EXCLUSIVE:This article was adapted from Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government—and How We Can Take It Back, with permission from Crown Publishers. Let’s be honest—very few political operatives, politicians or pundits actually want to explore the real-life, day-to-day economic challenges facing the American people, because to explore them would ultimately force us to admit that our… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (70)Page 1 of 1 pagesI haven’t read the book so my commments may misdirected — I hope so.
If the rest of the book’s answers as to how “to take it back” are similar to the ones in this excerpt we are still going nowhere.
I agree with his assessment that a lack of health care is a huge problem. The REAL problem ( the one the title points to) is that we ordinary unlobbied citizens have lost our representative government. The answer I hoped to hear was how we take government back.
I often see and hear solutions presented to many issues, but dispare of getting any elected officials to impliment them.
We are about to relect in November about 80 to 90 percent of the people who have done a truly unremarkable job so far. (Well, no remarks fitting for children and ladies to hear anyway.)
In two more years we will choose once again from a pathetic field of candidates. From the last three we got these memorable quotes:
“Read my lips, no new taxes.” and “I don’t have the vision thing.” (G.H.W.B)
“It depends on what is IS.” and “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski.” (W.J.C.)
“Mission accomplished.” and “I don’t read newspapers.” (G.W.B.)
Posted by whattheheck on May 1, 2006 at 2:57 PM Of course national health care makes perfect sense. Anything is better than the current system. The health care system is sucking as much surplus dollars out of the productive economy as the energy industry. The US automakers are by far hurt the most with $1,500/vehicle cost addition due to health care costs. When I was a construction laborer eleven years ago the Laborers’ International Union added $3.00/man hour to the wage bill to cover health insurance costs. That is an effective 15%/hour raise for the entire staff just for health care. The health care corporations are greedy and are raising costs just to gain record profits. They’ve stolen enough. It’s not about doctors, nurses, or other providers. Most of the health care cost increases do not going to their salaries or fees but to the corporations. Who needs the corporate takeover of health care? I just heard a story of a young surgeon who did a complex nine hour spinal surgery on a cancer patient who was denied post operative physical therapy because she was not expected to live and the money was viewed as wasted by the HMO. The surgeon, who received only $900.00 from what was assuredly a six figure precedure, was understandably livid at the HMO’s disregard for his patient’s recovery chances. We need health care for people not for profit in this country. We need it now!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 2, 2006 at 2:13 AM The problem with healthcare is Americans are “FAT & LAZY”.
When I went to Europe on a business trip for 2 weeks ... I couldn’t beleive it when I got off the plane in NYC. Walking down the concourse I looked at my boss and I said “what do you notice?”
He said “everyone is fat”.
If your fat and don’t exercise you drive up the cost, plus all of the illegals, plus all of the fraud, plus all of the lawsuits.
Posted by tina1 on May 2, 2006 at 2:22 AM The problem is managed care which wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on administrative and other redundant costs which could be saved in a single payer system. More people would have access to care and the money lost through delinquancy would be saved by a more stable system of collecting and charging for premiums and by taxing to fund the system. We would spend less per capita and insure more people. Also, certain fees for procedures should be regulated. Health care providers should have more say in policy than corporate suits. A public trust could administer the funds for the system which allow free choice of health care providers and decisions about care and confidentiality between doctor and patient would be better preserved in this system than under managed care. I personally found it appalling that 18,000 people die unnecessarily every year of curable illnesses when Managed Care CEOs are raking in millions of dollars while there is 15% uninsured and unchallenged waste in the private corporate system. Where are all those “pro-life” hypocrites on behalf of the unnecessary deaths of real live uninsured infirm of America? As usual, real human life is not their true concern!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 2, 2006 at 7:56 AM One study a few years ago estimated that of the nearly $400 billion spent in the private US health system in administrative costs alone in 2003, a single payer system would have saved as much as $286 billion or nearly $7,000 per uninsured in the US at that time. The number of uninsured in the US in 2003 was officially estimated at over 41 million people or 15% of the US population. The administrative cost savings gained by shifting to a single payer system could have easily paid for a comprehensive health coverage program for the entire uninsured population many of whom are children! The argument for such a system is irrefutable and will become more so as employer health costs price US goods and services out of the market and/or leave more people uninsured. A single payer system along with some kind of modest regulation with regard to medical fee increase rates should currently allow for total comprehensive health care coverage for all US citizens.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 2, 2006 at 8:34 AM Insurance. Practically the only way to get people to get it is either: 1) force them to buy it (as most states do now for auto insurance) or 2) give it away for “free” (that is, force companies or government to provide it). People just don’t want to spend their hard earned dollars on insurance when they see all the other, more tangible, goodies out there.
Math:
“In 2003, HMOs nearly doubled their profits from just a year before, adding $10 billion to their bottom line.”
Seems like alot of money. Refunded to all Americans this profit comes to about $30 each. Or perhaps $100 per US household.
“In 2004 alone, the four biggest health insurance companies reported $100 billion in revenues. That’s $273 million a day, every day, 365 days of the year.:
Or about $1000 per US household for health insurance. Sounds about right, if not a tad low. The profits are thena about 10/100 or 10%, which strikes me as quite reasonable!
While i am for universal health care (weakly), it has lots of problems. The cost of medical care will surely increase, as more and more expensive technologies become available. Figuring out who gets what is non-trivial, as can be seen by countries who adopt such schemes. The big questions are 1) where will the money come from and 2) what will the benefits and costs be for the participants?
Posted by wolf on May 2, 2006 at 10:04 AM Wolf,
I’ve seen similar figures. Perhaps somewhat higher. In 2004 at the height of per capita health care costs when the $1.9 trillion in spending represented about 18% of the GDP the profits on over $272 billion in revenue in the managed care industry was between $11.5 and 12 billion or 4.5%. There was a slow down in the rate of growth of profits. Only energy firms earn 10% of revenues in profit or more. It is a great deal of money when spread out over the number of subscriber households. To spread it out over the national population is ludicrous though it still yields an impressive per capita profit figure. Managed care revenues account for 14 to 15% of the health care revenues but probably account for only 5 to 7% of the insured. They make quite a bit. Plus their CEO salaries, fees and premiums have skyrocketed over the last five or six years. I think they can stand to hold things in check. In addition, a single payer system would not much affect their profitability and even expand it due to the increase in subscribers and savings in rising administrative costs.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 2, 2006 at 12:14 PM Found this at
pnhp.org.
HMOs/insurers that can raise massive amounts of capital by selling stock have a decisive advantage. Their deep pockets allow them to mount massive ad campaigns, market nationally to large employers, and set premiums below costs until competitors are driven out. Once they’ve cornered the market they can drive hard bargains with hospitals and doctors. As a result not-for-profit plans across the country are going for-profit (even Blue Cross), and small plans are being taken over. Even the largest physician-owned plans cannot compete with U.S. Healthcare, Prudential and similar firms with multi-billion dollar war chests.
Large drug firms are preparing to directly take over much of specialty care. Merck, Lilly and others are developing “Disease Management” subsidiaries to sub contract with HMOs to care for patients with expensive chronic diseases such as depression, diabetes, asthma and cancer.
Well, well, fuckin well --- it’s our old friend Globalisin’ Mother again. Everybody gets screwed, except him.
wth I’m sure the kids haven’t got this far, and reckon the ladies might have a few rudewords, too ?
Studying events your side is an eye-opener, as we follow ever more swiftly.
I was born with the UK National Health Service ---NHS number : mbeq9--- and am now seeing our friend Glob-Mother hard at work on Creative Destruction and Profit Maximisation.
The brits are fighting back hard, but sure not winning yet .....keepourNHSpublic.comHere in frogland we are just starting to wake up, but the ‘process’ is long under way....
Taking Government Back ?
Sirota did not cover this in the article , just his analysis of the crisis, but I think all of us who agree with it can work out pretty well for ourselves what has to be done ?
Before reading the book, or my favourite economy-measure-- the amazon reviews, which is a passive method, why not sit down with a sheet of A4 , and work out how to get from A to B ?
And then see what we missed ... and DO something…
Posted by frog on May 2, 2006 at 5:54 PM Frog,
I also use Amazon reviews a lot. Especially helpful (and cheaper) when by an author I’ve read before.
This may be an encouraging sign over here — In addition to this book by Sirota I checked out another — “The K Street Gang,” by Matthew Continetti. In a radio interview he identified himself as a life long conservative.
K Street is symbolic of the Washington D.C. area where many lobbyists are. According to him Tom Delay turned lobbying into a mass production operation beginning in 1994. Since then they have more than doubled. (There now are about 68 lobbyists for each congressman and senator.)
Step One: Identify the real problem.
When both the left and right recognize we are all getting screwed, perhaps there is a ray of hope that someone will rise to the occasion.I wish I was 20 years younger.
Posted by whattheheck on May 4, 2006 at 7:24 AM Ok, wait one damn minute. Sirota is at it again,
the four biggest health insurance companies reported $100 billion in revenues.
[...]
Even parts of the business community support government intervention. For instance, Ford, GM and Chrysler all endorsed Canada’s system ...
Ford alone has revenues of $117 billion.. GM has $199 bilion. Chrysler has $195 billion
That’s $511 billion to h/c $100 billion.
Kind of shoots Sirota’s claim (in his own foot) that the healthcare industry has the entire government bought and paid for.
Or, maybe Ford, GM and Chrysler are sterling examples of socially responsible corporate citizens and don’t lobby for their interests.
I am all for reforming national healthcare, but these kind of crackpot conspiracy theories effectively shuts down the debate.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 4, 2006 at 1:55 PM Jay Cline-
good to see you writing utter bollocks again.
Ever heard of Chapter 11 ? I’m a brit and I have.
I used to broke money, so know about “junk bonds”, ring a bell ?( or should I say—rattle your chain ?)
Any serious plan to revive the US car-makers must tackle their crazy health-care liabilities, otherwise they will fold. Punkt. Full stop. Point final. Dead Parrots.
Posted by frog on May 4, 2006 at 3:55 PM WTH
You are as young as you feel, old boy ! The UK NHS was born in 1947, me too.
Pork barrel and Tammany Hall go back a long way, too.
Two mediocre reviews here of Washington Pay-off by Robert Winter- Berger , 1972 , about Nathan Voloshen and organised lobby crime and corruption well before Tom DeLay , a fascinating book. I was lucky enough to find it second-hand in Paris, (France, not bloody Texas !).
Recommended read from cover to cover, should be a collector’s item , like many long out-of-print books, even on reading lists for schools, as Black like Me by Griffin is in france.
My local library in the Normandy sticks even has a DVD of Frank Capra’s 1939 Mr Smith Goes to Washington, and there I find the reviews do Justice. One in particular I found very touching. As another reviewer wrote, should be required viewing in schools, what a chance , that would be real education for citizenship !
The left/right Rep/Dem PS/UMP Tory/NuLabour divides all over have just become useful devices for dividing to rule. ge the people heated up about Bush/Kerry for example, and no-one notices they have the same bloody policies.
Well, 90%.
Not so sure about your “someone will rise to the occasion” .
Historically that sort of vacuum is often filled by some nasty or other ?
Posted by frog on May 4, 2006 at 5:00 PM WTH- I know how much you love Walmart and Company.
Ackshully, Adam Smith was far more clever than those taking his name in vain, with their invisible-hand simplificationistic mumbojumbo ideology.
He was a cool cat who saw what we all can see (except Jay deCline and Co) , that if you let the Big BusinessVolk make the laws they will Rob and Oppress the rest of us.
So Adam Smith was a crackpot conspiracist ?
Posted by frog on May 4, 2006 at 5:53 PM Spreading out the savings accruing from the switch to a single payer national health care system from the present one would leave anywhere from $5000.00 to 8000.00/uninsured American for a program of national health care coverage. Considering that we as a nation annually spend about $5,300.00 per capita on health care itself, the amount left over just for insurence premiums is certainly reasonable and workable. All I can ask is why it is not done?Perhaps Bush is to controlled by big insurence, pharmacuticals, and managed care corporations.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 4, 2006 at 9:36 PM frog
Glad you agree with me.
US car-makers must tackle their crazy health-care liabilities, otherwise they will fold
Now there is a powerful incentive to fix the current healthcare system, particularly if it is breaking them, which I fully concur.
So, how does one industry, who DOES NOT want reform, outspend another industry that desperately needs reform, especially given that the car-makers have, at the very least, comparable revuenues. If not orders of magnitude more.
According to Sirota, money talks. And the car-makers have it.
Pity you had to waste half your verbage on desultory comments.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 5, 2006 at 7:21 AM the real reason we don’t have national healthcare is because our American Left is not even a REAL left, it is a pseudoLeft that has been evolved through decades of nonprofit foundation propaganda. The rich and corporations fund these nonprofits and use them the divert leftism from populist economic ideas like universal healthcare to ideas that are not harmful to the overclass, like multiculturalism and identity politics. As long as the Left activists and organizations are all caught up in race and gender politics and pure partisan politics, the overclass has nothing to fear from the left,
In These Times (ITT) is a PseudoLeft outfit. See what percentage of articles on the front page of ITT is related to universal healthcare. A very small percentage! Most of the articles here and on similar websites are devoted to noneconomic issues or to divisive identity politics issues.
RACE AND GENDER RACE AND GENDER RACE AND GENDER.
Gosh I cannot for the life of me figger out why the white working class of the red states won’t vote Dem??
gee....maybe it has something to do with the propagandized pseudoLeft activists that prattle endlessly about race and gender and give so little of their attention to populist economics issues like progressive healthcare, universal healthcare, and the kinds of things that make Europe a better place.
THe only reason this particular article about universal healthcare is up on this pseudoLeft site is because some PseudoLeft pundit is trying to get rich selling a book,,,,,
To see I am right just look at the articles that make the front page of ITT over time. Not much in there about universal healthcare or progressive taxation. THese two issues are really the backbone of any TRUE Left.
So what we have here in America is a PSEUDOleft....
Posted by cryofan on May 5, 2006 at 7:37 PM Frog,
Thanks for the titles — I’ll check them out soon. (Having computer/ISP problems right now and need to straighten them out.)
BYW I’m a pre-war model. (1938)
How about sending Mr. ADAM Smith to Washington? They might learn a thing or two.
Jay,
Whatever the earnings, insurance companies, pharma, etc. have had a very effective lobby for decades. Other advantages: Low intensity capital compared to mfg., non-union workforce, and often able to dodge big payouts thru selective grouping of those of us with health problems.
Individuals don’t stand a chance against these guys. Over forty years as a one person business, a four person family and no group policies teaches a lot about ospital billing prefs and insurance company games.
Posted by whattheheck on May 6, 2006 at 9:31 AM wth,
I don’t disagree that, dollar for dollar, individuals don’t stand a chance against these guys. In fact, I am applying that same logic to the Big 3 auto companies.
I do take issue with the bought and paid for argument, not that it doesn’t happen, but there is one area where these guys don’t stand a chance against the individual.
At the ballot box.
Don’t always work the way you might like, but you can’t pay off 20 million voters.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 6, 2006 at 11:39 PM Jay,
“I do take issue with the bought and paid for argument, not that it doesn’t happen, but there is one area where these guys don’t stand a chance against the individual.
At the ballot box.”--------------------------------------
In theory, yes.The high incumbency win-rate is a lot like having tenure. The lack of quality candidates challenging, the acquired power which enables pork delivery/reelection advantage, and the general feeling (which I admit to) that a truly honest person has little chance of changing congress, all make your optimism fade as years go buy.
Your argument is similar to those who say the stockholders still own the company. Not true. Over time things have evolved to the point where now — the CEO picks his board, the boards are incestuous (serving on each other’s boards), pay, benefits and perks are voted for the insiders. Much of this is due to the huge increase in mutual fund share ownership.Just look at the similarities in structure and relationships — Congress/Business. Is it any wonder the country (world) is being run by and for businesses and no longer national interests or fellow citizens or individuals.
We have become the United Lobbyists of America and run by special interests which transcend parties, states or countries. NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, GATT - a whole alphabet is stacked against individual representation.
I believe that many of those involved in business and governrnent can’t even see what they have done. It takes less than a generation to replace what we thought of as “normal” with a new paradigm.
Posted by whattheheck on May 7, 2006 at 7:11 AM wth
I believe that many of those involved in business and governrnent can’t even see what they have done.
No, I think that belief has to go much deeper than that, to validate your argument, to make optimism fade as years go by. If voters are unable to vote out incumbents (and I do strongly object to the implied notion that incumbency = corruption), then it can only be because many, nay a majority, of the voters can’t even see what they have done.
You must agree with that, if you argue that the high incumbency win-rate is a lot like having tenure. If the voters “could see” what is happening, if they would not tolerate it if could see it, then they must be blind, dumb and stupid to accept it. It is the only explanation for your high incumbency.
Ergo, contrary to Churchill’s statement, that democracy is the worst form of governance, except all that has been tried so far, democracy must simply be the worst. Democracy depends upon an intelligent empowered electorate. You would not give them that.
My optimism doesn’t fade, because I don’t accept the premise. Yes, corruption exists, but not to the delibitating levels that you imply. We will never eradicate it, any more than we could completely eradicate murder; as long as people remain people. But it does not exist with impunity, it does not exist outside the threat of exposure and defeat.
Lobbyists, congressmen, judges, even presidents, have fallen and continue to fall because of their avarice.
If we lived in a society so dominated and controlled by corruption, as you would seem to be implying, that would not be so.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 8, 2006 at 2:51 PM WTH
Your argument is similar to those who say the stockholders still own the company. Not true.
Tell that to Michael Eisner.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 8, 2006 at 2:57 PM Jay,
Apparently you are comfortable with having congress and CEOs and their board buddies decide their pay and benefits. Would you also like employees of those companies and government employees decide their as well?
What chance do you or I have of doing anything about either situation?
It is impossible to communicate with a Senator or Representative. Even if they wanted to hear from me there is just too much e-mail, snail mail, etc. for anyone to cope with it.What I was talking about is considered normal business practice both corporately and in government. It is done all the time. I worked on five local companies’ annual reports in the same year — all the boards were comprised of members of some of each of the others’. They all belonged to the same clubs and some had been to the same schools.
It is not illegal as far as I know. But it is highly controlled and mutually beneficial. As for congressmen who get caught — how many have ever lost their pensions or other perks?Nixon was disgraced and it lasted for a few years — the he became an elder statesman. The others — Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy — just become topics for a tell-all book at the worst.
Real campaign reform would disallow any large contributions from corporate or individuals, but them what make the rules will never cut it off. Business and government are joined at the hip (pocket).
Posted by whattheheck on May 8, 2006 at 3:28 PM wth
Sorry, but I gotta do this:
Apparently you are comfortable with having congress and CEOs and their board buddies decide their pay and benefits. Would you also like employees of those companies and government employees decide their as well?
[Congress, as our representative, has the constitutional authority to make that decision, subject to approval at the ballot box. Again, if you are assuming da people are idiots, then I refer back to my original argument about democracy being the worst. You haven’t answered that. If a majority of the voters cannot muster enough indignation to say no (which they could, AND HAVE!) then there must be other issues on the table. And no, their pay is not that extravagent. On the high side, but not over the top. As far as CEOs and their board buddies, same argument . You still haven’t answered how Eisner lost his job]
What chance do you or I have of doing anything about either situation?
It is impossible to communicate with a Senator or Representative. Even if they wanted to hear from me there is just too much e-mail, snail mail, etc. for anyone to cope with it.[Already answered that, except I do not have any problems getting my words in front of my representative. I am just not arrogant enough to believe my words are any more important than the other 300,000 voters]
What I was talking about is considered normal business practice both corporately and in government. It is done all the time. I worked on five local companies’ annual reports in the same year — all the boards were comprised of members of some of each of the others’. They all belonged to the same clubs and some had been to the same schools.
[sarcasm time: you mean people who work together shouldn’t be seen together?? You mean I have to choose between my career and my bowling night?! Sarcasm aside, I understand. But I have already made my argument, right or wrong, that I don’t believe it is as debilitating to the process as you do.]
It is not illegal as far as I know. But it is highly controlled and mutually beneficial. As for congressmen who get caught — how many have ever lost their pensions or other perks?
[You mean that Congressman who got thrown in jail is still getting his perks? Now, that would be outrageous. Again, if the presumaby intelligent and informed voters are sufficiently outraged, then they have the empowerment to stop it.]
Nixon was disgraced and it lasted for a few years — the he became an elder statesman [Yeah, a disgraced elder statesmen. I am sure that was no skin off his nose]. The others — Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy — just become topics for a tell-all book at the worst. [Not that I am defending Clinton, but are you saying they should have been all thrown in jail for life for sexual indiscretion and stupidity?]
Real campaign reform would disallow any large contributions from corporate or individuals, but them what make the rules will never cut it off. Business and government are joined at the hip (pocket).
[You still haven’t addressed my argument. Or even contradicted it.]
Posted by Jay Cline on May 8, 2006 at 3:45 PM Jay,
“Already answered that, except I do not have any problems getting my words in front of my representative. I am just not arrogant enough to believe my words are any more important than the other 300,000 voters”
Getting your words there? You may not be arrogant, but what makes you think your representative ever sees or hears your words? Are you that naive, are you better connected than most, or are you just arrogant enough to think he actually reads out your comments?
---------------------------------
Yes, I know congress has the authority. I just think they (and CEOs) abuse it.
What if:
These people earned an income based on or somehow related to their constituents?
Kerry claimed, “The American people want the same medical plan as we (congress) have.”What if:
The congress and CEOs got the same health care and retirement plans as most of us?I believe some important legislation would be passed in record time.
---------------------------------
“You mean that Congressman who got thrown in jail is still getting his perks?”
I don’t know about that, but the guy (Bob somebody) who was forced to resign for chasing his secretary around the office kept his as I recall.
---------------------------------“Again, if the presumably intelligent and informed voters are sufficiently outraged, then they have the empowerment to stop it.”
First, I doubt that there are enough “intelligent and informed voters” to accomplish anything. I’m just being realistic, not arrogant here. We often hear how few college students can’t recognize historical figures including former presidents. Many people have no concept of geography. Very few have any real knowledge of economics.
It seems apparent that those in the White House had no clue of the tribal makeup as opposed to national in the gulf region or they would never have announced democratization one of our goals.
Most people, even if intelligent, are too busy trying to make a living to be genuinely informed. This is more true than ever with multiple family members needing to work.
I have had more time now that I am retired, but have been a frequent writer to my representatives for decades. The change in their responses is very clear. Today here are seldom, if ever, specific replies and in many cases the pre-written standard replies are noncommittal so they can go to a constituent on either side of an issue.
------------------------------------
“Not that I am defending Clinton, but are you saying they should have been all thrown in jail for life for sexual indiscretion and stupidity?”Not at all. Clinton should have been forced out for dereliction of duty or for lying under oath — or whatever. As Commander of Chief (a role he obviously enjoyed) he should have gotten the same treatment a military officer would get (and did — member Tailhook?). If the outrage was inadequate to throw him out what kind of national dissatisfaction do you envision getting our representatives to change anything else? Money talks a lot louder than our letters.
Will we need bodies in the street to get adequate health care?
Do we need to go to the riots of the 1960s to keep CEOs from making a thousand times the average worker in their companies? (With all the employees off shore, they probably already are.)
Will it require lynching judges to stop illegals from “demanding” and getting equal benefits and “fair” immigration policies? (Explain fair to those who are waiting in line.)
Come on — our country is run by special interests, for special interests and is getting more so. Only rich, connected people can afford to run for office.
DeLay may go to jail, but his expanded D.C. lobbying game will stay and continue to grow.
------------------------------------
Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2006 at 12:46 PM wth
Come on - our country is run by special interests, for special interests and is getting more so. Only rich, connected people can afford to run for office.
Let’s assume this is intrinsically bad. Let us also assume that your quote from Kerry is an honest statement from him.
Did you know that Kerry is the richest Senator? So, we can’t trust him, but he says we can’t trust him, so we can trust him, but he is the richest Senator and we can’t trust him, yadda yadda yadda.
In the runup to the 2004 election, CNN published an article that decried that 40 of the 100 Senators are millionaires. Now, that is net worth, not net income.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/
Let’s add some stuff up. I am about the same age as a lot of the Senators, actually, probably on the younger side. I have $150,000 in home equity; my 401Ks and money in the bank, add another $200,000; I have two cars, one new, worth about $25,000; household furnishings, yard tools, entertainment electronics, wedding rings, yadda yadda yadda, let’s say $40,000.
That’s a cool $415,000. I’m an average Joe.
If we take the really filthy stinking rich off the Senate list, say anything over $5,000,000, we have just eliminated 11 Democratic Senators and 5 Republican Senators.
But wait. Let’s add those totals.
For the 11 Dems, there combined net worth is $516 million with an average of 46 million per.
For the 5 Reps it is $61 million with an average of 12 million per.
This ignores all those other Senators who were teachers, farmers, simply doctors.
In Minnesota and Wisconsin, each pair of senators at the time were on opposite poles of the financial spectrum. Wellstone was a local college professor and Feingold drives a Buick and has 2 mortgages on his house. Dayton, on the other hand, easily made the CNN list as the scion of the Dayton/Target department store chain and Kohl blew the list away. Only Kerry is richer.
All four are Democrats.
So, let’s ignore that there are a whole bunch of senators that are from ordinary backgrounds like Wellstone and Feingold. Let’s ignore that the House is populated with congressmen far poorer than Senators. Let’s ignore all the facts and just cry out,
Only rich, connected people can afford to run for office.
As far as special interests, uh, we live in a democracy. This is the only form of government that allows everyone to have a special interest.
You want to make groundbreaking legislation?
Get out the vote. Which goes back to your comments,
but what makes you think your representative ever sees or hears your words? Are you that naive?
Never said I thought my rep personally read each and every email. That is what staffers, and automatic email screening programs are for. When enough people agree with me (there’s that “getting out the vote” and majority rule thing again), yeah, I am naive enough to believe they’ll listen.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 9, 2006 at 5:34 PM Jay,
My point with the Kerry quote, “The American people want the same medical plan as we (congress) have.” Has nothing to do with his personal wealth, but is the fact that our “leaders” get special treatment which would be impractical to provide for we “ordinary” folks.
You think of yourself as “… an average Joe.” with a net worth of $415,000.
Everyone (with few exceptions) looks at the immensely rich and thinks he’s not rich — try looking a bit lower. You are far above the median. It is difficult to understand just how limiting a survival level income can be. I suggest you read “Nickel and Dimed,” by Barbara Ehrenreich.
Except for three years and my time in the army, I was self employed, self insured, and self satisfied. I do know a bit about arrogance and I am embarrassed when I remember some of the thoughtless comments I made to some of my fellow artists and illustrators. “Hey, if you don’t let you do it your way — don’t do their work. Tell them to get someone else.” (just one example). I had it made and it never occurred to me that others might be unable to be so independent.--------------------------------------
If you are content to accept the numbers handed down by the government and parroted in the media it is probably because you are doing OK. If you want to know the real situation it is there, but you need to work at getting it. They give out the “what” of the GDP, CPI, etc. — to find out why those numbers you must look at “why” those are the numbers and “how” they got them.
Why they report them as they do is quite simple… the numbers are massaged to make them look good. In “Maestro,” Woodward’s glowing account of Greenspan, the idea that productivity would keep the U.S. growing had begun to fade. He sent his team out to come up with proof not truth.
--------------------------------------
The three years I worked for a relatively large corporation, I found the same mentality as I saw in the army — you tell your superiors what they want to hear — not what you know to be true.
Example: In basic training my platoon Sgt. knew I had had three years of R.O.T.C. In teaching raw recruits to march he said, “You ALWAYS start with your left foot.” Then he asked me. “Isn’t that right?”
“Almost always, Sgt.” (dumb answer)“Ok Private, give me a command which starts out with the right foot, then.”
My reply, “About Face and Right Step, March.” was true, but not endearing.--------------------------------------
Some people MUST go along to survive, some others will go along to get ahead, very few will speak the truth as they see it whether running for office or just trying to keep their jobs.
I was not/am not saying everyone is corrupt — my point is the ordinary individual has little or no effect when up against the well organized special interests. You gave an elaborate accounting of the comparative net worth of those in congress to refute my claim that only the “rich, connected” get elected. There are other motives and other rewards connected to public office.
Power is at least as valued and the huge contributions to campaigns influence what is said and what is done before and after election. it won’t be found in a balance sheet.(more)
Posted by whattheheck on May 10, 2006 at 7:50 AM Jay,
You keep pushing Eisner’s ousting as an example of stockholders’ influence. I must admit I did not follow that story, since I sold my long-held Disney stock when they bought a TV network (a dying industry or at best slow growth). I suspect it was not the small shareholders who took him out — more likely a group of the big boys.
--------------------------------------
“Never said I thought my rep personally read each and every email. That is what staffers, and automatic email screening programs are for. When enough people agree with me (there’s that “getting out the vote” and majority rule thing again), yeah, I am naive enough to believe they’ll listen.”
I have nothing to add which can changed such a comfortable view except to ask, have you ever done it — organized enough people to change a (federal level) government policy or a board decision?
My only influence has been through a special interest group — the NRA. My attempts to influence the NRA itself went nowhere. They did, however, respond specifically to my letters. Several times my letters to congress brought a form letter reply to a different issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In case you are interested here is some suggested Globalization Reading (and my impressions).
“Global Squeeze,” by Richard C. Longworth, of the Chicago Tribune, 1998, gives, what is in my opinion, the best assessment of how globalization is affecting to the U.S.
For a much more optimistic view I recommend “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” by Thomas L. Friedman. His goal appears to favor a one-world government. (Before totally buying into his ideas you should consider that he invested in Russian bonds. I’ll go with Milton Friedman.)
For an economist’s picture of what’s going on there is “Independently Wealthy,” by Robert Goodman. He states that the markets are not moral and we must keep that in mind.
Another pro account is “A Future Perfect,” by Micklethwait and Woolridge. This one seems to me to be the least well thought out view and I would have to switch the tense to “Past Perfect.”
“Maestro,” by Bob Woodward is a testimony to the media homage given to an ordinary guy in a position of extraordinary power. Chairman Greenspan’s fascination with and profound belief in increasing productivity is echoed almost daily by those who think our present economy is good and can only improve from here. (Note: Foreign labor is not expensed in these glowing gains. ie: Subassemblies produced in Asia or Mexico and installed in the U.S. count only the U.S. installation time.)
“Who will tell the people?” by William Greider A depressing account of how little an individual can do about the fate of America. A real downer, because it rings so true.
“Perfectly Legal,” by David Cay Johnston How business, lawyers and our congressmen have developed a system to favor the rich and powerful.
“Running on Empty,” by Peter Peterson — While very concerned about the indebtedness of the US and individuals, he avoids proposing any realistic solution to Social Security. (Like maybe taxing income other than just wages and salaries. How about including ALL income — stock options, bonuses, gratuities like apartments, cars, etc.
--------
This one (which I mentioned previously) stands apart do to its personal nature. The specifics of how ordinary every day, minor events become major problems when the freedom provided by financial adequacy is missing.“Nickel and Dimed,” by Barbara Ehrenreich What is it like for a middleaged woman trying to get by on low end employment. Compressed in its 200 pages is a world of anxiety, embarrassment and futility. A first hand account of the American citizens trapped in a world of globalization. Every politician, economist and self-satisfied person should read it.
Posted by whattheheck on May 10, 2006 at 8:05 AM wth
You are right. I miscalculated. Seems that was total assests. According to CNNMoney, my net worth is 128,000.
You keep pushing Eisner’s ousting as an example of stockholders’ influence. [...] I suspect it was not the small shareholders who took him out — more likely a group of the big boys.
You can suspect all you want. The rule is one share one vote. It was big and messy.
And Eisner lost. And it happens all the time.
Or, do you think that someone with one share in a company, someone with a vested financial interest of, say $50, should have as much voting power as someone with 100 shares, or $5000, invested in the company.
Is that fair?
The same general logic applies to political elections. You get more votes, you win more elections. But, unlike corporations and shared interest, you don’t get to vote more often with more money.
I’m sorry. Your logic just fails.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 10, 2006 at 8:28 AM wth
my point is the ordinary individual has little or no effect when up against the well organized special interests
And my point is, you don’t need money to have a special interest.
You do have to work at, you do have to organize, you do have find others who agree with you.
I never said there wasn’t corruption. I just dispute that the corruption is preventing you, or anyone else, from participating.
And making a difference.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 10, 2006 at 8:33 AM wth
I doubt that there are enough “intelligent and informed voters” to accomplish anything.
I believe this is the nexus of our disagreement.
You don’t believe democracy works.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 10, 2006 at 8:36 AM Jay,
“Or, do you think that someone with one share in a company, someone with a vested financial interest of, say $50, should have as much voting power as someone with 100 shares, or $5000, invested in the company.”
Parallel thinking. Using your logic I can see why you think things are OK now. People with more money have more influence with congress just as with stocks.
“The same general logic applies to political elections. You get more votes, you win more elections. But, unlike corporations and shared interest, you don’t get to vote more often with more money.”Well, I see we agree on how it is done, but not on what’s right.
I believe if you have more money, you have more influence and then you will win more elections.
“And my point is, you don’t need money to have a special interest.”
You may have a special interest, but my point is that money is influential and influence (more shares or cash) moves your special interest along.
I doubt that there are enough “intelligent and informed voters” to accomplish anything.
I believe this is the nexus of our disagreement.
You don’t believe democracy works.
Bingo! I believe some are more equal than others and it is increasingly so.
---------------------------The fact that you and I are having this discussion in the middle of the day is indicative of an important advantage — You and I have the ability, access, and freedom which most people do not have.
Some cannot afford the internet. Others are working where they could lose their jobs if caught doing this. Many are too busy doing things after work to investigate and contemplate such ideas.
If you don’t read anything else “Nickel & Dimed” is an eye opener. It is especially meaningful to me since I have a son who has been experiencing a lot of what she did in researching her book.
• Have you ever been so strapped that you could not afford to travel to a job interview?
• Have you ever worked for someone who would fire you if you took off work to go to the doctor?
• Have you ever been without enough money to rent a place to live while waiting for the first check from a new job?
• Have you ever earned so little you had to pay no taxes? (This is what people mean when they say tax breaks are for the rich.)
• Have you ever had your income cut in half, lost all benefits during “a good economy”?
• Have you ever had to dip into your retirement fund?You haven’t addressed the gov. numbers. As I see it they ignore the above conditions regularly.
Posted by whattheheck on May 10, 2006 at 11:04 AM Every 12 years the nation cycles through 6 federal elections, which include 3 presidential elections, 6 full congressional elections for the house (435 members) and 2 full congressional elections for the senate (100 members). If we assume that each candidate has at least one opponent then the average cost of a federal election is:
ACFE = {[3*P + (6*435)*H + (2*100)*S]*2}/6 = P + 870*H + 67*S
where:
P = the average cost of a presidential election,
H = the average cost of a congressional election for the house and
S = the average cost of a congressional election for the senate.These are the costs declared by the competing candidates and do not include the soft money contributed to the national parties on behalf of the respective candidates or the private contributions allocated to “independent” organizations like the Swift Boat Veterans. Almost all of the contributions, hard or soft (again with the phallic terminology) are provided by corporations or private individuals who are reimbursed by their corporate employers.
If you plug in (sic) the appropriate figures you will discover that we no longer benefit from the political advantages of a democracy, but, rather, that some few of us profit from the economic expenditures of a plutocracy.
The operating principle is: one dollar, one vote.
Posted by Major Major on May 10, 2006 at 3:37 PM MM,
LOL!
What an absurd piece of mathematical fallacy!
Thank You.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 11, 2006 at 8:31 AM I have ten fingers. There are only 9 planets in the solar system.
Ergo, there must be one, and only one, more out there.
(and if I wiggle my left pinky, maybe that tenth planet will dance enough for an astronomer to notice)
Posted by Jay Cline on May 11, 2006 at 8:33 AM wth
Parallel thinking. Using your logic I can see why you think things are OK now. People with more money have more influence with congress just as with stocks.
It is only parallel if you equate public and private governances.
You do. I don’t.
Your moneyed influence has only gone to politicians. How does that buy 20,000,000 votes?
Oh, I forgot.
People are stupid.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 11, 2006 at 8:37 AM Jay,
“People are stupid.”
Well, Jay, I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have considered your probable lack of any really economic trauma, your youth, and your blind faith, but I must admit you are pushing the limit of my patience.
Just kidding. :-)
If you will read some of my previous comments more closely you will see I am not saying voters are stupid so much as ignorant and indifferent due to other pressing conditions. Big difference.
I can plainly see a deterioration in our representative form of government in my life time. I was fortunate enough to join the workforce in the 1950s. This was a time when the U.S. was thriving — WW2 vets were getting out of college on the GI bill, buying houses, starting businesses. Eisenhower had just started the massive public Interstate Highway System. The Cold War arms race had military manufacturing contracts employing thousands.
In 1966, I borrowed $1,000 to start my business. $500 for supplies and $500 to care for a family of four until the checks started coming in. No one in my family had had any financial difficulties since the depression was overcome by the war production.
All of that began to change with a combination of events. The fall of the Soviet Union, the beginning of out sourcing to foreign countries, the emergence of the tech revolution (robotics/computers/internet) and a dissolution of patriotism and national loyalty as an aftermath of the Vietnam War. There were other social/economic factors to varying degrees, but at any rate I have witnessed a national decline.
Nearly all economic reporting makes short term comparisons. Political planning horizons are keyed to the next election. The emergence of 24/7 mass communication has exacerbated this.
The bad part about having an imagination is that you see it coming and start to worry — hoping someone will take action to forestall the result you expect. Next you begin trying to alert people who may be able to do something. Then you reach the stage I am at — the realization that they not only won’t stop it — they are participants.
The end result: Nearly total disillusionment with government.
So what is the solution? Re-illusionment?
Posted by whattheheck on May 11, 2006 at 3:32 PM Sufferin’ succotash, Sylvester.
I used a twelve-year, six-election cycle to obtain a general estimate on the average cost of a federal election, since only one third of the Senate is elected during any given federal election and the President is elected on a four-year cycle. Election costs averaged over six elections provide a more accurate estimate of the costs incurred in obtaining a President and the members of Congress. You may regard it as a “mathematical fallacy” (since when did you suddenly become a mathematician?) but the formulation still provides a lowball estimate on the amount of money required to elect a government and the people who provide it, and expect a return on their investment.
Using average amounts derived from the 2000 Congressional elections and the average costs declared by Kerry and Bush from the 2004 election ([K+B]/2), I obtained a conservative estimate of over one billion dollars to elect a government.
P = $346,732,545
H = $609,550
S = $3,885,288ACFE = $1,137,386,094
And none of the above includes PAC money or contributions given to the national political parties, which, for the last election, kicked up the grand total to about four billion dollars. You may regard it as democratic, but our government is in fact a plutocracy, and has been for quite a while.
Posted by Major Major on May 11, 2006 at 5:33 PM Major Major,
$1,137,386,094 Holy Crap! (I got addicted to Everybody Loves Raymond a while back.)
And, as my Dad used to say, “It’s not the initial cost it’s the upkeep.”
I vote for longer congressional recesses — keep them separated and they can’t spend as much.
-------------------------
There was a story at WSJ’s opinion site yesterday concerning an illegal alien and a huge hidden cost which is seldom mentioned. My wife has been a hospital volunteer for over twenty years so it caught my eye and has told me how their costs are spiraling upwards.A man with tuberculosis meningitis showed up at an emergency room and was treated free of charge — but not free of cost.
“He ended up in Greenwich Hospital because the one in the town where he’d settled, the neighboring and much less well-to-do Port Chester, had shut down after going bankrupt. That hospital had cared for a large number of patients just like him: no insurance, no English, no papers. When a hospital serving such a demographic goes bankrupt, it leaves a needy population to seek free care elsewhere, passing on the same risk of financial distress to neighboring hospitals, like propagation of an infectious disease.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008362
Still, it looks like we are about to get the typical governmental solution to the illegal immigration problem… “It didn’t work in 1986, so let’s call it something else and do it again.”
.
Well, we have Dr. Elmer Fund as majority leader, so what can we expect.
Posted by whattheheck on May 12, 2006 at 7:07 AM MM,
And I used a ten digit calculator.
What you are saying if A=B and C=D and 5*A = E, then B+D must also equal E.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 12, 2006 at 8:11 AM MM,
Ok let me dumb it up.
What you are talking about is the per capita cost of the election.
Nothing more.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 12, 2006 at 8:13 AM wth
I have considered your probable lack of any really economic trauma, your youth, and your blind faith,
Pity you got every point wrong.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 12, 2006 at 8:14 AM wth
The points of your argument appear to be these:
1) Coporate governance is corrupt.
2) Politicians have been bought and paid for by special interest money.
3) Democracy has failed.
4) We need change.
Are we talking armed insurrection here? Because, by your logic, it ain’t gonna happen at the ballot box or in the halls of congress.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 12, 2006 at 8:18 AM Jay,
The points of your argument appear to be these:
1) Corporate governance is corrupt.
Not all, but an increasing number of them are operating from what I see as pure greed and sel interest. Many are now operating like sports stars and using agents. The good old boys as I pointed out earlier are taking good care of each other.
2) Politicians have been bought and paid for by special interest money.
A good example is the American Job Creation Act of 2004. If that isn’t a sweet deal for corporations nothing is. America has no benefit except for the big money boys — the jobs (if any) can be anywhere in the world. It is a tax break to replace subsidies the EEU griped about.Another cushy deal — stock options: Layoff in the US, hire in Asia, Mexico, etc. — bottom line jumps up, stock follows, cash in the options.
3) Democracy has failed. (See 1 and 2) It has evolved into an oligarchy.
4) We need change. It may be too late for most Americans.
Are we talking armed insurrection here?
Doesn’t look like it will happen due the time it has taken.
This whole operation mirrors the Nazi extermination technique. If everyone who has lost benefits, jobs and retirement plans had lost them in a short time we would have had a huge public outcry like when the stock market bombed in 1987. It happened gradually and many of the earliest to go were offered incentives. As those diminished people began to think they would not be touched. Then they saw others go and hoped to hold on until age 65… then 62… then they would agree to pay and benefit cuts.
“...by your logic, it ain’t gonna happen at the ballot box or in the halls of congress.”
Which is my main point congress is NOT doing the job for the bulk of Americans. Truman waws probably the last man to leave Washington poorer than when he went there.
The free market is not free. The economy is based on faked info. People who have asked for a level playing field are getting it — as our lifestyle is lowered by the globalization process we will work for lower wages.
Now we are expecting more legalization of people working for “less than minimum” wage. Maybe it is time for legal citizens to do a bit of flag waving and marching, but it is difficult when you have so little saved and need your job.
Posted by whattheheck on May 12, 2006 at 10:31 AM Corrections: (EDIT does not work on my OS9.2 Mac)
sel interest = self interest
Truman waws = Truman was
Posted by whattheheck on May 12, 2006 at 2:30 PM Seems we got sidetracked from the issue of universal health care. We should pursue both the topic and the cause!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 12, 2006 at 11:34 PM Sacre merde, mon ami. Was there a topic to this thread? Normally, the topic, whatever it happens to be, is generally decomposed into its two constituent components: the left side, which loves to ridicule the rich, and the right side, which thereby feels compelled to ridicule the poor, when it’s not blaming the liberals for misleading them. All of us then retire to our respective corners, basking in the warm glow of an imagined partisan admiration, while the trainers wipe away the blood and sweat for the next round. It’s an exciting diversionary experience, which in this case ignores the observation that the medical insurance industry is in fact the medical industry insurance industry. Providing health care to the people who require it is beside the point. The point is to provide people with an adequate incentive to obtain and tolerate employment which provides health insurance. Otherwise, more people might feel more entitled to determine their own standards of employment.
Posted by Major Major on May 13, 2006 at 7:58 AM Today on The Weekly Standard site there is an interesting article about the immigration problem and the lack of a likely congressional solution.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/215orrme.asp
-------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Lindsey’s approach to the daunting immigration mess is the first comprehensive plan I have seen. Why is it that I have absolutely NO hope that anything close will come from congress?
In spite of so many polls showing overwhelming opposition to another amnesty, I fully expect it to be just that by some other name. Illegal immigrants are the real issue with most of us. Not “immigrants” and certainly not “undocumented workers.” It is not the fault of the millions of hard working people who are paid slave wages. It IS the fault of congress — a bipartisan screwup with decades of dereliction of duty.
Other issues receiving the same lack of attention include: health care, job losses, excessive spending/debt, border security, benefit cuts…
They say we can’t throw the illegals out and doubt that we can throw congress out. Well, to paraphrase an often heard excuse, maybe it’s time for us to do the things congress doesn’t want to do.
A taxpayers’ revolt can be organized through the internet while tempers are still inflamed. If eleven million illegals are too much for our government to handle, let them try to deal with a couple hundred million LEGALS who are fed up with being ignored by D.C.
It took the Minutemen to begin to get some border security and it may be even easier to organize a second Tea Party…
No taxation without representation! Don’t Tread on US!
Posted by whattheheck on May 13, 2006 at 12:15 PM The Minutemen to which you refer were anticolonial guerillas, just like the Vietcong who dug punji pits on jungle trails and the Arab insurgents who plant IEDs on Iraqi highways. They terrorized the Loyalists who supported British rule, hanging many of them when they controlled the towns and villages, and burning them and their property to the ground when forced by the redcoats to retreat to the woods. And securing their borders was the last thing most of them wanted. They fought a revolutionary civil war to open up the borders, to initiate a westward expansion in which they were the illegal immigrants and the indigenous inhabitants were the natives.
If you want to control emigration to this country then you need to control the foreign and economic policy which compels the emigration of the immigrants. Trade agreements which open local foreign markets to American international corporations which employ cheap local labor, zero or negative taxation and an absence of environmental regulation will only increase the rate of emigration for people rendered unemployed by local industries made bankrupt by migrant American industry.
In other words, the only effective way to control “illegal” immigration is to control the “legal” migration of American industry, perhaps by requiring foreign-based American industries to provide their employees with comprehensive health insurance.
But wait. That’s one of the reasons why they migrate to foreign shores, to begin with, isn’t it? To escape the rising costs of health insurance. Well, maybe their host countries might thereby be persuaded to institute a single-payer health insurance policy, to alleviate their extortionary costs of production.
It’s a confusing subject.
Posted by Major Major on May 13, 2006 at 2:39 PM MM,
“The Minutemen to which you refer were anticolonial guerillas,”
No, I meant the current group doing for us what congress is ignoring.
My views on economics are similar to what you express here and I have given up on both congress and the executive branch (either party) doing anything for our shrinking middle class. They live in a separate world.
Personally, as a previously self-employed person, I see no reason why health care should be an employer responsibility. Generally, they don’t buy groceries, clothes or housing for their workers. If insurance companies had to compete for individual customers in a truly free market, we would get better care and better prices.
As for illegal immigrants — severely punish the employer/exploiters and when the jobs are gone the people will leave.
Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2006 at 7:40 AM Cabdriver,
We do tend to veer into other other areas, but the health care topic is only one issue the author deals with in his book, “How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government—and How We Can Take It Back.”
I saw him on C-SPAN last week and am considering buying the book to check out what his suggested methods are for the last part of his subtitle… “How We Can Take It Back.” (This excerpt didn’t do much with that.)
The single most Important comment I can remember from the program had to do with a truly revised system of campaign funding. As his book title indicates, this is how we lost our representation.
Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2006 at 8:02 AM Oh, you mean the Arizona Minutemen, not the rabble-rousing smugglers and misfits like Paul Revere and Tom Paine whose parents emigrated to the colonies to escape the restraints of British religious or political oppression, or, in many cases, the poorhouse or the gallows. You mean the Modern Minutemen who roam the Rio Grande in search of Mexican misfits who emigrate to a country which once belonged to them, for virtually the same reasons which inspired their lighter-skinned antecedents.
By the way, someone forgot to remind the Minutemen that the Canadian border is totally undefended. Hordes of French-Canadian Quebecois have already invaded our country and currently colonize the New England states, and threaten to overwhelm the geriatric enclaves in Florida.
Liberte! Egalite! Stupidite!
Ne pas marcher sur moi!
Posted by Major Major on May 14, 2006 at 3:44 PM Major Major,
You are hereby promoted to General Nuisance with sagebrush cluster.
Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2006 at 5:08 PM Amazing.
Speaking of the French, have you heard the joke about the Rabbi who walks into a bar with a frog on his shoulder?
“Hey, where’d you get that?”, says the bartender.
“in Brooklyn.”, says the frog.
“There’s hundreds of them.”
Posted by Major Major on May 14, 2006 at 6:28 PM Up here in northern Minnesota, the Roseau County Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party county convention passed a resolution supporting single-payer, universal healthcare that is publicly funded, and publicly administered.
The Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition has been pushing hard for single-payer, universal healthcare.
Recently, the most progressive candidate in the race for governor, Becky Lourey, came up with a hare-brained scheme for healthcare that she can’t even explain to the people, after which her campaign is now floundering because Minnesotans want real single-payer, universal healthcare.
Having lived in Manitoba, Canada for ten years, I found out first hand just how fantastic the Canadian Health Care system really is. All we are fed in the big-business controlled corporate media is a heavy dose of lies about the Canada Health Act . The fact is, Canadians are well served by their system.
Tommy Douglas, who was the leader of the socialist New Democratic Party, brought single-payer ,universal healthcare to Canada after Dr. Norman Bethune pushed for socialized healthcare for many years… just goes to show what can be accomplished when the left gets involved in a project big-time, and everyone pitches in and works together.
Alan L. Maki
Elected delegate to the upcoming Minnesota DFL state convention, and member of the DFL state central committee
Posted by alanmaki on May 15, 2006 at 2:54 PM Good Grief!
We’ve managed to stray back on topic once again.
Somebody, quick! Summon the trolls and send in the clowns!
For God’s sake, Tina! Where are you when we really need you?
Posted by Major Major on May 15, 2006 at 6:53 PM Time test: 10:45 PM, 05-15-06
Right. Apparently the clowns were watching their Fearless Leader deploy the National Guard along the Mexican border, another one of Rove’s wedge issues designed to shore up their eroding Conservative base and sow dissension among their Liberal foes.
Thanks for the input, Alan.
Posted by Major Major on May 15, 2006 at 8:48 PM Major,
We aren’t even able to agree on what is the topic — all is lost!
I thought it was about Big Money and Corruption having taken over our government. (I thought health care was only an example.) I saw “...what we must do to take it back,” as the goal of this discussion.
Re: health care
I have heard several first hand accounts from Canadians unhappy with their care who were coming down here rather than wait so long for elective surgeries. This is the first I have read of a satisfied customer.I suspect is similar to our Veteran’s Affairs medical care. A wide variety of opinions — much depends on the urgency, the location, and the local staff.
I have been extremely satisfied with my VA services, but friends in other states are not. They have become very overloaded since the war, but are doing a fine job.
To be fair I have to say that our civilian care, while better equipped now, has become a more complicated and time consuming process than it used to be.
I would have no problem with a system run like the military one.
-----------
MM, As for the Border/Illegals “leadership” speech —Bush is pathetic. But we were choosing between dumb and dumber— Thank goodness the electoral college made the “tough” decision for us. At least Clinton was a better liar. (A coin toss would save $ millions.)
For some reason I have taken the time to send e-mails to both Senate and House leaders this AM on his speech and their equally useless involvement.
Hope springs eternal.
WTH (Sgt,Sgt)
Posted by whattheheck on May 16, 2006 at 7:47 AM OK, Sargeant Major. I’ll spell it out for you. No one’s even thinking of deploying the National Guard along the Canadian border, despite the massive number of Canadian immigrants, particularly the French-Canadians in New England, who over the years have managed to insinuate themselves among the American population, displacing millions of American farmers and factory laborers and, over several generations, achieving an astounding cultural and economic degree of social assimilation to American society. I am, of course, being sarcastic. The Quebecois who came here were as diligant and industrious as their Southern, dark-skinned counterparts. They displaced the labor that American New Englanders declined and like their latino companeros they endured years of relentless bigotry and economic exploitation before many of their children and grandchildren managed to obtain the education and the capital required to succeed in an American culture which remains defined by the limits of white male dominance.
Simply stated, the difference between the proposed militarization of the Mexican border and the absence of it on the Canadian border is racism.
As for the Canadian health care system, I’ve heard and read of hundreds of accounts of Canadian dissatisfaction with the system. Thousands of Canadian medical students obtain their medical training at American universities because of quotas imposed by the Canadian government. None of those accounts, nor the quotas levied to limit the competition of Canadian medical providers, will ever obscure the observation that all Canadian citizens receive adequate medical care, free of charge, while all American citizens do not. Compare the per capita taxes that Canadians pay for their system to the per capita expenses that Americans and their employers pay for theirs, including the social costs incurred by all of us for those without it, and you can only conclude that the Canadian system is superior to the American absence of a system.
Posted by Major Major on May 16, 2006 at 4:37 PM Major,
You say no one’s concerned about illegals coming in from Canada, so those coming in from the south are a problem due to racism.
From your own commentary about the Canadians:
“...they endured years of relentless bigotry and economic exploitation before many of their children and grandchildren managed to obtain the education and the capital required to succeed in an American culture which remains defined by the limits of white male dominance.”
So what did their color do for them?
This has little or nothing to do with racism for most Americans. It is about our laws being ignored for political gain and OUR lack of representation. We are all being exploited by the governmental/big business leaders taking care of themselves and each other.
Come on, Bush is just blowing smoke. The guard is to be there but as “support.” Just More BS! I voted for the SOB because I thought he was serious about our security. Nearly five years after 9/11 and millions of illegals have crossed our borders N,S,E and West.
His plan is so stupid it is only exceeded by those who are accepting it at face value. Think about it…
A six year timeframe for illegals to:
1. Pay back taxes
2. Continue working
3. Work toward citizenship
4. Continue drawing benefits — overloading all systems: health care, educational, legal, judicial, penal
5. From the back of the line — where? At McDonald’s?
Six years from now what will be different?
If they didn’t obey the laws in the past, what does this plan do to make them obey the “plan?” Six years from now the only difference will be millions more people added to the problem.
At least Clinton was a more convincing liar.
Posted by whattheheck on May 17, 2006 at 7:32 AM I believe my point was that the Mexican border is about to be militarized, unlike the Canadian border which, except for the War of 1812, never had been. The principal difference between the two countries is that Canada is predominantly white. The militarization of the Mexican border, by the way, could easilly become the justifying basis for the reinstitution of the draft, one in which all draftees are stationed in the country for “homeland security” duty, including border patrol, and only volunteers, with suitable incentives, are drawn from the domestic pool for service in foreign imperial conflicts.
As for the assimilation of immigrants into American society, it has always been the case that although all immigrants are the victims of “native” bigotry white immigrants are more quickly absorbed into the culture and economy, for obvious reasons. Within one or two generations it’s impossible to distinguish between the children of immigrants and those of the rest, except for skin color.
You continue to conclude that immigrants contribute little or nothing to the affluence and cultural diversity of our nation when in fact the cumulative social effects of immigration are the primary motivating force which impels the social development of our country. No one here, except for the descendants of the natives who survived our attempts to exterminate them and the Africans who survived our attempts to enslave them, is not the son or daughter of an immigrant, and most of them, legally or not, were deported from their homeland.
If you want to regulate the emigration of foreign nationals to our shores then you need to regulate the migration of domestic multinational corporations to their shores.
Posted by Major Major on May 17, 2006 at 4:11 PM Sgt WTH
You can’t have it both ways--- illegals are both working, and overloading the system ?With all due respect, you do honestly recognise the real problem of Big Money and Corruption, and then allow yourself to be side-tracked into attacking ‘illegals’ whose lives down there have become unliveable because of the effects of Globalisation, CAFTA, NAFTA, forget which !
Going back to TOPIC, you made a comment as a self-employed man that the Govt doesn’t provide groceries, so why should it provide Healthcare ?
For me , health care would be more like ‘roads’, we all need them, we all use them, we"d all be be starving survivalists without them, and why in God’s name should the dirt-poor working at WalMart pay the same price as the CEO’s of Enron,HP, Halliburton, Wackenhut, for driving to work ?
For them, $10 or $50 or $75 at a toll is nothing, for the poor it is hours of SWEAT
My dear friend and occasional enemy Cabby reminded us that this was about Universal Health Care.
Twenty years ago I had no health cover, state or private. My doc made no charge, “Acte gratuite” in french. I paid full wack for any medicine, but he made nothing out of me.
Now, in France, nobody is excluded, and the doc gets paid for that consultation, too !.
Any bloody system that becomes bureaucratised tends towards inefficiency, that can happen under Stalin or Reagan, and the interesting next step is HOW to get it efficient .
My take on that is never to fall in love with just ANY solution. WTH believes that the “market” will solve probs, as does TONY BLAIR !
The difference between TB and WTH is that the former is a wanker, and WTH is not, just very occasionally wrong, misguided.
My old Artillery Battery Commander insisted—“define the Objective”, and then re-define it, and go on till you are sure that you know what the fuck you mean to do. And then make your Plan, with all the Factors included, and then Do It. And then, when you get surprises, adapt and get out alive.
The richest large country in the World is the US of A . Anyone disagree ? There is not one argument that people happening to live there should not have pretty good medical treatment without being rich.
Private insurance schemes , with all their complexities and transactional costs, render the provision of care more costly. Full Stop.
Ongoing history in the UK and france is proving that a stupid belief that “markets” will solve problems is completely misguided.
For all but the meanest of intelligences, the article above proves that the pursuit of profit has nothing to do with Public Health.
( Bombardier, Royal Artillery,) ...........frog
Posted by frog on May 17, 2006 at 6:51 PM Frog,
“You can’t have it both ways--- illegals are both working, and overloading the system ?”
Of course you can.
• Those who are illegal are making low wages.
• Those who are working for cash pay NO taxes.
• Those who get emergency medical care pay nothing.
• Any of their children born here are citizens — mothers are getting prenatal care.
• The kids attend our public schools and states/cities pick up the cost by federal mandate.
• State universities allow them to pay state resident tuition (U.S citizens from another state pay a higher price.)
• Many are driving without either a license or insurance.
• Some are getting food stamps
• Many are getting aid from churches
I believe it is fair to say that U.S. citizens who are paying taxes are being exploited by employers, illegal workers/residents, congress and the president. We should refuse to pay our taxes until this is stopped.
------------------
“...you made a comment as a self-employed man that the Govt doesn’t provide groceries, so why should it provide Health care ?
For me , health care would be more like ‘roads’, we all need them, we all use them, we"d all be be starving survivalists without them, and why in God’s name should the dirt-poor working at WalMart pay the same price as the CEO’s of Enron,HP, Halliburton, Wackenhut, for driving to work ?”IMO working people should be paid enough to provide the necessities for themselves — food, shelter, clothing and health care. The CEOs are getting way more than ANYONE is worth. The point of this article as I see it is that they are making these outrageous fortunes due to the cooperation and complicity of many of our “representatives.”
Globalization, CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, GATT — are being paid for by the majority for the benefit of the elite.
-------------------------------
“WTH believes that the “market” will solve probs, as does TONY BLAIR !”
Under the current system here, health care providers, insurance companies, etc. are making out like bandits. The idea that a group can get a better deal than the same number as separate individuals works in theory only. It could, but does not.If I buy a car for myself, invest for myself, or pick a wife for myself — I will be far more concerned with price, value and compatibility (in order mentioned) than if some stranger shops for me. In that way the free market is a better problem solver.
The “free market” theory has been too often perverted and offered as a solution and has gained a well deserved bad reputation.Globalization as it operates today is NOT even close to a truly free market. If it were all workers would have safer working conditions. Asians are being exposed to terrible pollution to make a few extra cents per item for the fat cats world wide. Our exploration of illegals here is more than matched by exploitation of US companies in Mexico and elsewhere.
----------------------------
“For all but the meanest of intelligences, the article above proves that the pursuit of profit has nothing to do with Public Health”A person, a company, a corporation must make a profit. The problem is the extent of the profit and gained by what means.
I operated my business at a profit (to varying degrees) for over forty years. If I had not I would not have been able too provide for my family. But I also enjoyed the work I was doing. I kept customers by doing a better job than enough of my competitors to keep their business. I always paid my suppliers promptly and I charged reasonable prices. That was all done under free market conditions.Greed is the real problem we are faced with.
Posted by whattheheck on May 18, 2006 at 11:01 AM A recent report says that even illegal workers pay into the social security system from which they will not be able to collect in the future. I found it logically hard to believe but aparently there is money collected by employers and paid to the Federal Government (and sometimes pocketed illegally by the employer) on behalf of people who are not registered in the social security system. The annual average amount of this sum in recent years ranges from $6.4 billion to $7 billion. The Feds don’t investigate the irregularity that this necessarily entails. They just keep the money! It is another way in which the immigrants are screwed.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 23, 2006 at 10:47 AM Cabby
I worked in Aukland NZ City Hall for 5 months in 1971, legally, employed by them, in the Traffic and Fire Safety Departments, and now getting to the age where I wonder if I paid pension contributions !Documentation long disappeared, so this migrant worker just lost out ...
WTH
As usual I sympathise with much of your post, and disagree strongly with some of it .YOU are obviously someone who has his own strong ethical standards, similar to mine on most points.
“Having it both ways”. The exploited legal or illegal is working for low wages, agreed ? The economic argument is that those guys and their families are “contributing"to the US economy, but their contributions are not going directly towards the hospitals , but to private pockets.
One of my principles is Never to allow myself to become hostile towards any group or minority, because I know very well that then I am being “"""used""" by those I detest.
Posted by frog on May 23, 2006 at 6:04 PM WTH....I am sure if the roles were reversed you wouldn’t waste 3 seconds thinking or wondering about being “ illegal “ to provide for yourself and your family...To me immigration is a scape-goat issue that has little too nothing to do with the real problem; which is global capitalism from the trilateralist prospective...The citizens of countries south of the artificial border have been mangled by eco-policies...artificial because ; when someone steals property from another , right of usery is not in the hands of the thief...I am not trying to rewrite history but the facts are that workers have and will continue to migate too make a living ; labor has a right to follow capital....Shifting gears...Hugo Chavez President of oil rich Venezuela comes to the States to talk oil trade with Bush...the man is willing to sell oil to U.S. for 53 dollars a barrell...but BUSH & posse turn him down because unlike the Saudis ; Chavez wants to keep the profits from said deal for Venezuala and not kick back the money to Buckfush in “ Petro dollars “...Now lets look at the big picture fallout : the implication is the Saudis have gone for this kind of deal now and in the past...enriching themselves and big amerikan oil ...stagnating their own Suadi economy by lack of investments back home....most 9 / 11 hijackers were from Suadi Arabia-no wonder the hi-jackers hate Amerika / Suadi royal family , they see amerika as ruining there homeland...On the flip side Pres. Chavez is still selling oil to countries like Cuba etc...Reinvesting in his nation / region and cutting back on the need for labor in his nation /region to seek work north of the artifical border...cooling the immigration issue for the States...but wait Polukaa Pat Robertson wants Chavez bumped...?? What gives...??
Posted by Redhorse on Jun 3, 2006 at 12:06 AM What gives is that big business needs and wants the cheap labor that “ illegals “ represent , capitalism thrives off of excess labor.....Chavez not playing along infuriates that concern...The long standing deal with the Suadis and other like minded Nations endangers homeland security...your local economy is hurt ...and the real border threat which is Canada according to the 9 /11 Commission is nowhere on the radar.......plus if Jesus is a liberal base on todays standard definition of liberal ; how can Punkass Pat Robberyertson be soo Right-Wing conservative...ah , the religious right and there never ending pimp game....just couldn’t help throwing that last one out ....WTH what you are talking about and practiced in your personal life is Fair Trade not Free Trade....Free Trade is when they...meaning big Corporations take resources for “Free”...by “ Force of Arms” this is the stumble bump....
Posted by Redhorse on Jun 3, 2006 at 12:26 AM I know this is off topic, but I just heard last night on CNN that Venezuela bought a U.S. electronic voting machine company.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/02/ldt.01.html
-----------------------------------------------I am disgusted, but nothing truly outrageous surprises me anymore. Paper trail or not, electronic voting seems unsafe, insecure and an irresistible temptation to tampering. Maybe someone knows if my imagination is running away or if my suspicions are possible.
What if: The optical readers are programmed to tally 1 vote plus or minus a fraction for a given candidate? What if even only those wards or districts which are usually close were fudged? What if only spot checks of paper were done? No checks?
It is bad enough to be vulnerable to our own shenanigans without adding to them:
My Social Security number has been stolen at the VA, I had to give my charge card number to “Dennis” (?) in India for my phone service and again for my internet provider. The UN wants to take away our guns. NOW our elections may be wide open to foreign control.Our own government’s ineptness as scary as international terrorism.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 3, 2006 at 9:26 AM WTH....I really don’t understand your problem with voting machines in Venezuela , at least they do have a paper trail...your concerns about voter fraud have already been realized...how do you think that fool got in the White House...not elected but selected...I do agree cheating is much easier with computers but the paper ballots are not tamper free either… A thief is a thief if they want it money / car / elections chances are it’s gone...So WTH you got to keepa steppin ; had my car stolen 2 times last year got it back both times ; you’ll like this , second time I caught the guy...he’s driven down the road...I’m hangin’ out the driver side window...punchin’ this guy in the face...he accelerates..I jump;
land hard ; he dumps the car 3 blocks away...havn’t had any problems sense though...he was just a kid...I sent a message !!!...When these poli-TRICK-cians get sent a message they understand ; a much more radical-leftist progressive working peoples political agenda....;yes… what your conservative buddies call ...not that word “ IDEOLOGY ‘’ , ‘’ LEFTIST -IDEOLOGY...YES ; a change in direction politically.....
; this mess will stop....or at least change for the better for folks that work for a living..... But ; hey....Dennis in India is struggl’in ; those call centers are sweat shops...and that’s for the more elite folks who speak english...Count yourself lucky...Hugo Chavez for president doesn’t sound that bad to me either......especially after the last 6 years of Buckfush...I’ll bet a weeks salary he’d run a more honest administration than the Bush posse....you don’t really believe these POWER BROKERS would allow a country like Venezuela too steal U.S. elections that IS paraniod WTH............SUADI ARABIA.......maybe.....you know what the Suadi royal family calls the senior Bush.......BUSH U AKBAR....Bush you are the Greatest..........
Posted by Redhorse on Jun 3, 2006 at 2:36 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
- Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone
- Mandate for Change
Voters' message to Obama: think big