want to take on the ACS, let 'em. I can't think of anything we could do or say about the wingnuts that would more thoroughly marginalize them.

  •  Arm yourself with knowledge - (13+ / 0-)

    Betsy's screed trumpets something that has been a right wing talking point for the last few weeks a study that talks about the "survival rates" for cancer patients being better here than in the U.K.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.

    "Survival rates" mean survive by five years.  Sounds like a meaningful statistic, sounds like it if you have a better chance of surviving cancer you have less chance of dying from it; doesn't it?

    But it turns out those are two different numbers.  Start poking around into the statistics about deaths per capita from cancer and you will find out we are worse.  

    We need to do some research b/c this single little study is the nail on which the right wing is hanging their argument.  Tasty Curry will be here any minute to hammer repeat it here complete with "but it's in the Lancet!"

    If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

    by trillian on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:52:15 AM PDT

    •  Because if you die from (0+ / 0-)

      something else, but have cancer that wasn't found because you didn't have money for regular checkups (or your insurance wouldn't pay, or you changed jobs), you don't figure in the cancer rates.

      So the rates HERE will only be for people who even found out they HAD cancer - which will be a subset of all those who have it, since some will die without ever knowing they even had cancer.

      Especially if they don't have insurance now, and haven't had insurance for a while.

  •  The tide may be turning (13+ / 0-)

    against the anti-universal crowd.

    My oldest sister is a staunch Republican. A couple of years ago, she took an early retirement buyout from her employer, to get out of a job she hated...but then faced the reality of having to come up with health insurance for herself and her husband (also retired, but both too young for Medicare). She finally was able to find a part-time job in local government -- she loves her job (though she bitches about "civil service mentality") and she really appreciates the fully covered health care. If universal health insurance/health care were available, she wouldn't have had to worry so much about finding coverage, and she'd have more time to devote to her grandkids and her other interests.

    As people approach the age where they might want to take a break, but have to keep working for those insurance benefits, they might be starting to feel like universal insurance/health care isn't such a bad idea. Add to that the young voters who are stuck without insurance altogether, and those are some powerful potential allies. What we need to do is to get ready to counter the arguments against universal coverage -- for every "Harry & Louise", there needs to be a "Dick & Sally" who are worried about their newly graduated daughter who can't get her annual Pap smear because she doesn't have insurance in her job, or "Bob & Lisa" who had to take a new job and now can't get coverage for their "pre-existing conditions".

    "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -- teacherken

    by Cali Scribe on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:53:17 AM PDT

    •  The tide is indeed turning (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, mmacdDE, TomP, Judge Moonbox

      This isn't 1994. Public opinion on health care is in a very, very different place than it was 13 years ago.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:22:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right wing losing GW also (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, Judge Moonbox, junta0201

      Just as with the loser position on Health Care, the Right Wing is also tying themselves to the loser position on the Climate Crisis.

      The same Right Wing disinformation noise machine will be spewing forth on global warming this week.  The "Coalition of the Denying" is using the President of the Czech Republic to prove that there is no climate crisis.  Ha,  one of their think tanks, the Heartland Institute will paste lies throughout the media for their last gasp effort to hold their Exxon funders unaccountable for a few more months from the coming necessity for action on global warming pollution.

      •  Should point out. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, junta0201

        The "Coalition of the Denying" is using the President of the Czech Republic to prove that there is no climate crisis.

        I think that you should point out that the President they've recruited is not Vaclav Havel, who most people would remember fondly, but his successor, Vaclav Kaus.

        The instigator behind these ads wrote a letter to the NY Times a month or so ago. It didn't seem like he had a real argument but either hoped to zing Gore with glittering irrelevancies, or was simply addicted to publicity.

        I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

        by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:28:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cali Scribe, mmacdDE, DSPS owl

      And how many people are staying in a dead-end job for the health coverage rather than going out and starting a business, thereby contributing more to the economy and to society?

      Yet another economic cost of the current system.

    •  How about "Dick and Sally's daughter (0+ / 0-)

      getting nailed by an uninsured driver while out jogging one morning? She doesn't have insurance (considered a 'rational' economic decision as she's young and healthy), she's not covered by her parents anymore,and the driver lacks car insurance (perhaps even a license? perhaps drunk?). Who would pay for her extensive rehab, assuming she survives the initial trauma?

      Stay tuned ...

      Happy the man and happy he alone--he who can call today his own ... John Dryden

      by ohiolibrarian on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:28:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for singlehandedly dismantling... (4+ / 0-)

    ...the right wing corporatocracy!!

    This is the canary in their coalmine and they will lose big time.  They do not have the votes to defeat the very best option which is....MEDICARE FOR ALL.

    bUT WHY SEND OUT THEIR WEAKEST LINKS

    " My goal every morning is simply to learn something that will help me end the day less ignorant than I began it." -kossack 'FMArouet'

    by ezdidit on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:58:44 AM PDT

    •  Why send out their worst spokespeople? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Judge Moonbox

      Why would they want to discredit their position with such low ball actors??

      And why would the WSJ run such tripe?

      Our media are so stupid.  

      Now look what they've done: they just lost another thousand subscribers!!

      " My goal every morning is simply to learn something that will help me end the day less ignorant than I began it." -kossack 'FMArouet'

      by ezdidit on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:02:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice find on Miller. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack, junta0201

    Here's the problem I have with Hillary:

    ..... the bill requires the doctor to
    report your visit to a national data bank containing the
    medical histories of all Aniericans (page 236).

    I've seen Hillary next to Bill Frist calling for this.  The Newt loves the idea too.  I would prefer a provider data base that would catch stuff like the cardiologist that has an older gentleman I know stopping by for colesterol tests once a month.  This fellow has Medicare plus great back-up insurance.  He's like a cash cow to several specialists but had to go to a walk-in clinic to get a flu shot because his primary doesn't find giving them profitable.

    My personal health records are too personal to put into the hands of government (or some contractor), though I wouldn't mind being able to download my records onto a thumb drive.

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:02:58 AM PDT

    •  my records (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tony the American Mutt

      are my records..nobody else's

      is this real...or a rumor?

    •  Medi-care (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, elfling, MarketTrustee

      Already collects medical information on anyone who receives coverage through Parts A/B/D.
      When medicare does a random review to check for how treatment was provided the hospitals and MDs copy the health record and send it in.
      If a pt goes to a rehab facility a form call MDS 2.0 (Minimum Data Set) is filled out. It contains an unbelievable amount of information including whether you get along with staff/roommates/family and the last time you had a BM.
      You will never hear anyone complain, the transfer of this information is very secure and I have never heard of anyone misusing it.
      All these forms/info help to ensure that the government is paying for appropriate care and that the pt is getting better.
      You never hear a Medicare recipient complain about any of this, their informatin is private and secure.
      I personally would not mind my information in the system if Medicare was open to all.

    •  There is probably a computer (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, nyceve, lurker123

      system in the Boston area with all the health insurance claims ever made on your behalf.

      •  Single Voter. . . (3+ / 0-)

        There absolutely is a company that has all our health insurance claims and this is totally available for the insurance industry to browse in when deciding whether we worthy of health insurance.

        This remind me that I should do a diary on these companies.  It's scary business because every claim is monitored.

    •  Really, just shut up (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nyceve, mollyd, lurker123, LakersFan

      Every visit you've ever made to a doctor is already in a private insurance database, which you are not allowed to see, and not allowed to correct in case of error, but every insurer you apply to can see. And they do, using this secret database to make lots of potentially life-and-death decisions about you.

      I am so sick of these bullshit ghost stories about booooo! socialized medicine. What we have now is infinitely worse.

  •  The first question (8+ / 0-)

    We need to ask Betsy is: Do you have health insurance??  

    Lisa

    I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

    by Boston to Salem on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:10:10 AM PDT

    •  And then follow up (4+ / 0-)

      with these questions.

      How much is your premium?
      How much is your co-pay?
      Have you or any member of your family ever been denied coverage for treatment by your insurance compant that your doctor deemed necessary?
      Have you or any member of your family had the insurance company refuse to pay for treatment that they had previously authorized?

      Build bridges not fences.

      by sable on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:08:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MEDICARE is for EVERYONE !!! (13+ / 0-)

    If they Screw this up, they'll have my Mom to answer to...and she's got nothing to lose.  Boy is she pissed off, and she says she's angry, too!!

    Dick & George better watch it...she's 83 and fit to be tied! (She just kicked the TV!! ...sh*t, now she's lighting a match to burn the Wall Street Journal....oh, no!!)

    " My goal every morning is simply to learn something that will help me end the day less ignorant than I began it." -kossack 'FMArouet'

    by ezdidit on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:10:27 AM PDT

  •  Anticipate a new talking point... (8+ / 0-)

    Harry and Louise-esque propaganda will return, with all it's socialized medicine boogeyman glory--but anticipate a more nuanced attack in the wake of the Bush administration.

    We all know that they have truly destroyed the image of government being capable of doing anything; Iraq and Katrina being the two major events which have made people lose confidence in government. I have a few libertarian leaning Dems who have disapproved of Bush for a long time--we argue all the time about the role of government. A new line of attack I have been hearing doesn't attack single payer along the same 93-94 lines, but instead they talk about how people should trust a health care system which is so important to the government when they have proven that they can't do anything else. They say, ok it might work with a Democrat in there, but what's to stop a Republican president from tinkering with whatever the bureocracy will be and managing it incompetently?

    It's a sort of inside criticism, and you may not hear it that clearly saying "we Republicans will fuck it up" but this angle of incompetence as the country moves past Bush with the memory of Iraq and Katrina will be a huge talking point when the big fight ensues. They are coming up with new and clever ways to discredit universal health care, even if it means chastising themselves and their competence to run the government.  

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:33:17 AM PDT

  •  I often wonder how Republicans ever win (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, bustacap, SadTexan, Judge Moonbox

    and I guess part of the reason is the demographics of those who actually vote.

    What percentage of the 47 million uninsured vote?

    What percentage of Rush Limbaugh listeners vote?

    I understand that people are busy working, and maybe have trouble finding time to vote, but for God sakes, Do it!  Just do it!

    Republicans will never win again if everyone votes.

  •  thank you for this (5+ / 0-)

    Good catch.  only this time we are on to them before they start(well almost).  (Why I love the internet) and this time we can call 'em out.  and maybe it's time to make a contribution to the American Cancer Society with a note which says congratulations on your new sensible and relaly imporant ads about the need for health care reform.

    WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

    by ruthhmiller on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:46:37 AM PDT

  •  I wish the (6+ / 0-)

    Christian Right Wing will just once follow the teachings of Jesus. Just once. They use their religion to attack all the values of which he had preached.

    The Natives Are Restless

    by MantisOahu on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:49:20 AM PDT

    •  Canada's health system (0+ / 0-)

      passed because of a devout Baptist-minister-cum-Premier, Tommy Douglas who made it his mission in life to pass universal health care.

      You are so right that people are forgetting what their religion actually says.

  •  this is of double interest to me (13+ / 0-)

    My wife passed away in January from ovarian cancer...even with insurance the bills have been horrendous....

    In addition I studied with John R. Seffrin, CEO of American Cancer...a good, honorable and obviously courageous man. He will be ready for this fight...but we must help him.

  •  NYEVE, can you dispute some of her claims? (4+ / 0-)

    I know the point of this diary is to warn us, but still I'd like some talking points about some her claims, especially the wait time to get treated.  I know it's anecdotal, and meant to scare us from supporting universal healthcare, but the more information we have, the better. If no time, I can of course research myself.  Thanks for informing us!

    •  santamonicadem . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Judge Moonbox, junta0201

      I dispute her claims lies every single day.  This is my unpaid full time job.

    •  Try pnhp.org (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, nyceve

      Physicians for a National Health Plan

      Lots of statistics, talking points, etc.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:59:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some ideas (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nyceve, junta0201

      elfling responded with a link to the great organization, Physicians for a National Health Plan.

      Dr. SteveB has provided lots of great info in his health care diaries over the past year.

      The diaries from California Nurses Shum also frequently have good talking points material and links to resources.

      You will find material from either of the organizations linked in my sig line and we have some in our  Daily Kos Health Care Google Group

    •  There is sooo much to dispute (0+ / 0-)

      believe me. I can give you some stats.

      Dr A's diaries are also good: http://dra.dailykos.com/

      Single-payer systems are also better at holding down administrative costs. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that the United States spends 345 percent more per capita on health administration than our neighbors up north. This is largely because the Canadian system doesn't have to employ insurance salespeople, or billing specialists in every doctor's office, or underwriters. Physicians don't have to negotiate different prices with dozens of insurance plans or fight with insurers for payment. Instead, they simply bill the government and are reimbursed.

      ...

      Sadly for those invested in this odd knock against the Canadian system, the wait times are largely hype. A 2003 study found that the median wait time for elective surgeries in Canada was a little more than four weeks, while diagnostic tests took about three (with no wait times to speak of for emergency surgeries). By contrast, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data from 2001 found that 32 percent of American patients waited more than a month for elective surgery, and 5 percent waited more than four months. That, of course, doesn't count the millions of Americans who never seek surgery, or even the basic care necessary for a diagnosis, because they lack health coverage. If you can't see a doctor in the first place, you never have to wait for treatment.

      http://www.prospect.org/...

      In 1993, when Representative Jim McDermott and Senator Paul Wellstone proposed a Canadian-style single-payer health care program for the United States, it was considered politically impossible. The proposal never made it to the House floor, even though the Congressional Budget Office estimated the system would save $175 billion annually by the year 2003, completely eclipsing the savings of any other health reform proposal.

      http://findarticles.com/...

  •  Opinions should have facts behind them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Judge Moonbox

    The article, titled titled "No Exit" claimed that the Clinton health care plan would make it illegal for an individual to pay cash to a doctor for services.

    The claim was picked up by George Will in Newsweek and spread throughout the mainstream media.

    The problem is, some "respected" opinion writers, like George Will, can pick up bad information, not vet it properly, write distortions, and suddenly give a lie some substance.

    Why any newspaper keeps syndicated columnists who don't vet the facts behind their opinion is beyond me.

    "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." --V

    by MikeTheLiberal on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:56:46 AM PDT

  •  Not Just the Uninsured (9+ / 0-)

    At our last staff meeting, we were told by our COO at the medical facility I am working at, that the "Cadillac" coverage is disappearing and $5000/yr deductables and high co-pays are becoming common.  It is difficult to collect the unreimbursed balance so more time is devoted to collections which impacts the overall cost of care.

    In case anyone is worried about all the jobs that will be lost when it is no longer necessary to play games with the insurance companies and to learn and relearn the ever-changing rules to get payment, recall the widespread moaning over the loss of telemarketing jobs when the "do not call" registry was implemented.  The people who are chasing their tails in the business office would be happy to do work that was actually useful and didn't give them nightmares.

  •  McCaughey has a history of being a crackpot (5+ / 0-)

    Her bizarre behavior while lieutenant governor led to Pataki replacing her on the ticket in 1998. Other tidbits:

    She was initially tasked by Pataki to work on Medicaid reform and education policy. {Profile in NYT, Feb. 1996.} She had a famous clash with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver in the Capitol lobby over the budget. After that, the relationship between Ross and Pataki went down hill with a series of bizarre incidents and outright public disagreements between them. In addition, McCaughey, for unknown reasons, stood throughout Pataki's 1996 State of the State Address. Her public criticism of her own administration over various issues caught Republican Party insiders by surprise. She was then frozen out of effective participation in policy matters for the remainder of Pataki's first term.

    I remember the whole bruhaha over her standing during Pataki's State of the Union. Imagine Cheney standing up behind Bush during an entire address to Congress. That's what she did and she never explained why she did it. The woman is missing a few marbles.

    Baaa! She's unelectable! Baaa! She's GOP-lite! Baaa! She wears army boots! Baaa!

    by John Campanelli on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:01:43 AM PDT

  •  It's very sad. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GayHillbilly, nyceve, Judge Moonbox

    It is within the means of the richest and most influential country in the history of the world to take care of the health of all its citizens.

    Instead, a small group of them bandy together to use fear and uncertainty, to insure that they will always be able to extract profits from other people's suffering.

    We would never have firemen demand payment before putting out your house fire.

    •  Don't give the wingnuts any ideas. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cathy Willey

      We would never have firemen demand payment before putting out your house fire.

      The way things are going, it's quite possible that they will propose privatizing the fire departments.

      I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

      by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:06:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  um. private firefighting companies are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      junta0201

      hallmarkes of american "libertarian" convention. the community risk and moral advantages of municipal funding and regulation of such companies emerged late in the 19th cen. if you were to search "US history fire departments" now you will find histories citing the evolution of colonial firefighting as model of civic responsibility, beginning in the 17th century. for want of a more comprehensive online source, i link and quote from this article.

      The raucous firefighters portrayed in the Martin Scorsese film Gangs of New York were very much a part of the Jacksonian tradition, a time when, as one of Andrew Jackson’s critics sniffed, it seemed as if anybody could become President. Or a fire chief, for that matter. Firefighting had been a gentleman’s vocation in the early years of the Republic, and volunteer fire companies in cities like Philadelphia actually functioned like private clubs. ...[T]hey were also undisciplined and often seemed more interested in exacting revenge on a rival company than in actually putting out fires.
      [...]
      Few government officials respected the rights and privileges of property more than Peter Stuyvesant, for he was, after all, an agent of Holland’s business interests. Still, he recognized in the 1650s that public safety and fire prevention required at least limited government control over private property. And so was born the centuries-old debate between firefighters and real estate developers over just how much regulation in the name of safety is enough.
      [...]
      Firefighting as a profession began in Boston in 1678, about a quarter-century after the city had ordered its first, primitive fire engine from an ironmaker named Joseph Jynks. The city hired a professional fire company of a dozen men and an officer to operate another engine the city had recently purchased from London. No other cities immediately followed Boston’s lead in hiring and training a corps of professional firefighters. In fact, New York waited until 1865 before establishing a paid fire service.
      [...]
      Political clubhouses and gangs looked to firehouses as fertile recruiting ground in the 1840s for any number of reasons, not the least of them being that the neighborhood firehouse served as a social center. Not only the volunteers congregated there. So did young boys and teenagers who looked up to the firefighters as neighborhood celebrities. One New Yorker came to personify the intersection of politics, gangs, and firefighting: Bill Tweed, the onetime leader of the Cherry Street gang, the foreman of Engine Company 6 in downtown New York, and the boss of Tammany Hall. For Tweed, one job led naturally to the next.
      much more "special interest" political economy ...

      Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

      by MarketTrustee on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:18:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We once did (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, nyceve, junta0201

      We would never have firemen demand payment before putting out your house fire.

      It used to work like that - if the fire truck showed up and you didn't have the right medallion on you home - indicating that you paid insurance premiums to that fire company, they stood back and watched the house burn.  I didn't know this until I watched the moving "Gangs of New York."

      It didn't work so the country moved to that "socialized fire protection" like we have now.  Think anyone wants to go back?

  •  I live in Canada (11+ / 0-)

    ...and whether a procedure is deemed appropriate or necessary is generally determined by the doctor, on an individual basis.

    Why would people be stupid enough to think that a government has the resources to intervene in every such decision?

  •  My message to the ACS (5+ / 0-)

    Thank you for standing up for universal health care! This is an issue making the largest number of americans delcare bankruptcy and enter poverty. More than anything else, for our corporate and human health, America needs unviersal single-payer health care. Thank you for being a leader on this issue, especially in the face of the greedy corporate whores of the radical right who would seek to slander your organization because of your moral, economical, sensible goals.

    You can tell them the same:

    http://www.cancer.org/...

  •  At some point we all have to come (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, nyceve, snazzzybird, junta0201

    to the realization that we are dealing with people and organizations who would rather see us all die than to allow one penny of profit to be diverted to providing decent health care.

    This is the nature of the enemy.

    It is as implacable as a rabid dog.

    It is filled with a poison that has destroyed its own ability to fear.

    You cannot argue logic and common sense with it.

    It only understands one thing and that is to kill whatever is in front of it and that is how it must be dealt with.

    It cannot be reasoned with.

    It cannot be tamed.

    It cannot be restored to the thing it once was

    There is only one way you can deal with  a rabid dog.

    Are you ready or is it still too soon?

    How many more must die before we put this thing out of its misery?.

  •  Calling Guiness (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve

    What makes me the most angry is that the current status quo is such a mess that almost anything government-run would be better, and yet they act as though it would be so much worse.

    Nothing could be worse than worst healthcare in the Western world!

  •  Stunning: SCHIP costs less than private insurance (11+ / 0-)

    nyceve, sorry to pimp my diary here, but yesterday I realized something important about the SCHIP health care battle and how it really does relate to the "slippery slope" of "socialized medicine":

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Basically, it turns out that the cost per child for the SCHIP subsidy - $758 - is less than the tax deduction on a typical private health insurance policy for a child.

    In other words: The federal treasury would pay out less for health insurance if every child, especially rich children, were covered by SCHIP.

    No wonder Bush is afraid that an SCHIP expansion would lead to an expanded federal health policy - it saves taxpayer money!

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:33:13 AM PDT

  •  Wonderful commercial-Saw it on CNBC (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, nyceve, Brooke In Seattle

    That is a great commercial. Hopefully they buy some spots during prime time

  •  from hudson institute's mission statement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, nyceve, DSPS owl

    at home, we helped write the pioneering Wisconsin welfare reform law that became the model for successful national welfare reform in the mid-1990s. Today, as part of our research agenda, we are developing programs of political and economic reform to transform the Muslim world.

    I'll bet!

  •  Reading McCaughey's editorial about ACS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, junta0201

    Reminds me of how Reagan worked.   McCaughey will be flattered by that comparison, but what she does is use an anecdote of Valerie Thorpe  as her sole data point of why the American Cancer Society should not be putting ads towards getting 'mericans on board with Universal Health Coverage.   Unlike Reagan's little fairy tales, McCaughey's anecdote actually happened (Valerie Thorpe from Kent is a real person who had to wait and complained to her MP).   And, McCaughey uses one country's implementation of UHC as the reason why UHC is bad everywhere - very Reaganesque.

  •  Why wait until president? (6+ / 0-)

    Isn't congress capable of putting forth and passing health care law TODAY?

    The fact that presidential candidates have health care plans is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT because they can't make the law anyway! It takes the legislature - ALONE with enough support to override a loser in the white house.

    Waiting until 2009 is retarded. Plain and simple. We need unviersal health care 10 years ago.

    And the two "leading" candidates are already in the legislature... WTF?

    •  This is a good question (4+ / 0-)

      Why does Clinton need to wait to be President to start this?

      Eve can you explain this?

      •  Readrock, in a word . . . (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, lurker123, Readrock

        No. Seriously, it's a very interesting question which I'll have to research.

        There are several bills, HR676 is one.

        Then there is the Wyden bill, which isn't good, but it's a healthcare bill going nowhere, doing nothing.

        The question we need to ask, is why do the American people tolerate this catastrophic state of affairs?

        A lot has to de with the media, let's see how they report the UAW strike?

    •  Yes and there are bills (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Readrock

      Many of us have been working for HR 676 for years (it has been reintroduced during several congressional sessions) and we have a decent grassroots network around the country.  

      Congress is where the fight will be and where our attention on Health Care needs to be irregardless of the presidential candidates or nominees.

      Click one of the links in my sig line and join us.

      •   I don't think that just (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ohiolibrarian, Readrock

        debating things in committee and passing bills is very effective on these kind of pre-emptive smear campaigns by connected academics, think tanks, and so on.
          See my comment below on "wolf packs" to go after these people in the press and in courts to stop them from continuing to mislead and misdirect.  By the time they've done their damage, the work of congress will not get any support.
            A wolf pack of a lawyer, a writer, a science or policy specialist,  a pr person, and a financier focused on publicising and countering what these 'hired academic' guns are saying and doing would at least slow em' down.

        •  Oh, I agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Readrock

          we have to be ready to respond to the lie campaigns the GOP is so good at.  Regrettably, the DNC is not so good on those, which makes blogs like DKos essential in arming the grassroots with the talking points to counter the right wing spin.  

          I would hope that eventually, we will learn how to compose and get our own talking points out ahead of the game - why we are not creating our own versions of the right wing "spam emails" and getting them circulated, I just can't figure out.

          •  when it doesn't make complete sense (0+ / 0-)

            I figure that we still don't understand how things are really working.

            SarahLee and Eve, you are both far more well versed and current on this than most of us.  I somewhat dropped out of the "larger health care" discussion to attempt to defend professional abortion care for poor Americans.  However, I am a past state president of the League of Women Voters so I have done some serious lobbying work on health care reform historically.  We have been grinding away on this for a couple of decades at least now, with no apparent improvement at all.

            I do agree that we should start asking our Democratic Senator's who are running for president to start showing us some movement NOW...not when they get elected.

            Anyway, thanks for all your hard work.  I think we are on the same page here.  I just wonder when we have a majority in Congress why we can't begin to move forward.  And yes, if Bush vetos legislation it makes it easier to show Republican damage.

            BTW, I am no longer representing the League so I can be as partisan as I want...which is GREAT!

          •   I'm thinking that something (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee

            beyond 'talking points' lobbying, and the usual political run around.
              At some point it might be worthwhile to think in terms of naming names, publishing who is behind certain programs, and bringing lawsuits against some people that are doing damage.
               For instance, in the abortion area, some time back a gal who needed one was bounced around by phony pregnancy councilors making and cancelling bogus physician appointments with her until she was beyond the time she could safely or legally have an abortion.
               As I recall she sued the organization for life time support for the genetically defective child she had and was awarded help, but I don't know if she was able to collect ---
               Likewise, there is advertising in California about the electoral vote split program that would allocate a large enough percentage of electoral votes to a republican, even if they lose the overall popular vote, resulting in Republican election winner in 2008.   The counter ads are pretty milquetoasty, they should name exactly who is putting money up for this, what individuals and what organizations and business interests are pushing this, what they have previously done to the state, and so forth.  

            •  in abortion care in USA (0+ / 0-)

              we providers have been suing the "state" over and over.  The Center for Reproductive Rights continues to defend women seeking care and providers attempting to provide care.  In my state I have sued the "state" over twenty times and currently am involved in a very nasty battle on "credentialling" doctors.

              Anyway, this is a rough way to create public policy change but sometimes is necessary.  The problem in the "abortion care world" is that we have been losing in the courts.  The concept of states rights vs. "undue burden" of women seeking care has risen its ugly head.  Unfortunately, courts seem never to identify what an "undue burden" is for women seeking care so abortion care is becoming increasingly unaccessable.

              And sadly our judicial branch of government is greatly swayed by politics so depending on the courts to protect our "rights" is riskier and riskier with the legacy of the Bush Regime coming into play.

  •  I'd like to hear someone like Lance Armstrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack

    slam down the lies and support ACS.  Someone from the right needs to call out those on their side of the political spectrum.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:08:28 AM PDT

  •  Hmm... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Judge Moonbox

    I wonder if anybody told her which words to use when composing her piece?

  •  Oh and cigarettes aren't addictive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Judge Moonbox

    and don't cause cancer. You can ask my dead mom about that - she smoked two packs a day and died of small-cell lung cancer. I'm sure one had nothing to do with the other. What's wrong with "you people"?

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:19:42 AM PDT

  •  Stop trying to kill survival of the fittest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Judge Moonbox

    Look at all of nature except man. It is survival of the fittest. The slowest weakest antelope gets caught by the lioness. The slower seal gets caught by the great white. In the annual river crossing of millions of water buffalo the crcodiles get the weaker beasts. If some birds who normally have only one chick, has twins, the stronger one pushes the weaker one out of the nest to fall to his death.

    Come on!! The repubs are just establishing a conversion in mankind to the same as nature. Survival of the fittest.

    The fittest are those with the most money and biggest spin machines and the weaker are being culled out.

    Within 100 years all that will remain will be wealthy, Ivy league educated, shrewdly manipulating humans that can talk out both sides of their mouth without anyone seeing it.  

    There is a principal which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation.H.Spencer

    by TKK on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:31:25 AM PDT

  •  This was what the Ins. Industry wanted in the (4+ / 0-)

    bill and this is exactly what we got after the bill was defeated.

    The bill guarantees
    you a package of medical services, but you can't have
    them unless they are deemed "necessary" and "appropriate"
    (pages 90-91). That decision will be made by
    the government, not by you and your doctor.

    We got insurance companies making these decisions. It is total BS when clinton says now she realizes that you have to have everyone at the table. They were at the table then and got what they wanted in the bill and when the bill went down to defeat we still got all the shit they wanted in it.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:35:18 AM PDT

  •  How is this different? (7+ / 0-)

    The bill guarantees
    you a package of medical services, but you can't have
    them unless they are deemed "necessary" and "appropriate"
    (pages 90-91). That decision will be made by
    the government, not by you and your doctor.

    Okay, substitute the word bill with contract and the word government with insurer and doesn’t that describe exactly what we have now? Yes, bureaucracy is bureaucracy, but given the choice I'll take the bureaucracy where I get to vote for the boss.

    The big difference between 1993 and today is that Americans have had over a decade to experience the reality of 'managed care.' People aren't scared of government bureaucrats anymore. They have lived with the private sector ones long enough to know better.

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    by Joe Bob on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:40:20 AM PDT

  •  it bears repeating here - (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elfling, nyceve, LakersFan, junta0201

    There are lots of comments on the ACS website from people who are up in arms about ACS support of universal health care or who are angry at them for supporting "socialized medicine".

    Before you jump on the other side, I'd read carefully what they're saying.  

    This isn't a campaign in support of universal health care.  They aren't proposing a solution or making a recommendation.

    They're pointing out the problem and pushing it into the national debate.  If I read them right, as a charity they're walking a fine line and trying to get both Dems and Republicans to address this issue and move it forward.  

    In effect they're asking for a "conversation" - does that sound familiar?  Hint.... she is married to Bill.

    The problem is that everytime someone points out our healthcare problem people reflexively jump back into their partisan camps and their partisan frames.

    Sad really.  

    But take a look for yourself - read the comments on the ACS webpage devoted to this.

    http://www.cancer.org/...

  •   A few individuals, institutions and a couple (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, junta0201

    of key industries are actively setting up and maintaining  situations where many innocent lives are being lost, destroyed, people are actually maimed, from inferior or non-existent medical care. inferior foods and products, bad working conditions, etc.    They are literally causing death and disease to thousands of individuals.

    We have their names, their addresses, and can find out what they are getting paid, and by whom, and how much. We can research what they have done, said, published in the past, and who they have been connected with and influenced and damaged.  But nothing bad ever seems to happen to them.

    It seems to me that legal actions of some sort are in order to stop them from their fraud and lies; if they can be tied up in the courts.  Can't the word on the work of these people get out?  Why isn't anybody collecting money to get the legal wheels turning to stop them and actually punish them for the evil they do?

    My family is on every mailing list for every politician who wants huge donations (not just 10 or 15 dollars, they are asking starting donations of 150 up to 5000 dollars!!!) to put them in office. They then get elected, and deliver minimal value on any of these issues to their voting constituents. They really aren't in a position to make great change once they get elected.  

    Maybe it would be better to spend a lot more in donations and time by setting up 'wolf packs' of truly courageous speakers and lawyers and reporters to actually go after these 'standard bearers' and hold them publically and personally and legally responsible for the damage they are doing to individuals, and show how they are directly connected to the big interests.

    No doubt, the pushback of the big interests is going to be deadly -- to the wolf packs, their families, and their financiers and supporters -- but once a few of the hired gun 'ivory tower' academics and insulated think tank members see they can be brought directly in contact with the products and results of their words, shown to be responsible for what happens in the real world, this would stop.

    This tactic, through the courts and press, is the one thing that will stop people from going to the barrades.

    My personal feeling is that we, as a nation, have never been far from the kind of 1920-'s and 1930's armed mob violence we've had over the past 200 years  -- this last 50 year span, in spite of the race riots and some labor strikes, has been an abnormal 'warm period.'  

    I sense we are at a tipping point -- already labor is going out, kids are going hungry during fall harvest (hey, apples at $1.69 a pound??!!) and  we have a hard winter with bad crops coming in, and the value of peoples houses is dropping like a rock, apartment rent is shooting up like a skyrocket, the dollar is halved in value; we have seen nothing yet.  

    And what the hell are you people doing discussing states rights, slavery, and the Civil War doing on this thread???? Can't you set up your own diary instread of highjacking this one?

     

  •  Don't defend - Attack (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smallbottle, nyceve, oregonj, junta0201

    It is impossible for the Dems to beat back all the misinformation the Gopers create.  As soon as you do the damage control on one line of lies, they will have started three others.

    The only way to win is to attack first - lift the scab on all their open sores.  Then let the Gopers get lost in damage control.  

    DON'T LET THEM SET THE FRAME.

    •  The Market Extremists (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      junta0201

      think the free market , plus some tax breaks, can solve the health care crisis.  What a joke.

      The Market Extremists have yet to see a problem that they haven't tried to make worse through a market mechanism.  Just look at the the report from the Treasury Dept. today:  Privatizing Social Security would have been a disaster - the right answer is adjusting taxes and benefits.  The Market Extremists are just Wrong on health care and social services.

  •  Betsy McCaughey, radical right-winger does not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Aaa T Tudeattack

    know how to think logically. She is pushing an agenda and probably has stock in healthcare corps.

    "There she goes again."

    "...we overemphasize what technology can do. The most important fusion takes place inside people's brains." -Amy Zegart

    by Gorette on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:13:54 PM PDT

  •  O'Rielley? They Say You're Known By The Company (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve

    you keep.

    This woman's scum.

  •  Fight back, Donate! (0+ / 0-)

    A Mere Detour: Where Politics, Law, & Gardening Awkwardly Coexist

    by Garden Neighbor on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:33:11 PM PDT

  •  Gordon Brown's comments today on the NHS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, junta0201

    Our great achievement of the 1940s was a [National Health] service universal to all. In 2007 we need a service that is accessible to all and personal to all....

    For sixty years Britain has shown the way to health care not as a privilege to be paid for but as a fundamental human right.

    Better than any other endeavour the NHS expresses our mutual obligation to each other: because all of us need help some of the time, it is the best insurance policy in the world.

    I can also say that, following the review by Professor Darzi, my aim for the next stage of an NHS personal to you: for every adult a [free] regular check up on the NHS.

    Over the next ten years: I am proud to announce that through the medical research council and the NHS together, Britain will invest more than ever before - £15 billion of public money - financing the genius of British researchers and doctors as they convert breakthroughs in genetics, stem cell research and new drugs into cures and vaccines to combat cancer and the deadliest of diseases.

    Link to speech

    The Justice Department is no longer a credible defender of the rule of law or the Constitution.

    by Overseas on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:39:29 PM PDT

  •  McCaughey is special. Not in a good way. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Aaa T Tudeattack

    Those of us who live in NY state may remember Elizabeth McCaughey for her...shall we say, unusual behavior as lieutenant governor. She was AWOL from her office for months at a time, and would at infrequent intervals make some outrageous statement that provoked doubts about her sanity. I seem to recall some sort of sleazy legal problems for her husband as well.
    The idea that this fruitcake should have any sort of public following or credibility nowadays merely proves the adage,
    IOKIYAR.

  •  When Hillary cares passes all Republicians will (0+ / 0-)

    be required to get tatooed so we will know who they are and can deny them care.

  •  Holy Shit! I jokingly predicted this! (0+ / 0-)

    I said the wingnuts would create "Cancer Survivors for Truth" and start putting up their own ads!

Greg Greene, N in Seattle, clio, bink, Thumb, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, davej, Joe Bob, tmo, nofundy, jillian, CJB, Radiowalla, eugene, vivacia, ogre, teacherken, slinkerwink, glitterscale, joejoejoe, Margot, Cali Scribe, lrhoke, Nina Katarina, cosbo, Unstable Isotope, Powered Grace, stumpy, karlpk, Spinster, tommurphy, Shockwave, Wintermute, jakbeau, John Campanelli, tryptamine, Pompatus, HootieMcBoob, figdish, elfling, TarheelDem, caliberal, Carnacki, Matilda, Norwegian Chef, PanzerMensch, musicsleuth, Poika, RubDMC, RumsfeldResign, eyeswideopen, joyous, bronte17, wonkydonkey, annrose, dionys1, sfgb, whenwego, KibbutzAmiad, CoolOnion, RabidNation, KMc, PBnJ, Dont Just Stand There, Glic, mkfarkus, mrblifil, Transmission, roses, Ignacio Magaloni, sgilman, amanuensis, luku, Miss Blue, jkb246, dcvote, Iberian, Oke, slippytoad, fight2bfree, psnyder, sockpuppet, oldjohnbrown, Dallasdoc, paluxy1945, bogdanmi, Tracker, MA Liberal, roseeriter, GrainofSand, hoolia, bloomster, Caldonia, Bulldawg, Science and Art, Chirons apprentice, snakelass, lcrp, jmm57, Brian82, Democratic Hawk, TheJohnny, cevad, bwintx, Noisy Democrat, cinnamongirlthree, Steven D, poemworld, lurker123, kd texan, rickroks, Demfem, macmcd, goldberry, TexH, Gowrie Gal, tami33, sxwarren, rapala, madaprn, Skennet Boch, davidincleveland, G2geek, maybeeso in michigan, tribalecho, historys mysteries, Bluesee, farleftcoast, denise b, el dorado gal, Alegre, Five of Diamonds, LarisaW, baccaruda, alaprst, OpherGopher, irate, PBen, Alice Venturi, Flint, elkhunter, clammyc, basquebob, ChemBob, Brooke In Seattle, reflectionsv37, eru, Mz Kleen, oregonj, Pam from Calif, Sharon in MD, chicagovigilante, jorndorff, Sara R, jimreyn, Buffalo Girl, Overseas, blue jersey mom, wulidancer, nanobubble, wiscmass, serrano, Tuba Les, dsteffen, Cory Bantic, Team Slacker, Lindy, Ekaterin, empathy, rerutled, Dania Audax, bently, noweasels, SoulCatcher, Strawberrybitch, martini, LeftOverAmerica, gwilson, Thundergod, irishwitch, tarheelblue, Keone Michaels, myboo, sherlyle, Clytemnestra, virgomusic, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, emeraldmaiden, Themistoclea, stonemason, cookseytalbott, Mensor, poichick, dewey of the desert, Partially Impartial, mooomb, aepm, global citizen, Tanya, Lashe, gatorcog, Bush Bites, condoleaser, Frank Cocozzelli, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Preston S, myrealname, ER Doc, Dinclusin, droogie6655321, BlueMississippi, means are the ends, frankzappatista, Dreaming of Better Days, scoff0165, chapel hill guy, NYPopulist, MadMs, Jbeaudill, AmySmith, FrankieB, Bernie68, bstotts, Snarcalita, sea note, Little, mapman, AndrewOG, OHdog, Aaa T Tudeattack, AntKat, DBunn, ammasdarling, One Pissed Off Liberal, artist1776, DrSteveB, Cronesense, Cocker Mom, moodyinsavannah, lachmom, dallasdave, jds1978, FishOutofWater, ezdidit, londubh, Ninepatch, drchelo, Sean in Motion, Unbozo, masslib, vbdietz, millwood, pioneer111, word player, JML9999, scardanelli, feelingsickinMN, sable, MichiganGirl, Bikemom, Hens Teeth, Lena, TomP, crystaljim, MKinTN, fayeforcure, TheSilence, oolali, edison, ScottyUrb, zerone, dave1042, Aureas2, Cat Servant, honey, Archangel, beltane, pamelabrown, TokenLiberal, Missys Brother, MsWings, NogodsnomastersMary, moneysmith, Chrispy67, Readrock, luckylizard, echatwa, DixieDishrag, junta0201, watercarrier4diogenes, Tennessee Dave, Chad Michaels

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site