The Single-Payer "Non-Issue"

Last Tuesday (05/04/09) in addition to what I wrote about yesterday, Amy Goodman also interviewed Sen. Russ Feingold at last week’s gathering for the 100th anniversary of the magazine called “The Progressive.” I’ve never really read it; however, what with all the hoopla about it, and the positive feedback I’ve witnessed over the Internet, I’m going to give it a look.

Anyway, at the conclusion of the interview, Amy brought up the subject of “single-payer healthcare” (emphasis mine):

AMY GOODMAN: I know that you have to go give the speech. One last question around the issue of healthcare. Do you support single-payer healthcare?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I do. I always have. I don’t think there’s any possibility that that will come out of this Congress. And so, for people to simply say, “That’s—it’s this way or nothing,” are looking at something that can’t happen now. But I would love to see it. And I believe the goal here is to create whatever legislation we have in a way that could be developed into something like a single-payer system.
AMY GOODMAN: Why can’t it happen, since polls show most people are for it?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I guarantee you. I know the members of Congress, and it’s not going to pass in this Congress. So, there are certain things that can’t happen right away, and this is one of them. But I do support a single-payer idea.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do they resist it?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, I think they’re afraid of the criticisms that it’s a big government bureaucracy program. You know, Paul Wellstone, before he died, started talking about having a guaranteed healthcare for all Americans, but having—giving the states flexibility to do it their own way. That’s not a single-payer system, but it achieves many of its same goals. I think that’s another way to get at this, and Paul Wellstone was even talking about it.

Loosely described, the single-payer health issue means public funding for private treatment.

Think about it. Most people are for this, yet Sen. Feingold says it “can’t happen now.” And why? He knows “the members of Congress…” and they resist because it won’t pass. His reason is absolutely bogus however. Look at his nebulous response to Amy’s question about the resistance. Concern of “criticisms that it’s a great bureaucracy program.” Wrong! That’s the spin. However, I did notice a very sly grin from the Senator. I’m really tired of the wink, wink, nod, nod excuses.

The real reason, in my opinion, is the Health Insurance Corporations (read HMO’s) would lose the massive profits they are raking in with the current system. This, in turn, allows the seriously ill to prematurely or even needlessly die because these HMO’s reject treatment in order to maintain their profit margins. And the congressional “resistance” is due to the fact the lobbyists for the Insurance Corporations are pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of Congresspersons and the elected officials of the Executive Branch. I’m disappointed that Sen. Feingold didn’t have the courage to say that.

The good news is that there are those out there who continue to hammer our Congress about the single-payer issues. From today’s Democracy Now! headline news:

On Capitol Hill, a group of doctors and activists directly challenged Democratic senators Tuesday for their refusal to discuss single-payer healthcare. The action came at a Senate Finance Committee meeting on healthcare reform. None of the fifteen witnesses called to testify support single payer, and the committee’s chair, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, has dismissed single payer as “off the table.” One by one, eight single-payer advocates stood up to challenge Baucus and call for single payer.

Mark Dudzic: “Unions that have endorsed single payer, why are their voices not being heard? Every healthcare lobbyist in America is at the table. When are the American people going to be heard? We need healthcare now! Put single payer on the table now!”

Adam Schneider: “We need to have to have single payer at the table. I have friends who have died, who don’t have healthcare, whose healthcare did not withstand their personal health emergencies. It’s only when the people that are living in the park and the people that are living on Park Avenue have the same healthcare that everybody will have high-quality healthcare. Single payer now!”

All eight single-payer advocates were arrested. The action was organized by the groups Single Payer Action and Healthcare-NOW!

Can you believe that the majority of Americans want single-payer health care and yet the “august” Senator Baucus from Montana has the brass to publicly say that it is ”off-the-table.” Not even to be discussed! That is truly pathetic.

Here is another sad example of the majority of the population thinking one way, the moneyed fat cats with vested interests (the bottom line) thinking the opposite, and the fat cats getting their way. I really wonder when will this country “get it” and throw those currently in power out and elect those that work FOR the people not AGAINST them. I say start with Senator Baucus, then Senator Sessions (see yesterday’s post).

An Enemy of Civil Rights

There were a couple of items on the “Democracy Now!” telecast today that really piqued my interest. I’ll write about one today and the other tomorrow.

During Amy Goodman’s headline news at the top of the show she talked about Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) becoming the head Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What really got me was her reporting that Senator Sessions once “described the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union as Un-American and Communist-inspired because…” (now here’s the amazing part) “…they forced civil rights down the throats of people.” WTF???? I hadn’t heard that one before. Whoa!

I looked this up on Wikipedia (I know this can be an iffy endeavor re finding the truth), and not only were those two organizations besmirched but he included the NAACP as “Un-American” and “Communist-inspired” as well. According to the “Wik” (footnoted) he claims that it was in jest, but as far as I’m concerned that was his way of maintaining damage control.

I am astounded that Alabamans keep somebody like this in office. How on earth can someone with that take on our country possibly be elected? Are there really enough citizens of the United States out there that would allow a person with such a horrible outlook on those fine organizations, let alone his despicably callous attitude to our basic rights, be their representative?

Yet this guy has won three elections! I just don’t get it. Here is a man who believes “forcing civil rights down the throats of people” (I just HAD to rewrite that - it’s so off the chart) helping make decisions that will affect all of our rights in the future. And now he’s the top GOP in the Judiciary Committee. That is very scary indeed!

My question is, does a Senator rise in power just because of longevity and damned be his/her views or can his/her views pre-empt them from such a rise to power? If the former, change the promotion criteria immediately. If the latter, then the Senate is showing just how out of touch they are with the population by allowing this egregious individual any scintilla of power.

Do you really think the majority of Americans believe our civil rights shouldn’t be constantly monitored to prevent their being slyly abridged or even abrogated by those in power? These and other organizations are watchdogs on the rights of every American.

Of course, what the majority of the people in this country want is totally ignored by the Senate, which I’ll get into tomorrow.

While the Broken Minds and Bodies Recover...

Does anybody else have a problem with this? From CNN (May 4, 2009):

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the Bush administration's policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects Sunday, saying former President George W. Bush would not have authorized anything illegal.

Condoleeza Rice says George W. Bush was clear that interrogations during his presidency should break no law.

"He was also very clear that we would do nothing -- nothing -- that was against the law or against our obligations internationally," Rice said during an appearance at a Washington school.

I mean, really! Number one, it has been established in many, many articles, blogs, etc., that what the Bush Administration did violated international torture laws. That assertion is so ubiquitous throughout the Internet that I’m not even going to provide a reference. Either you know by now or not. As far as I’m concerned, Rice is flat out lying when she says that Bush did “nothing …against our obligations internationally.” Excuse me, but we signed an agreement with other countries saying we would not torture AND that we would prosecute anyone who engaged in such egregious behavior. And Ronald Reagan signed it!

How straightforward is that??

Number two, of course he “would not have authorized anything illegal.” He just politicized the justice department and had them make whatever he and his minions decided upon doing “legal.” Though there are now tales floating around that the tortures were being implemented before the Justice Department’s final determination that they were “legal.”

As far as I’m concerned, to go to the extreme, what the Bush did by “legalizing” torture is the same thing as if he decided to kill someone, push the Justice Department into legalizing murder, having one of his cronies kill someone, then having people like Condoleeza Rice now saying, “Well, he didn’t authorize anything illegal!” Of course it could be Ms. Rice’s intent to fall back on Richard Nixon’s famous line, “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Sure. To avoid the illegality, just make it legal. Easy-Peasy!

It continually amazes me that there are those that want to obfuscate the blatant, horrific torture of human beings into some kind of “debate” on “policy issues.” Or the other “brilliant” excuse of “we must look forward” and just “reflect” on the past. Reflect? Puhleeze. Give me a frakkin’ break! At least Judge Baltasar Garzon in Spain is still pursuing the illegal acts of torture by the Bush Administration. As one of my earlier post headlines read, “Good for Spain and bad for the U.S.”