Welcome!
We're progressive, political, controversial, provocative, thought-provoking, entertaining, sometimes comedic, and always extremely interesting and informative. View investigative segments at the side and bottom of this page.
Okay, I plead guilty to going ballistic after hearing about the backroom deals that the White House took part in early on. It seems they decided to not really fix the broken healthcare system we have. They decided (or Rahm Emanuel decided) instead to go with a pro-health insurance industry, health insurance (so called reform) package and call it healthcare reform … eventually the healthcare reform label became health insurance reform.
Now that the jig is up and everyone knows about the deals cut by the White House, the White House is saying “you guys have this all wrong”. They claim what the Senate has done is true health (insurance) reform. At least they’re not calling it healthcare reform (or did you guys hear something else?).
The White House caused a firestorm when Gibbs crucified Dr. Dean (former Chairman of the DNC, and the voice of the progressives who has been fighting for real healthcare reform for quite some time); calling Dr. Dean’s criticisms of the Senate bill as insanity or something to that effect.
Then Senator Rockefeller chimed in and holy hell broke loose on the liberal blogosphere; and I was, and still am, extremely angry at the White House.
Where does that leave things today? Who knows. I’m sure the White House will try to “pull a rabbit out of a hat” and come up with something that they think will appease people who are angry at the White House and various members of Congress.
-
You'll also be seeing more and more members of Congress talking about what a great Senate bill they have, and how wonderful it will be for so many people.
The president has said (according to Gibbs) that next year, the president plans to pay less attention to criticism of his handling of things. … okay …
You can read my previous post for links to some informative articles regarding the healthcare debate and backroom deals by the White House.
If I don’t post before Christmas, have a fantastic holiday.
-
PS: Guys I wrote this post this morning, this afternoon I read a post from Drew Westen. I thought I was the only one who felt this way about the president. You ask ... which way? ...
Ben Nelson, the mouth-piece for the sex-scandal ridden Catholic Church has decided (after getting what he wanted) to vote for the (currently) seriously compromised Senate healthcare bill (which is a gift to the publicly traded health insurance industry), while nobody knows what Senator Webb will do.
-
In the meantime, the tea partiers and the progressives are mad as hell at their own parties; and they are in full fighting mode, trying to decide who they will get to run against the traitors in their party come 2010 and 2012.
-
Let's face it, the majority of the Republicans and all but 30 or so Democrats in the Senate are bought and paid for by corporate interests (that includes the Catholic Church).
-
The House Democrats want to keep their majority; however, those representatives better get their act together, cause their progressive base is foaming at the mouth.
-
Truly both the tea partiers and the progressives are fed up with most politicians who appear to be more concerned about their own welfare.
-
One out of 6 Americans live in poverty. The Middle Class is disappearing; 1% of the population control 90% to 95% of the wealth in this country, and that 90-95% group does not include tea partiers or most progressives.
-
The tea partiers blame immigrants, moderate Republicans and the government for their misfortune; while progressives see the banks, corporate executives and lobbyists as the true culprits.
-
One thing is clear, neither group is happy, and both think it's time to clean both houses of Congress.
“It's not enough that Catholic priests and bishops controlled and ruined the lives of many young altar boys; now they want to control the lives and bodies of women.” -
We women come in all shapes and sizes and with different points of view. Some of us are pro-choice and some are pro-life; however, make no mistake, we don’t want men (or anyone for that matter) dictating and trying to control us (or our bodies), or telling us what doctor we can and cannot see, what treatments we can't have, what hospitals we can and cannot go to, and what our health insurance should not cover.
For you women in Congress … word to the wise. Unless you start sticking up for us women, you will find yourself, along with your fellow male members of Congress, without your cushy seats in Congress.
My mother, a Republican who voted for President Obama, prays for the president's safety every day. Her friends, who come from almost every race, religion, and culture, also hold prayers for President Obama, and pray for his safety every day. They wish him well.
-
It is woefully evident however, that there is a Republican far right fringe [esp. the Evangelicals] that does not pray for his safety; they pray for his death, and his liberal [who they call Socialists] supporter’s demise. According to Frank Schaeffer there are probably 22 million individuals who are part of that fringe [“the super conservative Evangelicals”]; and a much smaller minority that would actually carry out their death threats or violence given the right set of circumstances.
That we hear no denunciation of these individuals and groups from moderate, responsible [and supposedly sane] members of the Republican Party is alarming; however, it does not surprise me. These Republicans it would appear, would sell their mother and their soul to cater to what they see is their political base. God help us!
-
Senator George Voinovich [R-OH] has said he does not recognize his own political party; that they have strayed far away from their principles and southerners have hijacked his party. Other Republicans have also expressed similar sentiments; yet, none that I know of, has publicly called for a stop to the threats against the president. This is the party that is seeking to regain power in Washington, and wants to represent us in the International community.
Why are we not hearing a public denunciation of these death threats and violence from the leadership of the mainstream and Evangelical religious community?
Our president welcomes criticism and our support; he does not deserve the venomous language and hatred (racial and otherwise) that is leveled against him.
What must other countries think of us; what must we think of ourselves?
Several posts ago, I wrote “Why are we worried about Afghanistan, when Afghanistan is in our own back yard”. When I wrote it, I didn’t think about this fringe (largely religious) group “who are the American version of the Taliban”. They themselves would be horrified to know that they possess a similarity to the Taliban.
If we don’t publicly and privately denounce these individuals and groups now, we are giving aid and comfort to violent rhetoric; and if violence results, we have aided and abetted it.
Next time you want to criticize the president and his administration, be very careful of your tone and language. If you don’t have constructive and/or helpful criticisms, keep your thoughts to yourself. We don’t want or need inflammatory rhetoric right now.
It also wouldn’t hurt you to email or fax or publicly praise President Obama when he does something you like or are proud of.
It’s 4:50am (est.), and I can’t sleep. Anger, resentment, and fear have gripped my heart; and my heart can't stop racing, and each beat becomes louder and louder.
-
As is my habit when something disturbs me greatly, I have to put pen to paper [key stroke to blog] and release what's gnawing inside me.
- I need you to feel my anger, and understand why I'm upset.
- Last Saturday, we watched every male Republican (but 1 who voted present), and 62 male Democrats, interfere with, and restrict a woman’s freedom and rights. Two women Democrats, and every female Republican, were co-conspirators; and I wonder, if perhaps, there is self loathing in that group.
- I don’t care if you are pro-life or pro-choice. If you did not say no or object to the Stupak-Pitts amendment … you knowingly chose to interfere with, restrict and chip away at a woman’s rights and her freedom. This amendment went beyond the language that was already in the House bill.
-
The Stupak-Pitts amendment, a male written amendment, was another step in the direction to return women to what many men (around the world) see as a woman’s rightful place. That place is for women [and her body] to be subject to a man’s will and whims. If you were not outraged, and/or did not write your representatives, or express your anger in some meaningful way, you aided and abetted those men [and their co-conspirators] who felt entitled, and sought to purposely interfere, restrict, and chip away at a woman’s rights and freedoms.
We women have come too far to allow men such as these, and their co-conspirators, to interfere with our rights and freedoms. Women, your body is your own. No man can possess it our own it. No man [or woman] should be able to pass legislation that will ultimately interfere with your decisions about your body, and interfere with and restrict your choice of, and access to health providers who would care for your body. Men would never willingly allow you to do it to them.
-
You see, ... people come to America from all over the world to celebrate and embrace freedom and choice. They come to America to be free.
Some, who never enjoyed freedom before, kiss the ground when they step on America's soil. They cry out … I’m free … I’m free. Free from ... imprisonment, or domination, or cruelty, or silence, or human rights abuses, or religious persecution; and they feel free to go where they want, or read what they want, or see what they want to see, ... .
Days, or weeks before the House vote on Healthcare, two men started crafting legislation that would have far reaching implications, and impact and further restrict a woman’s freedom. I want you to really think about this. I’ll say it again, … two men … two men crafted [wrote] legislation to interfere with and further restrict a woman’s freedom. *
I don’t know about you, but most psychologically healthy women would never want any man to interfere with and restrict her freedom.
[In the United States] If a woman decided to get up late one morning, that’s her right, and no man can force her to get up early. If she decided not to cook, that’s her right, and no man can force her to cook.
-
If a woman wanted to go to work, that’s her right, and no man can tell her to stay home. If she didn’t want to marry, that’s her right, and no man can tell her that she had to marry. If she wanted to go to school, that’s her right, and no man can tell her she can’t go to school.
For a woman to be paid as much as a man doing the same job, that’s now her right, and no man should be allowed to pay her less.****
If a woman went on a date with a man, and he demanded sex, but she refused, that’s her right, and no man can force himself on her. If some man/men wanted to sell her into slavery**, she has a right to say no, and every man has a duty to come to her aid to prevent her from being sold.
-
If a woman wants an abortion, no man [or woman] can tell her she can't have one. If a woman wants to go to a hospital of her own choosing, no man can tell her she can not go. If a woman wants to see a doctor of her choice, no man can tell her she can not go.
In the United States of America, a woman has the same rights and freedoms as a man. She has a right to liberty; and she has a right to happiness. These are fundamental rights. No man can [legally] take her rights away from her. No man has the right to tell her what to do with her life. No man has a right to touch her if she doesn’t want to be touched. Her body is her own and no man … no man can own her. She and she alone own her body.
It is rare for another woman to form a group or start a movement meant to interfere with her own rights and freedoms as a woman. If there was such a woman, I would think you would agree, that something is wrong with her ... that perhaps she is psychologically damaged in some way.
I want you to think about who is at the forefront of almost every group or movement to restrict or interfere or strip away a woman’s rights and freedoms. ... They are almost always men. They are the Randall Terry’s’; they are the "Men Against Abortion" kind of groups; they are the sex slave traders, the rapists, the men who like to abuse women; they are the men who want to control women; they are the cold blooded killers like Scott Roeder; and now the Ben Nelson's, the Jeff Merkley's, the Orrin Hatch's, the Mike Johanns', and BartStupaks and JoePitts of this world.***
-
None of these men would ever willingly allow another man or woman to own his body. He decides how his body is to be used or abused. He makes the decision about his reproductive organs; and he would never willingly allow anyone to interfere with that decision. These men will move heaven and earth; and they will legislate, demand, and fight for a man’s rights and freedoms. [He yells] "Give me liberty or give me death".
That a woman would not fight with every fiber of her being when a man [or another woman] seeks to restrict, take away or strip away her rights and freedoms is incomprehensible; and one would surmise that a woman who does not fight, has low self esteem, or is mentally challenged, or suffers from some other infirmity.
Comment: What is so unsettling about the Hyde amendment and the Stupak-Pitts amendment is that we are back to where we were when abortion was illegal.
Rich women always had access to abortion services [legal or illegal].
When abortion became legal, all women had access.
With Hyde and Stupak-Pitts, we are now back to where we were before abortion became legal.
This is now about class, control and unequal access; leaving poor women who can least afford to bear children, having less access, and being pushed deeper into poverty.
Hyde and Stupak-Pitts ultimately gets between a patient and her doctor by denying access to a legal procedure if the patient will be receiving federal monies (subsidies).
Hyde and Stupak-Pitts also prevent health insurance companies from providing coverage for a legal procedure if they receive federal subsidies. [The words "restraint" and "free trade" come to mind]
That men are at the forefront, crafting legislation and making it more and more [extremely] difficult for women to have access to a legal procedure, is so much about control of women and very little about pro-life. The fact that these men have female co-conspirators (as do sexual slave traders with their madams) does not negate the fact that these men seek to control and bend women to their will and whims.
There is so much wrong with Hyde and Stupak-Pitts, I can't for the life of me understand why some smart lawyer can't figure a way to get rid of both.
Saturday evening the historic Affordable Healthcare for America Act [H.R.3962] passed in the House Chamber. While the legislation is far from what needs to be done to give all Americans quality, low cost, universal comprehensive healthcare coverage; and does not really revamp our healthcare system and truly lower healthcare costs*, we do congratulate all who voted for H.R.3962; and give a special thanks to Congressman Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosifor their tireless efforts.
Republicans did everything they possibly could to stop this legislation that will:**
1. Prevent private health insurance companies from discriminating against men, women and children who have a preexisting condition. 2. Prevent private health insurance companies from making women pay more for insurance. 3. Reinstate antitrust laws. 4. Expand health care coverage to the approximately 40 million Americans who are currently uninsured by lowering the cost of health care. 5. Prohibit rescission of health insurance coverage without clear and convincing evidence of fraud. 6. Require the option of extending coverage for children under 27 years of age. 7. Prohibit aggregate dollar lifetime limits on benefits. 8. Require guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance coverage. 9. Prohibit discrimination based on health status factors. 10. Require parity for mental health benefits 11. Prohibits an essential benefits package from imposing any annual or lifetime limits on coverage.
While last week, approximately 100 [+] Americans died from lack of health insurance (or between 22, 000 and 44,000 annually), and approximately another 98,000 [+] Americans may lose their health insurance in the next two weeks, Senate Republicans and Senator Joe Lieberman were smug, telling news organizations that the historic Healthcare House Bill would never see the light of day in the Senate. Republicans continue to offer no real solutions to our broken healthcare system and no solutions to providing universal health care.
Senate Republicans and Senator Lieberman also vowed to make sure that private health insurance CEOs continue to receive outlandish compensation (while 1 out of 6 Americans live in poverty); and they vowed to make sure that private health insurance companies continue to make great profits while Americans struggle to survive. How? By making sure there is no public option in a Senate Healthcare bill (if there ever will be one).***
- We applaud Congressman Dennis Kucinich for opposing H.R.3962. He is a strong proponent of a single payer system (what many of us wanted); and he refused to compromise.
I’m ecstatic, last night David Brancaccio was a guest on the Rachel Maddow show. And guess what? … In talking with Rachel about our infrastructure, he spoke about my beloved Denmark.
If you’ve been keeping up with the posts on this blog, you know I have a love for Denmark. I love the Danes. I embrace their core values and their innovative spirit; and I often wish the United States had their kind of government.
On March 17th of this year, I posted a piece called "AMERICANS SOLD A BILL OF BULL". I wanted to let Americans know that they are deluded, and they don’t have a clue how much previous administrations [and perhaps this administration] have kept them in the dark.
Our government has also, in collusion with our corporations, and the rich, and the powerful, … perpetrated a fraud. And yet, we still live in denial about our free enterprise system.
Several days ago, I wrote a small piece called "Capitalism 201 Gone Wild" Fosters Inequality". I talked about our economic system, and my ideal economic system. Denmark comes pretty close to my ideal system.
-
It is an economic system where good familial and community relationships are highly valued. When you get some time, read the piece.
-
Update: "The Social Democrats led a string of coalition governments for most of the second half of the last century in a country generally known for its liberal traditions. This pattern was upset in November 2001 when a centre-right coalition promising tighter immigration controls came to power following a snap election called by the then Social Democrat Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen in an attempt to capitalise on his rising popularity in the wake of the 11 September attacks on the US." In 2007, Rasmussen was re-elected - boasting to tighten immigration and boost the economy. We'll wait to see how this change in direction will affect the social fabric of Denmark.
Let me be clear, when I referred to the public health insurance option, I was talking about a strong public option.
-
And now people, ... since yesterday, this blog [and email] has been targeted.
I really don't care. I'm pressing on.
Furthermore, I really want to know if we can call em like we see em, or maybe I'm wrong, maybe the people you are going to hear about are not who I think they are.
I'm telling you, when I heard that VARIOUS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS were going to vote against a public health insurance option, I got mad as hell.
-
And I'm not just talking about a few Democrats; I'm also talking about Republicans and one Independent.
- Now, Congressman Alan Grayson has inspired me to call em like I see em; and I'm gonna let her rip.
-
Promise me you'll stay with me to the end of this piece. - The way I see it is, we have a CORPORATE CARTEL (HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES) paying LOBBYISTS (HIGH PAID MADAMS/PIMPS) to manage/ reign in/ manipulate various POLITICIANS to do their bidding.
Did I get that right people? Let’s break down the organizational structure.
First, what is a CARTEL and does the HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY [made up of health insurance companies], fit the description?
There are two definitions [from source]; however, I like the one that describes a CARTEL as an association of independent businesses organized to control prices and production, eliminate competition (by being a monopoly), and reduce the cost of doing business (denying treatment/refusing to pay claims, and refusing enrollment to those with a pre-existing condition).
I ask you, does that description bring it home for you?
See, Grayson was close, but I beg to differ … - Grayson called an ex-Enron lobbyist a whore. She deserved it.
-
"Enron was the world’s largest energy-trading company, with a market value of as much as $68 billion, before it imploded amid allegations of accounting fraud. The bankruptcy wiped out more than 5,000 jobs and at least $1 billion in retirement funds.
A Houston jury found former Enron Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Skilling and former Chairman Kenneth Lay guilty in 2006 of deceiving investors, analysts and employees about the company’s deteriorating financial condition. Skilling is serving a 24-year prison term. Lay died before sentencing."
-
-
Ok, Grayson calls em whores. I see lobbyists as MADAMS/PIMPS, looking to manage PROSTITUTES.
The MADAM disperses the money to the prostitute when the prostitute brings home the bacon.
-
Now the MADAM/PIMP may give out a few favors to hook the politician, but that MADAM won't do that forever unless he/she receives some return on investment. The politician becomes a prostitute when he/she delivers the return on the investment.
Am I close people? Are you feeling me?
What is at stake here?
-
If you answered … the health of the "John" [who are the CARTEL'S policyholders/consumers and the prostitute’s constituents], I'll give you a gold star.
The "John" comes to the prostitute asking to be treated right, asking for the prostitute to satisfy a need.**
-
I hate to insult anyone, but people, ... can you really trust a prostitute?
They will always tell you what you want to hear, but it’s mostly fake. Many times you leave feeling somewhat satisfied, but the feeling is brief, and something doesn’t feel right.
-
Why? … Because, again … it’s mostly fake (lot of smoke and mirrors) and empty promises. Where is the love? Did he/she really deliver on the promise, and leave you whole, happy and healthy?
And so we enter the brothel, the "Chamber", often begging, pleading, for the prostitute to satisfy this need** you have. Will he/she deliver this time, defying the madam, ... refusing to be paid, ... willing and able to rescue you out of love and devotion and caring?
Without going back and editing my previous post “Capitalism 201 Gone Wild Fosters Inequality”, I’d like to continue to focus on core values of different economic systems, and their role in health care reform.
As I said before, our free enterprise system values money and physical things. I would like to expand that by saying that it values power, money, and the acquisition and pursuit of money; and values physical assets and the acquisition and pursuit of physical assets.
In the second system mentioned in my previous post [let’s call it the Denmarkian system – smile], value is placed on familial and community relationships, human rights, human dignity, mutualcooperation, mutual respect, and creativity.
We, the people, have to decide which fundamentals [for lack of a better word] of the above systems do we want to embrace in health care reform.
In the last post, I stated that our free enterprise system is in opposition to the Denmarkian system. They don’t fit together.
In our present free enterprise [capitalistic] system we see health care as not a human right, but a privilege [some entitlement, with limited access and conditioned on a persons ability to pay] . In the Denmarkian system, health care is a human right [it is universal without conditions].
The progressives in the Democratic Partyare more closely ideologically aligned with the Denmarkian system. Conservatives and members of the RepublicanParty are more closely ideologically aligned with our present free enterprise system, as are some moderate Democrats.
The American people are torn. They were raised in the [United States] Free Enterprise system, but deep down, I believe if they had a choice of core values, and understood the benefits of the Denmarkian system, they would embrace that system; though to what extent I know not.
And so we stand at a crossroad where a majority of representatives [218 in the House, 51 or 60 in the Senate] from 50 states must decide whether health care is a human right or a privilege. The choice they make [I believe] will have moral, ethical, and economic repercussions for years to come. -
I was going to expound upon the comments made by “a voice within the financial industry”; but I decided to go with some thoughts about economic systems.
Our Free Enterprise system [Capitalism 201 Gone Wild] fosters inequality because it’s based on a set of flawed values; and hard work has little to do with financial success or happiness. This free enterprise system embraces (for the most part) a flawed concept of social Darwinism which rewards unrestrained competition over human rights.
It also says that those who adapt (Darwinian) and multiply unrestrained (free enterprise) are more valuable and the most financially successful. This system at its core, values power, money and physical assets over relationships and human rights; and it rewards exploitation. This system is most unstable.
In an economic system that values good familial and community relationships, human rights and human dignity over money and things [You can call it whatever you want]; people will agree to share regardless of one’s fitness.
This system takes into account human frailty and weakness; but tries to instill in its people the concepts of human rights, human dignity, mutual respect and cooperation; and appreciation of family and community. Innovation, creativity and true free trade is encouraged. Trying to combine a system that values acquiring money and things -the free enterprise system we have today, with a system that values relationships and human dignity and human rights will always be inherently a flawed system; and will always be at odds trying to balance the two. They just don’t fit together well.
Denmark seems to largely embrace the second system and its people say they feel fulfilled, feel they are well provided for and feel happy. They also seem to be proud, innovative, creative and enjoy free trade.
A GUY AT WAR WITH HIMSELF [his remarks to a TV host]:
-
- [To TV host] ... "You keep railing against the government; yet you want the government to loan directly to small business? Get real.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of subsidizing Capitalism.
-
Most Americans don't realize it, but ... don't you get it? The government (us) subsidizes capitalism. We've been doing it for years. - As a friend of mine said, we've got "Capitalism 201 Gone Wild".
Tell me ... what industries aren't being subsidized by our government?
-
Know what's even more infuriating? ... come on ... it's the inequality in the system. Some industries and businesses are subsidized while others are not. Who makes these freaking decisions regarding who is worthy and who is not? - Unfortunately, if the taxpayer refused to subsidize everyone starting today, this whole so-called "capitalistic" system would fail and anyone on the sidelines would get sucked in.
This is what gets me ... people decry socialism, but socialism has enabled everyone, including our freaking free enterprise system.
-
Next time you want to start a business, market or invent something; go find a freaking venture capitalist or get a commercial loan. Don’t ask (us) the government to subsidize you or give you a loan.
-
Better still, ... save enough money so you don't need a loan.
[To TV host], Look ... this system is now so complex and intertwined; and globally intertwined, we are teetering too close to the edge, for my comfort.
Pretty soon, the government (us) won't be able to prop up anyone.
Leave it to Republicans, and we'd be at war with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, then they'd find some reason to occupy Pakistan.
-
There would be no more United States of America. We'd be destroyed financially and every which way. World War III we do not need. " -- -- "But let's get back to the banks. Every sane one of us who works in the financial industry knows that banks are just middle men. They [retail banks] are great for checking accounts, small savings accounts, certificates of deposit and small collateralized loans [commercial banks - larger collateralized loans]; but getting banks involved in insurance products and highly speculative financial products is crazy.
Most of us knew that if we kept mixing our banking arm with our insurance and trading arms, we couldn't afford to sneeze; but there was no one in authority that wanted to step up to the plate and stop a money making runaway train.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley let us get as big as we wanted, allowed us to create all kinds of financial instruments; and allowed us to mix and match every freaking thing we could get our hands on; and we made a boat load of money." --
--
CONTINUED:
-
"Insurance is the backbone of the financial industry. I find it interesting that no one links health insurance with financial services. Maybe they just don't talk about it.
Several weeks ago, I stated that the financial industry always keeps its base and returns to its base in times of trouble.
Health insurance profits, life insurance profits and other financial instruments and financial products (profits) have been keeping the financial industry alive and well for years. On the consumer side, annuitieswill probably be our biggest retail financial product going forward.
-
Heads will roll if Congress gets that public health insurance option into the legislation. Know what I mean? (laugh) Got to keep those "w" in Congress kissing a'...
-
... What about Lieberman? (laugh) ... come on ... can he bend over and touch his toes? (laughing hysterically)
-
My industry will always make money because it will always have its base (insurance). The wonderful thing about insurance, ... you can put insurance on anyone or anything, as long as there is insurable interest. The insurer is betting that he will never have to pay out or rarely pay out; but he's always got to stay ahead of the game and keep that money flowing in.
-
Do we ever worry that we won't have enough reserves? Heck no ... as long as we've got friends in high places ... (laugh).
-
Remember, all insurance is ... is spreading risk around. Right now, that risk is in the hands of the taxpayer.
-
I hope someone knows how to control the risk, cause believe me, the government needs to stop propping up all these industries/businesses.
-
With rare exception, ... sink or swim on your own dime. Where you get your money is your business, as long as it's not from the taxpayer.
-
This is one area where Republicans and I are in accord; except those freaking idiots didn't follow their own ideology. They've been just as guilty as Democrats with their industry and business subsidies [corporate welfare].
Republicans and I differ in that I would have never allowed health insurance companies to go public. I would have made sure health insurance companies, that were mutual companies, remained mutual companies; where the policyholders had ownership rights, and with those rights, helped control the risk.
-
As a public company, while its ability to raise capital increases, the risk of loss of capital also increases; plus the control of costs remains not with the policyholders (by their choice of management); but instead lies with a corporate board whose interests may not be in the best interest of the company or the policyholder.
-
Hey, I'm not a completely "heartless" bastard.
-
You, [TV host], want to keep what many health insurance companies currently are ... "for profit".
-
Are you insane? That's one place that needs to be all non-profit or government run or government run combined with non-profit.
I will always differ with you on your competition/choice argument as long as you keep the health insurance companies "for profit".
... Ok, I guess I've veered off into a host of areas. Sorry ..
"That ridiculous Credit Card Act of 2009? … We [the financial services industry] didn't lose a damn thing; we quickly raised finance chargesand added more bank fees. We’ve found lots of loopholesto get around those rules and regulations put in place. *
You've got to give us credit, we've been very successful making prostitutes of many members of Congress. Don't tell anyone, but we often snicker behind exclusive country club doors, while we're sipping "Hennessy cognac".
Look [TV host], the taxpayer bailed us out; and now we're laughing all the way to our bank. Couldn't get any sweeter.
Oh, … and you know what's even funnier? All that lawsuit money that we paid out to Enron employees and pensioners in previous years? ... We've recouped most of that with the bailout.
I hate to say it [well not really], but you have to love the irony. We screwed the economy, millions lost their jobs, and now the losers have to come to us to borrow money. Ha!
The taxpayer has to borrow his own money to pay the bills. This is vintage Capitalism.
We’re raking in the money from finance charges and bank fees … cause, ... I’ll say it again … you’ve got no money; and you have to borrow money [from us] just to make ends meet. Boy do we have you by the balls. - Heck, most Americans can’t even get through the week; some can’t get through the day, without credit cards. The 1% of the population, who control 90% to 95% of the wealth in this country, made sure of that.
We’ve even got small business hooked. Hell, we’ve got everyone hooked.
1 out of 6 Americans live in poverty. We’ll just continue to drain you dry, and continue outsourcing to other countries where we can exploit their labor and steal their resources, eventually draining them dry; and then we'll move on.
Even though we're hemorrhaging [jobs and money], the leaders and the wealthy 1% [who control about 85% to 95% of the wealth] of this country want you to think everything is really "not so bad".
-
The capitalism we used to love and cherish is dead and if we don't embrace Noam Chomsky'sbetter society and discard the disgraceful "Capitalism 201 Gone Wild", we are in deep, deep, shit.
Oh, ... people, ... people, ... people ... have we learned nothing? The rich and powerful are masters in pulling the wool over our eyes. [see Oct. 9th, Bill Moyers Journal, Wall Street vs Reform (Video)]
-
I learned a whole lot of really repugnant things watching Michael's movie. 1. I had no idea that corporations had life insurance policies on average ordinary workers. I can understand "key man" life insurance policies ... but life insurance on average workers?
-
Can you see where this whole health insurance reform is heading? Probably nowhere. Even if we get some legislation, will it be real change? I don't think so.
-
You ask ... why not? ...
-
Well ... Who wants healthy workers when you can make money on dead ones; and the health insurance company and life insurance company can also make a healthy profit collecting premiums. A win/win for everyone ... right? Everyone accept the deceased's family.
-
2. Michael wrote a piece called "Goodbye GM". It was a great piece ... and I loved his vision for a new kind of GM. Well, I'm sad to say that no one really talked about Michael's ideas. Just status quo, steady as she fails.
-
There were a few glimmers of hope in the movie ... Michael showed a company where the workers owned the company; and he also showed workers that fought back and brought a company back to life, along with their jobs.
-
Michael showed us it is possible to take this nation back from the greedy and corrupt capitalists.
-
Barack Obama was our chance to clean house. Well, it didn't happen ... so it's up to us to change things. Bottom up ... flip the switch. Non-violent revolution.
-
The tax-payers own a lot of capital in the companies who generate their own wealth, and who use their influence and power to suck the life out of the very people who now own them.
-
Are we going let these snakes, hooligans and thugs outwit us? Why not challenge them in the courts, as well as doing a nationwide sit-in (in those companies corridors and offices). That will unhinge the doors to greed and wealth. Don't you think?
To be perfectly understood, we do not condone acts of violence against U.S., and we do not condone breaking laws, or agree with people who break the law.
-
-
TED NUGENT EXPOSED! DID EVERYTHING HE COULD NOT TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY
An SIT was sent to the FirstEnergy plant after the March 12, 2010 discovery of cracks in the nozzle on the control drive mechanism, some of which were leaking as workers failed to account for peak temperatures inside the reactor vessel.
WE DON'T ENDORSE ANY INVESTMENT ADVICE, OR ANY THIRD PARTIES. CSC IS ALSO NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY COMPANY/ORGANIZATION MENTIONED ON THIS BLOG (UNLESS SPECIFIED).
Posts
