"It's not a right, it's a racket"

The comedians seem to be stepping up to replace the sadly lacking state of journalism. I guess that's really an old thing, going back to Shakespeare, at least, when it was only the court jester who could speak truth to power.

Now add Bill Maher to the list that's headed by Jon Stewart. Today on Huffington Post Maher has an essay titled, "New Rule: Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit."

He begins by talking about the stigma that once was attached to "war profiteers." Instead, now we have practically turned our military over to the corporate world -- not only as in the highly lucrative weapons manufacture but simply in running the war. Contracts for daily needs of our troops like food and laundry are privatized with lucrative contracts to companies designed just to provide those services -- and rake in the cash.

Maher goes on to decry the privatization of prisons. But his real topic is health care.

And finally, there's health care. . . .[L]ike everything else that's good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they're run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. . . . [T]he Republican attitude toward health care: it's not a right, it's a racket. . . .

Because medicine is now for-profit we have things like "recision," where insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you've been paying into your plan for years.

When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism.

And if medicine is for profit, and war, and the news, and the penal system, my question is: what's wrong with firemen? Why don't they charge? They must be commies. Oh my God! That explains the red trucks!

How right you are, Bill, in addition to being funny. Who came closest to telling the truth about our health care system? Michael Moore in his film, "Sicko." Yes, he probably was a bit selective in choosing examples to dramatize, and his method is ridicule -- but isn't that exactly what the Republicans do in denouncing health care reform?

Are we going to let the Michele Bachmanns and the Jim DeMints defeat health care reform -- out of purely selfish or political motives, demonstrating that their concern is not for the American people but for maintaining their own position of privilege and greed?

Ralph

Bachmann does it again

I should just accept the fact that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is both silly and dangerous (if people really took her seriously) -- and let it go.

But something about her crazy, logic-free rants and her self-centered cluelessness sets off my counter-rant buttons. This time, however, I believe she told the truth -- and it is pretty ugly.

Her latest objection to health care reform? If you offer health insurance to more people, it will make her have to wait longer when she needs to take her children to the doctor, and it will generally increase the "hassal factor" for her.

That's what she said at a press conference. I'm speechless.

Probably a whole lot of Republicans in Congress feel the same way. Another Congresswoman at the same press conference likened it to going to a fast food restaurant with your kids and finding 50 people buying food for their soccer teams in line ahead of you.

What better proof do we need of the priorities of the Republicans? It's all about protecting their privileges and their profits.

Ralph

Guns could lead to gay marriage

Funny thing how some times one has to choose between two cherished "rights."

Yesterday, the Senate defeated the amendment to the appropriations bill that would have allowed people with a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state to carry them over state lines into a state whose laws do not allow it.

This really pitted guns against states' rights, and it seemed that the gun addicts were willing to give up the old shibboleth of the anti-civil-rights crowd who screamed "States' Rights" as a response to federal civil rights laws.

What gives this an even bigger touch of wry is that -- had the gun law passed, thus trashing states' rights -- it could have set a precedent that would have made it difficult to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act that supports, among other things, the right of individual states not to recognize marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states where it is legal.

See the parallel: your right to carry your gun would supersede the laws of the state you visit; so why wouldn't your legal marriage also supersede the laws of the state you visit or move to?

Be careful what you wish for. Guns could lead to gay marriage.

Ralph

Sotomayor's "racism"

GOP opponents tried to make the case against Sonia Sotomayor based on the reversal of her decision in the New Haven firefighters suit about reverse discrimination. See, the white guys got denied their promotions because the city decided, after the test was taken, that it was unfair to minorities because too few of them passed.

So they said she was prejudiced against whites and favored minorities. And they offered as proof that the Supreme Court had reversed the decision. Never mind that it was a 5-4 decision, and only one vote shift would have upheld her decision.

The argument in favor of her decision was the choice the city faced: if they used the test results, they would be vulnerable to a lawsuit from minority candidates for discrimination. So they threw out the test and got sued by the white candidates.

Sotomayor's decision was in keeping with legal precedent-- to avoid discrimination in public hiring. What the Supreme Court did was reverse that precedent and set a new policy -- so they, not Sotomayor, were the "activist judges," if you want to make that argument.

Now, further fuel to the fire of argument. In today's AJC, this item:

A federal judge is considering remedies after ruling Wednesday that the predominately white Fire Department of New York used recruitment exams that discriminate against blacks and hispanics. U.S. District judge Nicholas Garaufis found the discrimination occured in writen exams given to firefighter candidates from 1999 to 2007. Of the roughtly 11,000 firefighters in New York City, about 3 percent are black and 4.5 percent are Hispanic.

So, you see, New Haven was justifiably concerned that they would be sued for discrimination if they used the test results. The fact that a conservative Supreme Court reversed the decision by as narrow a margin as possible is no reflection on Sotomayor's reasoning or her fairness.

But, hey, politicians -- and I honestly believe that this is about 10 times as true of Republicans as Democrats -- don't argue based on reason or truth but on what they think will sway people to their objective of the moment. Just one more example of that.

Ralph

Will the real journalist please stand?

In an online poll conducted by Time magazine, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart was rated America's Most Trusted newscaster.

In a comparison with network newscasters, Stewart received 44%, Brian Williams 29%, Charlie Gibson 19%, and Katie Curic 7%.

Maybe it's because, even though it's billed as comedy, Jon Stewart has been the most hard-hitting in cutting through crap and getting at the truth. And the people know it.

Ralph

Two for two !! !!

What's got into the U.S. Senate?

Yesterday, they handed the military-industrial complex a defeat, when they voted down funding for extra F-22s that the military says it doesn't need.

Today, they defeated an NRA gun bill that would allow a person with a concealed-weapon permit in one state to carry that gun across state lines, even if the other state has tougher laws. It's sponsored by South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune.

Something's stirring Could it be backbone? Could it be a harbinger of health care reform?

Ralph

GOP opposes public plan because it's cheaper

I started to put this as a comment to my post from yesterday on health care.

But this deserves one of its own.

Two Repubicans today are making the nonsence argument that they are opposed to the public plan in health care because it is cheaper.

What they mean is that, because it's cheaper, it will be unfair to the private insurance plans and will tend to drive them out of business. I understand that. But is it really defensible? I don't think so.

Here's Rep. John Kline:

"but our fear is that if you actually get in there looking at the legislation that it’s set up in a way that employers would increasingly opt to letting their employees move over to the public, to the public option. And because it is cheaper, it’s designed to save money, the government-run program has some very clear advantages."

And in the context of what went before, he means that that's why he opposes it.

And then there's my favorite Republican clown, Michele Bachmann, speaking on the House floor:

Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper. This action will collapse the private health insurance market, and then the Federal Government will own the health provider game.

I want to sit these folks down, make them look me in the eye and admit that they would prefer to save the private insurance industry than to provide health care to the American people.

But here's the important point:

They are admitting that the public plan will save money.

They're unknowingly making our point for us. Now if the jerks who pretend to be journalists would just take that and run with it.

Ralph