not my favorite person, but--Ralph Nader on "Health Care Hypocrisy"

[nightrain]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/25-0


Health Care Hypocrisy
by Ralph Nader

About the only lesson Barack Obama has learned from the Hillary and Bill health insurance debacle of 1993-1994 is to leave Michelle Obama out of his current drive to get something-anything-through the Congress labeled "reform".

Otherwise, he is making the same mistakes of blurring his proposal, catering to right-wing Democrats and corporatist Republicans, who want an even mushier "reform" scam, and cutting deals with the drug, hospital, and health insurance industries.

His political opponents become bolder with each day as they see his party base in Congress weakening, his polls dropping, and a confused public being saturated with unrebutted propaganda by the insatiable profiteering, subsidized health care giants.

Their campaign-money-greased minions on Capitol Hill and the corporatist Think Tanks and columnists are seizing on President Obama's aversion to conflict and repeated willingness to water down what he will fight for.

The loud and cruel baying pack comes in the form of William Kristol ("This is not time to pull punches. Go for the kill."), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) ("If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."), and Charles Krauthammer yammering wildly about medical malpractice and tort law. Krauthammer does not substantiate his claims or mention the many victims of malpractice as he gleefully predicts "Obamacare sinking."

All these critics have gold-plated health insurance, of course.

Hillary tried to appease the drug and hospital companies. Obama invites them to the White House, where they presumably pledged to give up nearly $300 billion dollars over ten years without any specifics about how this complex assurance can be policed.

No matter, in return Obama and his aides agreed not to press Congress to authorize the federal government to negotiate drug prices with the drug industry. Don't worry: the taxpayers will pay the bill.

At a meeting on July 7 at the White House between drug company executives, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), the industry, according to The New York Times, was promised that the final legislative package would not allow the reimportation of cheaper medicines from Canada or other countries even if they meet our drug safety standards.

Since these industry meetings at the White House are private, no one knows how many other concessions were made. What is known is that Barack Obama knows better. A former supporter of single payer health insurance (often described as full Medicare for all with free choice of physician and hospital and the elimination of hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate administrative costs and billing fraud), then-Illinois state senator Barack Obama predicted, in 2003, that it would be enacted once Congress and the White House were controlled by Democrats. Well, that is now the situation, but, as President, he believes single payer is not "practical".

Single payer health insurance is supported by a majority of the American people, majority of physicians and nurses, and nearly ninety members of the House of Representatives. (See H.R. 676 and singlepayeraction.org.)

A clear replacement of the private health insurance companies with federal insurance, as Medicare for the elderly did in 1965, allows for clear language. Twenty thousand people die in America each year because they cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine. Hundreds of thousands more suffer because they have no insurance to treat their diseases or injuries.

Single payer means everyone is covered from birth, as is the case now in every western nation. Imagine no lives lost or suffering due to no health insurance.

Fuzzy proposals, regularly altered and over-complicated due to the hordes of avaricious corporate lobbyists, make politicians like Obama very susceptible to lurid descriptions and lies by his vocal, well-insured opponents. Finally, the Obama people are using "health insurance reform", rather than the misnomer "health care reform" which opened them up to charges that government would take over health care. All proposals, including single payer, are based on private delivery of health care.

Now enters the well-insured libertarian Cato Institute with full-page ads in the Washington Post and The New York Times charging Obama with pursuing government-run health care. A picture of Uncle Sam pointing under the headline "Your New Doctor." Nonsense. The well-insured people at Cato should know better than to declare that this "government takeover" would "reduce health care quality."

About 100,000 lives are lost from medical-hospital negligence per year, according to the Harvard School of Public Health. This vast tragedy is hardly going to get worse under universal government health insurance that assembles data patterns to reduce waste, enhances quality, and transparency. By contrast, the secretive big health insurers who make more money the more they deny claims, ignore their loss prevention duties.

In 1950, when President Truman sent a universal health insurance bill to Congress, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched what was then a massive counterattack. The AMA claimed that government health insurance would lead to rationing of health care, higher prices, diminished choices and more bureaucracy. The AMA beat both Truman and the unions that were backing the legislation, using the phrase "socialized medicine" to scare the people.

Fifty-nine years later, "corporatized medicine" has produced all these consequences, along with stripping away the medical profession's independence. Today, the irony is that the corporate supremacists are accusing reformers in Washington of what they themselves have produced throughout the country. Rationing, higher prices, less choice, and mounds of paperwork and corporate red tape. Plus, fifty million people without any health insurance at all.

On Thursday, July 30, 2009, there will be a mass rally for a single payer system in Washington, DC. It is time to put what most Americans want on the table. (See www.Healthcare-Now.org for more information.)

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.

------------

[saltpoint]

1. Ralph Nader. He's the frozen green beans served at your birthday

party instead of ice cream and cake.

He's entitled to his opinion just as about 70 million Americans are entitlted to vote for the man he criticizes in th passage above.

And as I've posted before, when is the last time you saw Ralph Nader smile?

[foginthemorn]

3. He is spot on in the OP-no matter how much you mock him.

[saltpoint]

4. I'm not just mocking him. I'm dismissing him.

[defendandprotect]

11. Right . .. 'cause this is dangerous information for anyone here to have -- !!!

[saltpoint]

16. It's important information and therefore needs to be advanced by

someone other than one of the most marginal human beings in American politics.

[G_j]

21. I find much easier to dismiss

you,

sorry,
:shrug:

[saltpoint]

22. You're welcome to. No apologies required. But at this hour of the

American republic I have not read one syllable of legislation by Ralph Nader.

Not one.

He has never been elected. When he has run he went straight for the top job. He was crushed in historic proportion in consecutive elections.

And his primary affliction is caterwauling against Democrats who do write legislation from his Pure Left Messianic Perch, pretending that his registered discontent will affect the outcome.

Also I'm not crazy about his having accepted donation money from the Republicans, whose agenda, you may be sure, was not Nader's.

Ralph Nader is definitely a keen mind. But he also is a bit of an asshole.

[G_j]

27. at least

you reveal the problems you have with him.

I'm bothered by vitriolic attacks on someone without substance or explanation.

I don't agree with you at all, but I accept your viewpoint.

Nader's pieces on the bailouts and bank crisis are also right on.
He is dependably clear and intelligent. He is consistent, doesn't change like a weather-vane
I find him very educational, actually.

[saltpoint]

31. G J, I accept also your affection for Nader. If you do a search on my posts

on Nader over some years here, you'll find that my respect for his intelligence is genuine.

I question, though, the absence of a mechanism by which very worthy ideas move from individual expression to public policy.

Nader, for all his individual virtues and strengths, does not have that mechanism.

[G_j]

39. no he can't do it

he can only express his ideas, like everyone else.
He is also obviously a fighter, which is perhaps the attribute that people find friction with.

but..he does actually smile.

[saltpoint]

40. : ) Ok, maybe he does smile now and again.

[G_j]

44. granted, it's hard to tell..

:-)

[defendandprotect]

41. Nader has influenced consumer legislation his entire career as advocate for citizens ...

You obviously need to catch up with history --

Ralph Nader understood -- and rightly so -- that he could effect legislation
as a citizen's advocate over many decades and he did so successfully for decades.
In fact, it was only when Nader was being totally blocked from access to
government officials that he ran for office.

And your recognition of his criticism of the Democratic Party -- now co-opted by
campaign finance BRIBERY and the DLC/corporate wing of the Democratic Party --
should give you a clue as to why the leadership of the Democratic Party happily
tried to scapegoat Nader for their 2000.

That was easier than challenging what had actually gone on in the stolen election --
and easier than fighting the computer fraud of our elections.
In fact, as yet, I'm still waiting for Democrats to unite against this fraudulent
voting system we still suffer with!

Nader has responded to the question of "Republican money" . . . and I don't recall
his answer -- except that you'll note below 25% of Republicans voted for Nader -- !!!




Playahata.com: Many people are still under the impression that you cost Al Gore the election in 2000?

Nader: No. Al Gore won the election in 2000. George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election. No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned. To say someone is a "spoiler" is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties. The Constitution does not mention parties. This country had a rich history of third parties. George W. Bush's recount strategy in Florida cost Gore the election. The deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election. Katherine Harris-style purging of tens of thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles cost the election. A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court stop of the recount cost Gore the election. (See Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close to Call). Playing the "what if" game, Gore cost Gore the election in Tennessee, Arkansas, and each of the presidential debates. Except for brief, progressive moments, such as at the convention, which helped his polls, Gore ran the usual, lackluster corporate Democratic campaign. And they did. They voted for Bush, including more than 250,000 self-identified Democrats in Florida. Moreover,

a Democratic exit poll showed that Ralph's votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph.

In other words, more than sixty percent of Ralph's voters would NOT have voted for Gore. In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin. If one accepts the flawed logic that suggests Ralph 'cost' Gore two states (New Hampshire and Florida), then it would also follow that Buchanan 'cost' Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico) in 2000.CNN's polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting

http://www.playahata.com/pages/interviews/interview_ralphnader.htm



All the Democratic voters can vote for the Democrats. All the Republican voters for the Republicans. And still there would be 100 million plus nonvoting people to approach for their votes.

[saltpoint]

49. He has indeed. As a consumer advocate.

But he has not written his citizen-driven ideas into legislation, as he has never held public office.

He decided to enter public office at the level of the White House but was turned down in consecutive national elections by landslide margins, and was unable to influence much of anything past a virtually microscopic group of supporters numbering in large cities sometimes only in the dozens. He could not even manage ballot access in the system he rails against owing to standing bias against long-shot third parties.

The rationale for a Nader candidacy in 2008 was zero. American citizens across many demographic lines agreed and cast several dozen million votes for Barack Obama.

Nader should early on have tapped his considerable smarts and energy and focus and run for a State Senator seat in a moderate-to-liberal district. From there he might have been in an influential position to draft bills that advance his admirable agenda.

But he did not.

[defendandprotect]

76. OK . . . so now your argument against Nader is that he was striving

for a position - President -- while you think he should have started at

lower levels?? Where did you want him to start, exactly?

Additionally, try to understand that getting elected to Congress, let's say,

doesn't guarantee that you can effect government as much as someone OUTSIDE

government has been able to effect it.

That's what we have all always understood about Nader.

Further . . .

Nader HAS influenced legislation over decades.

And, he's more familiar and outspoken in telling the truth of government

than most of our elected Democrats!

That's why you're hearing the truth of what's going on in regard to single payer

health care from Nader rather than Democrats.

Ralph Nader has pretty much told us all we know about politics -- about the GOP and

Democrats -- try reading some of his books. Try reading some of the material from

the various organizations he's put in place.

Nader has been telling us about the BUYING OF GOVERNMENT and our elected officials

for decades.

[pokercat999]

123. Isn't Nader a resident of Washington DC and therefore the

possibility to serve in congress was not available to him? There is no REAL congressional representatives from DC just the honorary position in the house.

[saltpoint]

126. Nader, owing to his holding stock in corporations, is able to meet expenses.

He could have moved at any time to any district where he thought he could be elected to a State government or even to Congress.

[pokercat999]

154. Why should any citizen be required to move to serve in

congress?

Your argument is nonsense. If I'm not mistaken Mr. Nader is also a proponent of statehood for DC.

[saltpoint]

158. I'm also a proponent of statehood for DC but that doesn't mean I should

be the President of the United States, or suggest that I could become President of the United States.

My argument is nonsense if Nader were to have chosen say, John Boehner's district to move to and run in, because Nader would stand no chance in that district.

On the other hand, Nader could have chosen a reliably blue district -- where Democrats abound -- and run there on his progressive agenda. Many U.S. Senators move up from down-ballot races. Over a period of years they construct an organizational model that bolsters their public profile and wins influence once they are elected.

It's the serving that is the point, and we would agree that the more progressive the agenda informing that service the better, but candidates who do not win do not serve.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. +1

[avaistheone1]

162. Obama accepted donation money from Republicans too.

Ralph Nader has influenced plenty of legistlation.

[G_j]

25. dupe

[defendandprotect]

28. And why would anyone hold such a dumb point of view . . . ????

Let's see now -- might it have something to do with misinformation about
election 2000?

First, Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


300,000 Florida "Democrats" voted for Bush --

More than 600 "illegal" military ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --


We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County which was MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[saltpoint]

32. Shhh. You'll wake up the grandkids.

Honestly. Hold the bold.

IMO the 2000 election was lost in Ohio, when the Gore camp conceded the state to Bush to concentrate organization and funds elsewhere.

No question that Gore was cheated in Florida, but his own strategists in effect gave Bush Ohio.

[defendandprotect]

43. "Gore won in 2000, no matter how you count the vote . . ."

Try actually reading what I said --

And, of course Ohio was stolen in 2004 --

And Kerry quickly conceded after promising to fight --



If you haven't come upon that info before it comes from a Consortioum of press

who recounted the votes -- and delivered that information to America ....

just about the time of 9/11 --

Americans didn't hear anything about it until much, much later --

[saltpoint]

51. I read what you said and then typed what I typed.

Had Gore not conceded Ohio, had he not run a truncated campaign there, there would have been no dispute over the Florida outcome.

[defendandprotect]

73. Had Gore not lost Tennessee, his home state . . .

We don't know what was actually lost and what was actually stolen

because Democrats have largely refused to persue the steals --

including the electronic voiting machines which have now been ruled

"illegal" and "Unconstitutional" in Germany.

However, the obvious steal in 2000 was in Florida --

and the obviousness of the stolen election is there.

Bush was at one point down to something like 54 votes ahead in Florida,

even with the stealing going on.

What they mainly had to do was prevent the Florida State Supreme Courts MANDATE

for a re-count from going forward -- and they did with a GOP fascist rally which

no police interferred with despite the violent turn.

Finally, the steal went to the right wing Supreme Court --

but, nowhere in any of that did the stolen election have anything to do with Nader.

[followthemoney]

48. Stupid Ass Democrats voted for Bush! 300,000 in Florida!

What were the Stupid Ass Democrats doing voting for Bush? Who are these people? And why did they vote for Reagan? The famous Reagan Democrats turned this whole country on to a path to disaster. And now that the Democrats have power they are voting like Republicans! Who are these people and why should I care about them? They don't make a lick of sense!

I like Nader because he would NEVER have caved to the Republicans, smile or not. I hate the Democrats that have repeatedly sold the people down the river and voted like Republicans, and for Republicans.

[defendandprotect]

77. Nice post . . . and think they were the Democrats who wanted to "have a beer with Bush" ...???

GOP propaganda does work --

but, remember, that Gore did actually win in 2000 --

Nice post -- !!!

:)

[abumbyanyothername]

23. OK dismiss him

But what about these ideas? Ralph Nader is a fucking moron. But what about the ideas articulated in the article?

I have a hard time arguing with any one of them.

[saltpoint]

34. Green beans have nutrition. I'm not arguing that.

But for a birthday party you want cake and ice cream.

Politicians need to persuade. They need to seduce. They need to spearhead resources and mobilize untapped energy, or even re-direct that energy, toward the common good.

Nader, as consumer advocate, was quite good at marshaling resources, but these occurred within the limited context of consumer protection.

I think his points are sound, solid, and right-on, but they exist only in the room where he is speaking, and not in the public forum where they might take hold and build consensus. Ralph Nader is messianic. He is not a consensus builder.

[LanternWaste]

74. I imagine many people...

I imagine many people prefer Jell-O as a fundamental food group.

As far as I know, food has one primary function, everything else is simply marketing, packaging, and advertising which doesn't change the utilitarianism of food but merely reflects our own puerile shallowness.

I'll stick to green beans over ice cream any day. Boring...? Quite possibly for the youths at a juvenile birthday party who crave style over substance it is. However I'd rather have a diet of the fundamentals when it comes to the serious stuff.

[saltpoint]

130. LOL. Politics has to be more about ice cream, though, than it ever should

be about green beans.

Ain't nobody gonna come to a party if you serve green beans.

With ice cream and cake, you draw a serious crowd.

Majority rules in a democracy. and ice cream, as I said before draws the crowd.

[roody]

72. Tell us about YOUR health care plan.

Your insurance, that is.

[saltpoint]

140. Or yours. Hi, roody. You need a point. People are under-insured in

the aggragate in the United States though far less so in other countries' system.

Coverage differs except that there is clear understanding that greed, not service to others, drives U.S. health insurers.

Wellpoint. United Behavioral Health. CBC. Aetna. Anthem. Unity. WPS. You know the list.

Now add the equally cash-driven index of Big Pharma.

Ralph Nader's piece cited in the OP is in fact admirably on target and simultaneously inaudible in the public debate.

Nader is not a player.

He has not been a player since his UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED days, IMO. He is intelligent, occasionally bold, in and of himself admirable, but like anyone else, quite full of contradictions. The more political he became, the less pure his argument shone. That's what politics does. That's what it is. He's not the only one and therefore can't be singled out. But he is one, and the moment he takes Republican bucks to subvert the party of Robert F. Kennedy and Barbara Jordan, he is, in the estimation of this observer, a renegade asshole.

He should have set his sights more reasonably and cogently; moved from DC to Maryland or Virginia; sought public office with grassroots support and organization; built a national network around the principled efforts he'd made as a consumer advocate and attorney; and then gone for a gubernatorial run or U.S. Senate seat a while down the line.

He didn't.

[JDPriestly]

163. Saltpoint you are wrong in dismissing Nader on this one.

Obama should have had a clearer idea about what reform he wanted. He should have had a proposal ready complete with cost predictions and specifics. Instead he has just turned Congress with all its greed and special interests loose without much direction.

The cheapest and best alternative is the single payer option. H.R. 676. Obama should just come out and say so. Has anyone ever done the cost analysis on H.R. 676? I would like to see it if there is one. Let everyone argue for keeping your current plan and the public option. Get the costs on that alternative. Then come out with an honest cost analysis on H.R. 676. Voters will want H.R. 676 and the option to buy extra private insurance if they choose to.

I will bet that H.R. 676 is by far the cheapest alternative. But where are the numbers. Surely someone has them.

The numbers would put an end to the arguments once and for all, I strongly suspect.

[redwitch]

42. I agree.

On the issue of health care Ralph Nader speaks truth.

[saltpoint]

53. His truth-speaking is less at issue than to whom he speaks it.

How does meaningful reform get from Ralph Nader's mouth to legislation on health care reform in the 111th Congress?

It doesn't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Maybe he was spot-on in 2000 too.

Right or not, he still fucked up the world.

[nosmokes]

6. Yeah, attack a great American liberal who has done more for consumers

and saved more lives than you have working brain cells. idiot.

[saltpoint]

8. Well my third grade teacher said I had promise.

So there.

[nosmokes]

13. I'm sure that was a comfort when you rode the short bus home.n/t

[saltpoint]

15. Lo, but the route was a long one. Most kids told jokes

and maybe did a little homework en route, or later on in junior high, listened to top 40 radio.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. ... by getting George Bush elected?

Funny way of saving lives.

[kenfrequed]

105. Yeah

Except you know that that 'Nader elected' Bush meme was bullshit. The centrists used it to falsely bash the left in their own party for the last 9 years.

The fact of the matter was, as has been repeated and investigated ad nauseum, therea re many, many things cost Gore the election in 2000. Republican cheating and Gore's decision to run to the right.

And if you are going to play the blame game and vote chase why aren't you going after the 200K dems that decided to vote repuke that year? I suppose ralph makes a better scapegoat and castigating him insulates you from having to accomodate those that voted for him and move back to traditional democratic values.

Did you happen to notice how talking about (though not promising specifics) on healthcare, the environment, better working conditions, and more labor and union protection actually seems to resonate with the voters. Go figure.

Somehow centrism, tax cuts, moderation, business friendly, free trade, and what not don't energize the base nor do they attract the boarder population.

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. If Nader hadn't run Gore would have won.

It. Is. As. Simple. As. That.

[provis99]

174. if idiot Democrats hadn't voted for Bush, Gore would have won.

but keep spouting stupid DLC talking points, if you wish.

[defendandprotect]

10. If this is "green beans" . . . I'll have a couple of barrels full . . . Thanks, Ralph!!

[saltpoint]

17. You can definitely have my share of Ralph Nader.

I have not supped at that table for some time.

[Better Believe It]

26. When was the last time we saw Ralph Nader smile? When he read your silly post!

[saltpoint]

38. Well I'm truly pleased to see a smile crack across the man's face.

At all other times he is extraordinarly dour. Funereal, in fact.

[mmonk]

132. If things continue the way they have, his time may come

whether others like it or not.

[saltpoint]

137. I have no crystal ball but were I a betting man I'd betcha all I had

in m pocket that Ralph Nader's time never will come.

Not ever.

I do not see critical mass rising to coalesce behind Ralph Nader.

[avaistheone1]

161. I like green beans and they are healthier than the ice cream and cake that

will eventually kill you. Ralph does smile and laugh. You are just not paying attention, You need to overcome your preconceived biases and prejudices.

Like mother said eat your vegetables.

[foginthemorn]

2. WTF!! Obama promised not to

negotiate drug prices!! good god!! what next!

.............No matter, in return Obama and his aides agreed not to press Congress to authorize the federal government to negotiate drug prices with the drug industry. Don't worry: the taxpayers will pay the bill.

At a meeting on July 7 at the White House between drug company executives, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), the industry, according to The New York Times, was promised that the final legislative package would not allow the reimportation of cheaper medicines from Canada or other countries even if they meet our drug safety standards

[defendandprotect]

9. Astonishing, isn't it !!!??? Baucus and Emmanuel should recuse themselves . . .!!!

In fact, given the size of the "for profit" contributions to Obama . ..

so should he!!

What we need is MEDICARE FOR ALL and immediate lifting of the age limitation!!

[RufusTFirefly]

5. That's right. Shoot the messenger.

Classic. So helpful.

[foginthemorn]

59. 99 % of the posts here are about the messenger-nothing of the substance

of what the OP says.

[nightrain]

66. isn't that interesting... there's time yet to do it differently....unless the point

is to not talk about the substance.

[crazylikafox]

7. I'm not a big Ralph fan either, but this is an excellent article.

[dflprincess]

14. This is Nader at his best

watching out for consumers was always his forte and what he should have stuck to. This article is excellent.

[nightrain]

46. Thanks. Yeah, I think that pretty well sums up my opinion on Nader too.

He's done some very fine things over his lifetime and some very questionable ones too IMHO.

[bvar22]

12. Everyone should LISTEN to Nader !

No one should vote for him,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
though I may next time if the Democrats succeed in fucking up Health Care Reform.

[saltpoint]

18. Ralph Nader needs to spend a weekend buck naked with super models

in a giant mud pool.

[Better Believe It]

29. Right. In your dreams!

:)

[saltpoint]

35. : )

I think it would put things into a new light.

[LostInAnomie]

19. Nader is right a lot more than he is wrong.

It just so happens he was horribly wrong once.

If not for 2000, he would be one of the biggest heroes in liberalism.

[saltpoint]

20. Something to be said for those points, IMO. When one hears that Ralph

Nader accepted money from Republican donors (link below) to defeat Democrats. I'm not going to sign on to that, ever.

He's an incredibly intelligent soul. Agree with you that he had hero status, especially among attorneys who represented consumers in disputes. And at more than one level of the professional world.

But he has never, ever held the formula for elected office, and thus his impulse to advance ideas as a public servant have fallen wildly short of the mark.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/10/MNG9J7JMDK1.DTL

[sabrina 1]

45. Democrats accept money from corporate criminals

many of whom are Republicans. How much have they accepted totally from the Healthcare Industry and Wall St. do you know? How many of those 'donors' are Republicans? What was promised in return for those millions, billions of dollars in donations to Democrats?

Have you signed on to that? What ideas have Democrats managed to advance over the past eight years eg? Did they stop a war, torture, even speak out strongly against Bush? I don't remember to many ideas being advanced by them. I do remember a lot of support for rightwing ideas, such as the Wars started by Bush. Spying on the American people, Bush nominees were supported by Democrats eg. I could go on.

So, why the outrage over a couple of Nader decisions that really had zero impact on starting a war or instituting oppressive laws, such as the Patriot Act, or voting to abolish the Glass Steagel Act? I never got the disproportionate anger towards Nader while rogue Democrats actually got support from the same people.

[saltpoint]

52. Sorry. No sale. Nader accepted Republican donor dollars to

fatten his coffers, with both Nader and the Republicans believing it would weaken the Democratic Party.

It was blood money. Nader knew it. He took it anyway.

[Selatius]

54. It's no different than Democrats accepting cash from corporate lobbyists.

Blood money all the same. The corporate lobbyists who give cash to Democrats, are they seriously deluding themselves into thinking they are making the Democratic Party stronger? Of course not, they simply want to create internal conflict within the party so that it cannot agree to do anything substantive without massive concessions to corporate interests.

[saltpoint]

55. Nader himself has spent a good chunk of his career admirably

railing against corporate control of public policy. But then went right ahead and did the same thing.

The argument against Nader is not that he is not bright, because he certainly is, or that he is not capable, because he is extraordinarily capable.

When he speaks before the National Press Club, for example, I return to listen to what he has to say, I lend respectful attention to his address, and then bemoan the fact that he is not ever going to change one whit of policy by being the "principled contrarian," especially if he does not have more of an organization base than he does, and this is what he lacks -- an organization base.

He excites principled activists. I'm all for that. But Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold and Sheldon Whitehouse and Barbara Boxer are also principled and they happen to hold Senate seats. They can introduce legislation and they can fight in real time with real jobs for a progressive shove toward the future.

Ralph Nader cannot do that.

[Selatius]

56. Neither could Martin Luther King, Jr. He never held a senate seat but he got some things done.

Of course, I'm not equating MLK to Ralph Nader. I merely bring up MLK to demonstrate that change could still be pushed despite not holding elective office. MLK was a prime example of that. He didn't serve the role of legislator as much as he did as a pressure group. Futher, the difference between MLK and Ralph Nader is that MLK had a massively powerful social movement behind him, the Civil Rights Movement. Nader lacks even that. He is free to speak, and nobody in power cares because they know the workers whom he is trying to reach are too misinformed or underinformed to hear him and too divided on social wedge issues to care. Otherwise, he'd have a ten million-man protest movement following him to hell and back.

Apparently people cared enough to treat blacks equally with whites but not enough to help themselves reverse their stagnating wages and freeing themselves from unfair competition and lobbyists sent by monopolists.

[saltpoint]

57. Indeed, King could lift several thousand people at once.

He is in fact still lifting them.

And they are held aloft in the spectrum of his vision for fairness and equality in the country.

Ralph Nader has none of King's gifts, IMO. He correspondingly has none of King's influence.

[defendandprotect]

82. Obviously, you've never seen Nader where he's filled a stadium with 10,000 people--!!!

That's what happened over and again in 2000 race --

Again, many of the political movements which have forced our government to

change have come from OUTSIDE government --

[saltpoint]

128. Many have, but legislation tends to take place in the Congress.

Nader's been out there on the high-profile circuict, running for president, for a while now.

Look at the 08 vote totals.

It ain't workin'.

[defendandprotect]

133. You presumably understand the role of lobbyists?

Some of them writing legislation for Congress --???

Nader influenced legislation --

Look at Clinton's '92 totals -- it was the year Perot ran ...

As Nader has pointed out after every Republican and every Democrat has voted

there are still 100 million Americans eligible to vote and not voting --

Look around you at DU . . . there are a lot of Democrats still hoping but

looking for another way.

[saltpoint]

136. I'm up to date on capitalism and the role lobbyists play in its sick

grinding and deterioration of public discourse.

Again, to the vote totals. Registered voters, those who showed up.

By overwhelming millions, they did not in fact choose Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney; they chose Barack Obama.

The arithmetic is in the landslide-plus column. Nader did not get his message through. Not by a long shot. He has been a spectacular failure as a presidential candidate. It did not assist his cause when he betrayed his own anti-corporate posture to accept money from the GOP, money he cheerfully accepted in an effort to subvert the Democratic Party, which fortunately for people like me who respect Barbara Boxer and Bill Bradley and Birch Bayh and on back into the generations of liberal Democrats, did not work. Nader failed.

You like the guy? Fine. Like him all you please. He is not anything more than a marginal purist with no discerinble base for influence and the mechanism of power in this country.

[noiretextatique]

70. no, it's not any different

and since gore actually won in 2000, the nader-hatred is moot. too bad the outrage at nader wasn't directed at the treasonous 5 on SCOTUS.

[defendandprotect]

81. 25% of Republicans voted for Nader . . .!!!

[sabrina 1]

84. Well, if you want to throw out meaningless

talking points, I'll play. 'Blood money'! Was Democrat Diane Feinstein's support for the war payback for 'blood money' received in contracts worth millions by her husband? How many people have died as a result of our bought and paid for Dems refusing to push for a proper healthcare system long, long ago? And why did they not? To hold on to their lucrative, powerful jobs and to repeat, they accepted 'blood money' from the healthcare industry. I could name them all, Dems who took 'blood money' and voted against the interest of the American people, for war and against healthcare, for Bush nominees who worked against the interests of the American people. All because of the huge amounts of 'blood money' floating around DC. They were weakening the power of the American people, and they knew it when they took this 'blood money'.

You didn't respond to my post, not that I expected you would as I've noticed that the small minority of online anti-liberal icons have a habit of attempting to change the subject when challenged on their meaningless talking points.

What Nader knew, along with many other Democrats, was that the Dem. Party was already weak. That the only opposition party this country had caved in to the extreme right more often than not.

What he did wrong imo, was to assume he could strengthen the party by challenging them to rise above DC politics rather than succumbing to the temptation of selling their votes to the highest bidders, for 'blood money'.

Your outrage at Nader would have some credibility re 'blood money' if you dared to address the same charges only on a much larger scale, against those Democrats and Republicans who actually are taking blood money and looking the other way as US citizens die in their wars and for want of healthcare.

The Nader outrage is nothing more than a distraction. The question is why would any Democrat, which I presume you are, feel the need to distract from what is going in DC? I can see why a Republican might want to do that.

[saltpoint]

138. Sabrina, Senator Feinstein has never been a candidate for president.

She's only barely a Democrat. I would say nominally, and reasonably strong on women's issues. But she is quite close to corporate concerns otherwise.

Blood money, the term, is some long years old. It predates anyone on this board and occurs in literature across cultures. You mischaracterize its function and purpose.

Nader owns stock in corporations whose control he rails against to advance his progressive profile. That's an interesting starting point, if you ask me. So which is it, Ralph -- corporations are bad because they blur the ideological distinctions between political organizations thus stifling public discourse but they're good so long as they keep those monthly divident mailings flying into your personal mailbox?

[sabrina 1]

160. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm the one mis-characterizing

the meaning of 'blood money'. Anyone who profited from the war in Iraq, such as the Feinstein family, is living on 'blood money'.

Feinstein was not the only Democrat to do so of course. So many Dems right now are opposing any change in the Healthcare system, AFTER having taken 'blood money' from the industry.

Is Nader, despite taking a small amount of money several years ago from Republicans, afraid to speak out against the disastrous health-care system or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If Republicans expected to 'buy' him, I guess they were disappointed as he continues to speak out against everything they support, while so many, too many to ignore, Democrats have caved into most of Bush's brutal agenda, an agenda that killed over one million human beings, after receiving money in many cases, from defense contractors. THAT is 'blood money'.

I see you try to overlook the disgraceful war-profiteering of people like Feinstein et al and point to their 'good points'. So, she is pretty good on women's issues? Really? Do you think the dead women of Iraq, the widows, sisters, the mourning mothers, would agree with that? Or do the women of Iraq simply not count to you, (they do to Nader btw) the same way they do not count to our war-profiteering and supporting members of Congress from both parties?

Oh, and Nader is excellent on women's issues, btw.

I have yet to hear Nader speak on issues that supposedly matter to Democrats and betray those principles. He lost faith in the Democatic Party a little ahead of many others. And if they do not change their ways, he will be joined by millions more before too long.

As for stock options, would you like a run-down of the stock investments of Democrats who rail against corporations

I would give you a list if this was really an issue for you and not just a feeble attempt to push an obsessive hatred you have for one man. But it is clear from your posts that you have an irrational hatred for Nader. I say 'irrational' because you continue to repeat two very recognizable talking points in an effort to undermine him and ignore the far more egregious behavior, the blatant acceptance of real 'blood money' by other Democrats. That shows irrationality and there is no arguing with that.

[defendandprotect]

80. 25% of Republicans voted for Nader . . .

Are you saying he shouldn't have allowed them to support his campaign?

38% of Democrats voted for him --

and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph.

However, in coming out, they helped Democrats in other offices where they voted -

Congress, especially.

[mmonk]

156. Nobody holds the formula because the two party system controls

access.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. When he is wrong, the world suffers

because he is worshiped by gullible idiots who can be made to believe fantasies.

[defendandprotect]

85. "gullibe idiots" . . .???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6157395&mesg_id=6157658

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. Yes, 97,000 gullible idiots.

I'm free to criticize those who vote for not-democrats here.

[ShamelessHussy]

24. Nader get's a bad rap with those in power because he exposes them, and they can't stand that

Give'm the truth Ralph, cause it's the same as giv'n them hell :toast:

[saltpoint]

36. It does not seem to me that anyone in power is frightened of

Ralph Nader.

[ShamelessHussy]

47. Then why do you mention it?

I didn't.

[saltpoint]

50. No one "exposed" (your term) by Ralph Nader should have any reason

to even make them mildly uncomfortable.

He is not in a position of significant influence. He has not been in one since after the 2000 election, and was only influential in the 2000 election on the basis of "denial arithmetic," which isn't much of an arguement for or against Ralph Nader.

In long-ago decades he fought admirably for consumer advocate issues but his work now is to be the Pure Left Contrarian. He speaks primarily to people who already agree with him. He has a base of supporters but they number in a few dozen here and a few dozen there.

[defendandprotect]

88. "Long ago decades" . . ..

have you been in a cave with Osama Bin Laden?

Wherever you're getting your information from you'd best go back and "refresh" . . .

you're been misinformed and disinformed.

"A few dozen" supporters . . .??????

Wake up!

[saltpoint]

144. Dammit it all, you've found me out. I have indeed been in a cave

with bin Laden.

And let me tell you, he's a fierce competitor at gin rummy.

You have to get up PRETTY EARLY IN THE MORNING to pull a fast one on this guy.

The literal arithmetic has you hung up. Look again, carefully, at the vote totals from the 2008 presidential election.

Mr. Obama carried the day with several tens of millions of votes.

Mr. Nader, by contrast, got a few less. Quite a damn few less.

He's marginal. He's not a player. He was barely even on the radar screen. He lost. Big.

[defendandprotect]

168. Okay . . .

bye --

[Selatius]

58. If powerful people were deathly frightened of Nader, he'd end up with a bullet in his head.

Like Martin Luther King. "Rabblerousers" and visionary leaders have a nasty tendency to end up assassinated or in prison historically speaking. Nader is a people's advocate, but he doesn't have enough power to shake the foundations of power.

[defendandprotect]

86. Not since Corporations have bought government and our elected officials -- !!!

[saltpoint]

143. Then what about in a conflict-of-interest zone when anti-corporate

Ralph Nader owns stock in the corporations he publicly assails?
(post 141)

[defendandprotect]

167. As far as I recall . . .

these organizations -- including Nader's -- buy some stock in companies to

try to influence their decision making.

You must have looked for his reply on this . . . what did he say?

[Better Believe It]

30. RALPH NADER = TRUTH

And ideas we can believe in!

[RufusTFirefly]

33. Nader's irrelevant ...

... now that we've finally gotten that war-perpetuating corporate apologist out of office.




Oops! Never mind!

[Better Believe It]

68. So when are all of our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan coming home ....

now that we have a peace candidate in the White House and a Democratic anti-war Congress?

2010, 2011, 2012, 2030, 2080, 2187?

[defendandprotect]

89. We've reversed everything Bush did . . . and ignore Nader's comments on single payer--!!!

Ignore it -- "it's irrelevant" . . .

You don't need health care anyway, right???

[leftstreet]

37. K&R

[berni_mccoy]

60. "Since these industry meetings at the White House are private" - FALSE

This has been debunked. MANY TIMES NOW.

Nader should not be taken seriously. He's an egomaniac and does not deserve serious consideration at DU. He's little better than a Freeper.

[bertman]

65. If those meetings weren't private, would you please show me a link I can go to and

read the transcripts. That would be very illuminating for me and for millions of Americans who, as I remember it, were only told that the insurance industry had offered to hold its costs down to a certain level. Then I remember that a few days later we were informed that some of the insurance executives were starting to get antsy and suggesting that they might have to re-think their offers.

Having photographers take pics of the participants in a meeting is a far cry from having a meeting that is fully documented and open to scrutiny by the public.

Help me out here, berni. I'm in the dark on this one.

P.S. I recommend this thread.

[berni_mccoy]

69. Here's the link to my debunking post that includes links to the C-SPAN covered events

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/710

The originating source of these stories about "private meetings" is by an AP Reporter who has been completely discredited by Media Matters. You can read about that here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/711

[bertman]

101. Thanks, Berni. The natural followup question to this is: were there other meetings

that took place at the White House, or with administration representatives, that were not open to the public? (Meaning closed-door sessions where the press only got to take photos but not sit in on the discussion.) So even though there was public knowledge of WHO was there, the proceedings may not have been open.

I ask that because often the deals are made in private sessions before the teevee hearings, then the resulting decisions look legitimate.

That tactic has been a staple of D.C. political manuevering for decades and lends the aura of openness to a closed process.

[defendandprotect]

90. Are you kidding?

They are refusing to say how many times the Insurance industry has been

to the White House!

Actually, you sound more like a "Freeper" --

And, of course, he is no friend of Repugs, either --

Whether it's the Dems or the Repugs, he is after them --

and the reality that government and elected officials have been bought by

campaign finance BRIBERY -- !!!

[berni_mccoy]

97. Nope. The administration has released the full accounting of every insurance industry rep

who has visited the White House as well.

And calling a DUer a Freeper is against the rules jack.

[defendandprotect]

131. Story the other day makes clear they're not being "transparent" --

EXCERPT --

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a good-government group suing to get White House visitor logs that show details including who has gone in and out and with whom they met, isn't satisfied by the White House's release of the list.

The list provides only a snapshot of health industry visits to the White House. It includes only White House visits by the health industry executives that CREW named in its Freedom of Information Act request for the visitor logs, not any visits they or their representatives may have made to other administration offices. The White House list shows only names and dates, not the executives' titles, with whom they met, who might have accompanied them or what was discussed.

"Health care decisions are being made every day without people actually speaking to Obama. Mr. Obama is probably not in the midst of every health care discussion, but senior White House aides are," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW. "If we had actually gotten the Secret Service White House records, we would know who these people were meeting with, which we don't know now."

Even if there had been photo opportunities on all the dates listed, the public would need to have access to all those pictures and be able to identify everyone in them to know who has been meeting with the White House on health care, Sloan said.


Few health CEO visits to White House involved photo ops, contradicting Obama

By SHARON THEIMER , Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Despite President Barack Obama's promise of transparency on his health care overhaul, few White House meetings with medical industry representatives on a list recently released by his administration were made public at the time, an Associated Press review found.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/51706232.html?page=3&c=y


Nader should not be taken seriously. He's an egomaniac and does not deserve serious consideration at DU. He's little better than a Freeper.

If you want to be disrespectful and call others "Freepers" don't be surprised if you're
taken for a Freeper, yourself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. That's not the only unrebutted propoganda with which a confused public is being saturated.

How to fuck up anything in two easy steps;
1) get Ralph Nader involved.
2) sit down and wait.

I'm pretty convinced that no form of healthcare reform will occur, not this year, not in Nader's lifetime and probably not in mine.

The people who reject the pony because they want a unicorn have only themselves to blame.

Hell, they're 25, they don't want no stinkin' mandate (because they're never going to get sick). Comes the fateful day that ignorance is no longer an option, there's a new crop of invincible 25 years olds who don't think they should participate either.

The only good news? Canada recently passed a law which gives citizenship to anyone born to Canadian citizens. Mom was a Canadian citizen. I have been beating my head against a wall for nearly 30 years advocating for healthcare reform. Now, the minimum useful reform is being considered, only to be rejected by my fellow progressives. If I set up permanent residence in Canada, I can probably get legal status for my family, eventually.

I have a fundamental question to ask all of you who oppose the current reform advocated by Obama yet consider yourself progressives. What does that word mean to you? And how can you reconcile that self-image with the reality that the only outcome of bellicose insistence on single payer or nothing will be another generation of greater costs, earlier death and stronger stranglehold by the medical/insurance industry?

Republicans, the insurance industry, big pharma and the medical-industrial complex are really happy to accept exactly what you are delivering to them.

There is only one reform bus leaving this station. Either get on it, or accept the consequences for the future. There isn't another reform bus labeled HR676 coming around the bend. What's coming around the bend is another 20 years of Republican control, empowered by the defeat delivered to the Democrats with your assistance.

Nader and the fucking idiots who booed Howard Dean in Portland aren't improving their world, they are empowering Republicans.

[nightrain]

67. bus has barely gotten warmed up and more passengers are getting on said bus

with better, more accurate information. This is a longhaul bus, been around for about 30+ years, lots of drivers and mechanics, now looking to go tandem to hold all the passengers.

[defendandprotect]

91. The idea that we're re-inventing the wheel is funny . . . all other nations have single payer --

and have worked out all the details -- very little for us to do!!

What they want to do is stall as much as possible -- and OBAMA is cutting

$313 BILLION from Medicare which should give us an idea of where he's headed.

I'm hoping not!!! . . .!!!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. We aren't any of those other countries.

For better or worse, we are this country.

Our leaders are the kind of leaders a fucked up system like ours produces.

HR3200 is the best quality lemonade that such sour lemons can produce.

[defendandprotect]

129. And THIS country can't do what every other country has done ???

[lumberjack_jeff]

135. That is correct.

Did I catch you at a teachable moment?

We absolutely cannot do single payer in one bite, it's simply not the way we roll.

[defendandprotect]

165. Think that's what they said about Medicare . . .

bye --

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. Speaking of which.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/2000%20Files/Aug%2000/FTR-08-04-00MedCarHistry.htm

Two decades of reform advocacy led up to Medicare, which has been tweaked continuously ever since it was implemented 44 years ago.

[ipaint]

78. If your not with us

your with the terrorists.

deja vu.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. I am certainly not with those who think reform is wrong.

Or that a magical nonexistent option is the only way.

Options; door #1 or door #2.

A refusal to choose is a choice for the status quo.

[ipaint]

87. Legally shackling working class people to an abusive

for profit industry with a history of ultra conservative policies and practices, an industry which is by law only answerable to it's shareholders and certainly not the working class, is the very definition of "empowering the republicans".

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. We are NOW shackled to private ins., prexisting conditions exclusions and cherry picking

This is like the opthamologists office. He asks, "better or worse".

I may have gone into his office hoping for x-ray vision, but if that's my expectation, I'm an idiot.

HR3200 is dramatically better than the status quo.

[kenfrequed]

103. And so....

Because Nader saw all these problems well in advance and tried to raise public conciousness before, during, and after unsuccessful bids for the white house he is what in your analogy?

The guy with the hot stick poking you in the eye?


Sheesh... get over the Nader hating. Every reasonable statician has weighed in stating that he was not a factor in either candidates losing. Besides most of the Nader haters here these days are DLC jerk offs that want to blame the loyal left wing of their own party for Gore and Kerry's failures rather than admit their buddies the REpukelicans actually cheat at elections.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. If Gore had won Florida by 90,000 votes...

... it would have been impossible to steal.

And no, he is a witch doctor in my analogy. If I meditate over the proper crystal, (and praise the virtues of the witch doctor) I'll get my x-ray vision.

... but whatever I do, if I want superhuman vision, I must avoid the horrible better-worse mainstream opthamology paradigm.

[kenfrequed]

107. Lot of wtichdoctors

Like the Farmer Labor party in Minnesota back in the day...
Or how about any social activist that has been inconvenient to elected officials.

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. Inconvenient is fine.

Effective is better.

[kenfrequed]

117. Feh

The abolition movement would never have gotten off the ground if people like you had your way. Now would the civil rights movement. Never mind the labor movement.

None of these movements resovled themselves instantly and none of them repaired themselves in a single election and all of them caused trouble to political candidates that were supposedly "sympathetic."

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. There were 100 years between the emancipation proclamation and the civil rights bill.

Because the executive order didn't immediately free all slaves, to the purists it was a failure.

America is like that. Activists push government to take a step, then they push to take another step, then they push...

Instant gratification is a new invention.

[kenfrequed]

159. But you seem to argue against action

Well of course it takes time, but you seem to be suggesting by just throwing a timeframe out that social change is an easy bake oven.

Historical inevitability is also a new invention where history that is taught as a positivist curve; which can be defined as the idea that things are always getting better and that positive social change is inevitability. This is the way American History has been taught for generations and it creates a sense of un-involvement in the socio-political realm. Its handmaidens are apathy and rationalization. (After all if things are going to change anyway why do I have to do it, besides it will happen eventually anyhow)

Social change is messy, and tough, and a struggle and it does not suborn well the faint of heart nor the convenience of a particular politician’s electoral strategy and historically when it attempts to do so it often becomes watered down and weakened as result.

[lumberjack_jeff]

164. I am not the one screaming for INaction.

I want to take the first step... the currently debated reform bill... now.

It is you and Ralph Nader who are shouting that option b) "nothing" is better than option a) "anything-other-than-the-precise-thing-I-want-when-I-want-it".

Positive social change isn't inevitable, but it's impossible without a first step.

[kenfrequed]

169. Novacaine

Some moves are a step in the right direction, others are just a way of placating or numbing the body politic against action or further demand. I have to know which it is before I can be certain which it is but minus single payer universal it is pretty weak, and if the public option is removed then it is not reform.

[lumberjack_jeff]

172. I agree that a public option is the minimum required to qualify as a meaningful first step. n/t

[ipaint]

108. For the much pandered to middle class.

How wonderful the status quo is changing for you.

The rest of us get to relive the last thirty years of being gradually priced out of the marketplace only this time being working class or poor means your a criminal.

Gotta love progress. And when the repubs get back in power I just know the subsidies will be increased. I bet they are planning for it right now.
I can't wait for those future incremental changes to start kicking in to make it all better. I'm sure the insurance companies are just going to roll over next time. When will that next time be? 30 years, 60 maybe?

Who knew freedom and democracy meant government forced extortion payments to one of the most abusive and destructive for profit businesses on the planet in order to access health care.


I just can't wait to settle for less. It's so obviously a winning strategy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. If you work or make less than $50k/year

HR3200 is a huge blessing.

[ipaint]

116. That's funny. n/t.

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. The joke is about ignorance.

The family members of anyone who works in even a modest size workplace will have at least 65% of their premiums covered. They will have their total expenditures capped (so they don't have to fear bankruptcy). Because of the subsidy, if they decide to try self employment or a sabbatical, they can afford coverage from any of the plans in the exchange.

The bottom 35% of households will get healthcare for free. Only the top 20% of households won't get a subsidy, probably paid for by a tax hike on those making $250,000 or more.

All of these things PLUS, "preexisting condition" becomes an archaic term.

The only drawbacks;
a) it doesn't take effect immediately
b) it doesn't immediately allow big companies to subscribe their employees through the exchange.
c) the subsidy is structured in such a way that it doesn't motivate subscribers to purchase the cheapest plan (public option).
d) private insurance companies participate.

All I hear from you is "I can't afford it" (without defining what "it" is), steadfast refusal to acknowledge that the bill DOES give the uninsured the choice of a public plan, it offers consumer protections that have been long necessary and strawmen such as "it guarantees insurance company profit margins!".

[ipaint]

125. I didn't say I can't afford it.

In fact I don't think this is all about me personally at all. It's a weak public option built to fail and it has everywhere it has been attempted. I would like to see something that has a chance to outlast the next repub administration. Something this weak won't last one generation. As a country we can't afford set up subsidies that pay full retail market price for healthcare.

There are no cost controls. That's all it takes to sink subsidies and sink the plan.

It's insurance industry welfare and a scam.

[defendandprotect]

92. MEDICARE FOR ALL is "magical" . . . ???

All we have to do is remove the age limitations and we're reading to go--

There's no re-inventing the wheel here --

Other nations all have single payer --

Other nations have all worked out the details --

Let's go!!!

PLUS, Canada covers abortion as a medical procedure which we should

also do --

After we ensure that the "pro-life" community and their murderers are

properly investigated beginning with Randall Terry!

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. Yes, it is.

Your elected officials, including the president, won't do it no matter how hard you clap.

The DU heroes are reduced to passing amendments to HR3200 assuring that "integrative care" including homeopathy are included.

[ipaint]

109. You guys aren't exactly hitting it out of the ball park.

Senate Finance Committee To Drop Public Option


WASHINGTON — After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits a requirement for businesses to offer coverage to their workers and lacks a government insurance option that President Barack Obama favors, according to numerous officials.

Like bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by six members on the Senate Finance Committee would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. Nor could insurers charge higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

But it jettisons other core Democratic provisions in a reach for bipartisanship on an issue that has so far produced little.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/senate-group-dropping-dem_n_245839.html


Can I interest you in a little homeopathy???

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. The Senate finance committee aren't "my guys".

They ALL, but especially Nelson and Cantwell, need to find other jobs.

But I'm not too worried about them. The public, The House, most of the Senate and the President all want a strong public option.

[ipaint]

118. Your missing the boat completely.

This isn't about how much the public wants it or how much our rich representatives say they want it.

It's all about what the insurance companies are demanding they want.

They exchanged eliminating pre-existing conditions and recision for a mandate that we all buy insurance from them.

The public option is their number one enemy and the reason they are dumping hundreds of millions of dollars on washington. They will sink the public option. Whatever emerges, if it is called "public" it will be in name only to fool people like you.

Without a mass movement for a canadian style/medicare for all, there will be no health care reform.

But you will be mandated to buy the overpriced crap coverage you can't afford. Welcome to the bottom.

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. Obama has said he will veto a bill which lacks a meaningful public option.

All but one of the committee bills under consideration have a good public option.

Let's wait and see, Nostradamus.

[ipaint]

124. All have a weak public option.

This is a strong public option:

Hacker's papers laid out these five criteria that he and the Lewin Group said were critical to the success of the "public option":

# The PO ("Public Option") had to be pre-populated with tens of millions of people, that is, it had to begin like Medicare did representing a large pool of people the day it commenced operations (Hacker proposed shifting all or most uninsured people as well as Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees into his public program);

# Subsidies to individuals to buy insurance would be substantial, and only PO enrollees could get subsidies (people who chose to buy insurance from insurance companies could not get subsidies);

# The PO and its subsidies had to be available to all nonelderly Americans (not just the uninsured and employees of small employers);

# The PO had to be given authority to use Medicare's provider reimbursement rates; and

# The insurance industry had to be required to offer the same minimum level of benefits the PO had to offer.

Hacker predicted, and both of the Lewin Group reports concluded, that if these specifications were met Hacker's plan would enjoy all three of Medicare's advantages - it would be huge, it would have low overhead costs, and it would pay providers less than the insurance industry did. As a result, the "public option" would be able to set its premiums below those of the insurance industry and seize nearly half the non-elderly market from the insurance industry. According to the Lewin Group's 2008 report, Hacker's version of the "public option" would, as of 2007:

# Enroll 129 million enrollees (or 50 percent of the non-elderly);

# Have overhead costs equal to 3 percent of expenditures;

# Pay hospitals 26 percent less and doctors 17 percent less than the insurance industry (but these discounts would be offset to some degree by increases in payments to providers treating former Medicaid enrollees); and,

# Set its premiums 23 below those of the average insurance company.

http://www.truthout.org/072309E?n

[defendandprotect]

127. No one is going to get single payer using the telephone and e-mails . . .

and, of course, we need preventive health care and

alternative health care options --

23 million people have left the US to get health care in other countries

which was evidently paid for by Medicare and/or their insurance carriers.

You think that's happening because they been well treated in America?

[saltpoint]

152. Take away the phone and the emails, then, at your suggestion.

Now give us the mechanism for affecting meaningful reform in government such that the progressive impulse is reflected in public policy.

[defendandprotect]

166. Did I say "take them away" . . .

End campaign finance BRIBERY . . .

and start demonstrating -- are the Democrats calling us out to support single payer --

women's groups? Progressive Democrats?

Doctors/AMA forming demonstrations?

How about what's left of our Unions?

Churches helping us campaign for single payer?

Keep calling and e-mailing but that alone is not going to get us single payer --

bye --

[roody]

71. Truth to power Ralph. Love him.

[Xithras]

75. Naders only mistake was running for President. Before that, he was beloved by the left.

At some point we need to get over his unfortunate attempt at becoming what would have been the greatest President ever, and remember that he's been one of the strongest social and consumer safety & health advocates of the last half-century.

This piece is spot-on.

[defendandprotect]

93. Nader is great and would have made a great president--!!!

His platform was sensational -- an argument for justice across the board --

I wish I could still link to it but haven't been able to find it again.

And I hope that Nader continues to enlighten us all as to the what's really

happening in government -- we need him!


:)

[kenfrequed]

102. Well

Greatest since the 1970's anyhow.

But I agree.

[ipaint]

83. Good to see a Nader post with

38 recs.

People get it.

Corporate supremacists, perfect description.

[neuvocat]

100. Nadar supported a man who helped bomb Lebannon.

He used the same irresponsible rhetoric on Al Gore. He wasn't good enough to get 15% of the vote nationwide and thanks to him, Bush supported Isreal who in turn bombed the place of Nadar's ancestry. Things have to get worse before they get better, he says. They sure did, especially for him.

[slipslidingaway]

106. knr nt

[redqueen]

110. Please call & fax in support of the Weiner Amendment.

Please.

[Echo In Light]

111. Rec'd. Nader has had my vote twice. Too bad his ideas are antithetical to the Dem party

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. Then what brings you here?

Most of us voted for Kerry and Gore.

[Umbral]

139. I find it baffling too.

Why would people that put principle above party want to be here? I just can't wrap my mind around it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Many of us find that the democratic party embodies our principles.

Others just show up for the snacks.

[saltpoint]

148. Strongly seconded.

This is the party of Bella Abzug.

Of Dr. King.

Of RFK.

[Umbral]

151. I'm sure it does. nt

[saltpoint]

153. And, not least, it is where the work is done.

The Left, which has never governed in the United States, is at the moment caterwauling in the back alley.

The actual work goes on indoors, by elected public officials, of which Ralph Nader has never been one.

He's not inside helping others do the work; he's not a player.

[Echo In Light]

155. I'm quite sure the Dem party does embody your principles. I never claimed otherwise.

As to why I'm here? I vote Dem locally, but always support third party candidates in our sham "elections."

[provis99]

175. sure I vote Democrat, but the idea that they have principles is laughable

Political parties are flexible catch-alls, nothing more than vehicles for getting elected. People have principles, not political parties.

[defendandprotect]

134. k i c k

[saltpoint]

141. Here's a peek at Ralph Nader's stock investments:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/print.html

...and here:

http://www.bushwatch.net/nader2000.htm

[berni_mccoy]

145. The ONLY Consumer Ralph Nader Advocates for is Ralph Nader. Too bad too many here are fooled by him

[saltpoint]

146. Hi, berni. Long time no see, but it's good to bump into you on

the boards tonight.

I've always given Nader his admirable work as an attorney and consumer advocate, but his role as presidential contrarian wore thin almost immediately.

His stock investments in some of the worst corporate entities around didn't help his "pure" citizen Nader image much, either.

And the blood money from the Pukes was pretty much the last straw.

[Umbral]

149. And somehow, ego turns truths into lies?

[saltpoint]

150. It depends on whose ego is in play, doesn't it? This past couple weeks

we saw Jeff Sessions' ego on full display on 24-hour cable news. He wasn't advancing the cause of democracy one iota and it appeared to many of us that his ego obstructed even the notion of represenrtative democracy for one of the three branches of our government.

There are in fact cases of ego eclipsing truth. Sadly, far too many cases.

Nader rails like a modern prophet against corporate influence even as he personally profits from corporate stock dividends.

[Silent3]

142. I'm not a big Nader fan, but he's right on here. n/t

[redqueen]

170. If only most of his critics were so thoughtful / honest. (nt)

[NNN0LHI]

157. If Ralph had his way McCain would be president right now

He didn't support Obama. He ran against him. I am sure McCain would be concerned with health care right now.

Fuck Ralph.

Don

[ElboRuum]

176. Now. Now.

As many have pointed out here, the message is spot on.

Now, can I say I want a better messenger? If Ralph Nader wanted to really help things out, he'd pick a side and get in the fight. But as always, Ralph is always somehow, someway, about Ralph. Regardless of his message, I don't trust his motives.

[Piewhacket]

171. kick