Health Care: No More Baby Steps

America has never been a country of baby steps. Franklin D. Roosevelt did not dream in baby steps when he imagined the New Deal. John F. Kennedy did not dream in baby steps when he encouraged NASA to reach for the moon.

Health care reform has ignited passions on both sides. Those that think we are headed towards socialism are afraid they will be stuck with the bill for those that are not covered now. Those on the left want a plan that will efficiently cover all Americans.

President Obama has been pushing this issue with all of his "political capital" after he was elected. Health care has been at the forefront of his political agenda for months now causing his own approval ratings to plummet.

In mid-August President Obama signaled that he would be willing to concede ground on the public health care option in his health care reform overhaul. Instead of the public option there would be health insurance co-ops designed to provide low cost health insurance.

The question remains however, how much reform can there really be without a public option?

There are many in the field that contend health insurance co-ops will not be all that successful in lowering health care costs based on factual evidence from existing health insurance co-ops.

In the 1990's there was a push for health insurance co-ops in which a few were successfully formed from that movement. However, the success of these co-ops

has been minimal at best.

The very few insurance co-ops that exist today only provide about a 3 percent discount compared to that of your regular private insurance company. A 3 percent savings is not what the bottom rung of Americas economy is looking for to be able to afford health care.

Medicaid and Medicare are the most efficient forms of health care we have in this country today. Only 2 percent of the cost of these programs goes into administrative costs and the rest goes to providing efficient health care to those that they cover.

In the 1960's when Medicaid and Medicare were passed by President Johnson conservatives claimed that this was socialism and socialized medicine. Today conservatives are claiming the same thing when it comes to this health care reform program.

Your private insurance company spends 30 percent of their fees on administrative costs. The added administration costs over the past few years has gone towards hiring more staff to cover themselves from having to cover their patients when they need treatment. It is as simple as that. The government option, single payer form of health care, is more efficient than the private sector.

Creating a government run public health care option is our best and most efficient option towards lowering health care costs for all. The government has shown since the inception of Medicaid and Medicare that the most efficient and reliable means of providing affordable health care is through government run health care programs.

Creating a government health care program will create the most competitive machine to private insurance companies that will work to reduce the cost of health care for all Americans.

Reducing health care costs is the most fundamental element to stimulating our fragile economy. Businesses spend an exorbitant amount of money on health care for their employees and the potential savings of a public health care option could create billions of dollars reinvested in our economy.

The bottom line is that with no public health care option there will be no real reform in this bill. That's all. President Obama and the conservative Democrats cannot continue to take baby steps towards reform.

47 million Americans live day to day with no health care insurance at all as politicians debate over keeping their elected positions in November. Senator Kennedy spent over 40 years arguing on the Senate floor and across America for those who remain uncovered.

As America continues to lag behind the rest of the modern world in health care politicians on capital hill continue to push for baby steps and push back against any kind of forward progress.

President Obama has only one option as far as I am concerned, push for real reform or face a Democratic challenger in 2012. Without a public health care option I would not hesitate to vote for a Democratic opponent to President Obama.

Now is not the time for baby steps on health care reform. Now is the time for real, meaningful change. The change that we were promised by a young man with inspirational words.

Conservative Radio Host Calls Newt and Cheney Zombies

Republican radio talk show host John Batchelor called out fellow Republicans for helping to push the minority party into possible extinction in a recent Daily Beast article.

"The GOP is the equivalent of a shrinking third party on its way to becoming a museum piece beside the Whigs, the Greenbacks, and the Prohibitionists," Batchelor said.

Batchelor referred to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as a "generalissimo of zombies" and goes on to compare both Cheney and Gingrich to zombies feeding on everyone's brains.

"Fail” is a word that ties together Limbaugh, Gingrich, Cheney ,and [Eric] Cantor, and they use the word like a curse routinely. “Fail, Obama.” “Fail, [Colin] Powell.” “Fail, [Nancy] Pelosi.” “Fail, liberals.” “Fail, Moslems.” “Fail, health care.” “Fail, moderates.” “Fail, city on a hill." The zombies hurl the word at whoever does not look like them or listen to them or need them. They are speaking into the looking glass. “Who’s the fairest of them all?” Batchelor said.

"A once-idealistic, decent political party of all the states and all demographics for 150 years has now become a cruel cadre that defines itself like a jihad—by what it is against," Batchelor said of his own Republican Party.

Batchelor gives a harsh assessment about the future and current state of his party. The conservative talk show host makes several important points that must be addressed by the party in order for it to get younger and sleeker.

Gallup polls continue to show Gingrich and Cheney as leading voices in the Republican Party. Americans polled in surveys continue to be confused as to who is leading the party.

Why are Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney trying to speak for the party anymore anyway? What does Gingrich even do now? Is he even employed? Gingrich only has a voice because Republicans continue to let him have a voice. Gingrich's current position only seems to be igniting hate and further driving divisions in this country.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney who's average approval rating was 18 percent while in office, should not be allowed to speak on behalf of his party.

Republicans need to find a leader who will stand up against these hate spreading aristocrats who are bent on forcing out the moderates in their party. No political party can grow by forcing people out.

Batchelor also pointed out Republicans used to stand up for ideals not just what they were against. Republicans have to become a party of ideas and become much more idealistic.

If Republicans do not change and eradicate this negative polarizing rhetoric they may well die off like Batchelor predicts. In the meantime, as a Democrat, I will enjoy their self destructing behavior and comment on it as it happens.

Third Grader Organizes Gay Marriage Rally

Ethan McNamee, a third grader from Denver, Colorado organized his own rally for the gay marriage cause.  

According to a local ABC News affiliate covering the event, Ethan became concerned about the issue after hearing anti-gay remarks on the playground and after hearing about a local gay couple that could not get married.  

"Everybody is different in a good way," Ethan said.  

Ethan explained during his remarks at the rally that civil unions are not the same as gay marriage because they are not afforded the same benefits that they would be given under marriage.

Ethan organized the rally and invited the guest speakers to come.  Ethan admited that it was more work than he thought it would be but that it was still a lot of fun.  

Ethan also admitted that there might be some people at the rally that may disagree but he believed he was doing the right thing. 

It is becoming clear that this is our generation's civil rights issue.  The issue of gay marriage and rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people is much like the issue of race in the 1950's and 60's.  

Currently individuals states and even cities are taking it upon themselves to extend marriage rights to the GLBT community.  Whether or not you agree with homosexuality the rights of these individuals and their rights as Americans must be debated.  

Each generation of Americans has become more and more accepting of these individuals and it is becoming clear that gay marriage will be a possibility in the near future nation wide.  The matter is how soon we will extend these rights.  

Conservative Talk Show Host Waterboarded: "It's Torture"

Erich "Mancow" Muller, a conservative talk show host based in Chicago, recently put his money where his mouth is by agreeing to be waterboarded.  In an attempt to silence critics of waterboarding, Mancow underwent the procedure to show that it is indeed not torture. 

Mancow concluded after undergoing only seconds of the procedure said that it was torture.  "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke.  It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back... It was instantaneous... and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture," Mancow said.  

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture.  They cut off our heads, we put water on their face... I got voted to do this but I really thought I was going to laugh this off," Mancow said.  

Journalist Christopher Hitchens also underwent the same procedure with even more bells and whistles.  Hitchens had his face completely covered and his body tied down on a board.  

"You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it 'simulates' the feeling of drowning.  This is not the case.  You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure," Hitchens wrote in his article for "Vanity Fair".

Mancow also described waterboarding as drowning, not simulated drowning.  

"That's drowning.  When I was a kid I drowned.  My brother pulled me out of this pool that I fell in and I had to be revived.  And I remember the feeling and that is the feeling of drowning," Mancow said. 

As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in his article on waterboarding, you are at the mercy of those who are pouring the water down your mouth and nose.  If the pressure is too intense they will die.  

Sean Hannity of Fox News has also offered himself up to being waterboarded to raise money for charity to prove how easy it is.  Hannity of course, has been nothing but talk.  Hannity has waged war against those who call it torture but has not yet "manned" up to the task.

If waterboarding is so easy, why hasn't Sean Hannity done it yet?  Would he admit the truth about waterboarding after he had it done to himself?  

It seems we already have our answer and Sean Hannity is too late.  Another extremely conservative American who did not want to admit that this interrogation tool was torture, was forced to after having the procedure done to himself.  

If America ever wants to be respected abroad or have its citizens held to the same Geneva Convention standards, then we must stop the use of this interrogation method.  

It is appalling that we have used this procedure in the past to get information.  What would make this tragedy worse would be to continue using it knowing what we know now about this  torture technique.   

Mancow Waterboarded:

Christopher Hitchens Waterboarded: 

Why Dobson Hates Hate Crime

Recent hate crime legislation has passed the United States House and is currently being considered in the Senate. The new legislation expands current hate crimes legislation to include homosexuals and transgendered individuals.

Hate crimes legislation is designed to protect individuals from brutal violence because of their defined social group. This includes race, religion, color, or nationality.

Christian talk show hosts and Christian leaders across the country are outraged at the potential addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to the list.

James Dobson of Focus on the Family called the bill "utter evil" and said the bill seeks to "undermine the rule of law."  

Dobson said the bill could protect exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, urophilia, voyeurism, or bestiality.  

Republican members of the House of Representatives said the bill would have a "chilling effect." Steve King (R-Iowa) suggested that we keep things like sexual orientation private. No public displays of affection by anyone, please.

As Jon Stewart joked, "If the gays just didn't hold hands then they won't be so damn punchable."

Jon Stewart, eloquently squashed the unintellectual arguments of Dobson and the House Republicans with one line. "Whether the law passes or not, either way, you still don't get to hit them!"

I tried to wrap my head around why a group of people protected by hate crime legislation would so vehemently oppose another group of people being included in the same piece of legislation.

While researching this piece I found a comment written by a reader/follower on Media Matters.com that I think sums it up.  They wrote, "the problem is that they don't think that homosexuals 'deserve' protection because if they did, they'd have to admit that homosexuality is not a choice."

The reason may not be that Dobson wants to be able to enjoy punching homosexual and transgendered people with fewer consequences, he simply cannot admit that these individuals were born that way. 

I guess that is the only way to make sense of the argument that hate crimes legislation is "utter evil" or will lead to the inclusion of "bestiality." 

James Dobson discusses why this bill will soon include 30 other sexual perversions:

Jon Stewart on Hate Crimes:

Michael Savage: Don't Voice Your Free Speech At Me

Conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage was recently banned from entering the United Kingdom along with more than a dozen other people.  

Michael Savage's show "Savage Nation" is heard by 10 million people weekly and is the third largest radio show in America.  The list of people banned from entering the United Kingdom included a Hamas terrorist and a white supremacist.    

Savage came on "Talk of the Nation" to discuss his banning from a country that enjoys free speech.  The interview lasted 7 minutes and 20 seconds at which point Michael Savage hung up.

Savage outraged at his being banned from the UK for exercising his free speech in the United States came to talk to NPR about his fate.  Neal Conan the host of "Talk of the Nation" took to the phones to take questions from callers.  

The first caller started by saying that, if every time he used the words Islamic or Islam he inserted the word Christian or Jew, he would be off the air in one day.  Savage began berating the caller by saying he was a mental asylum patient in pajamas and that he was a "nobody."

Savage loves free speech but apparently not when it is directed at him.  He must not have seen the shire hypocrisy of his actions.  Savage was I'm sure caught off guard by the fact that the calls were not rigorously screened on NPR like they are on his show.  

The point the United Kingdom is trying to make is that there is line between free speech and dangerous speech.  Speech that leads to violence or can heighten violence is not something that needs to be guaranteed by a Democratic nation.  

This is idea behind the UK trying to keep characters out of their country that they deem to be dangerous or potentially dangerous to their values.  

Hear the entire interview and discussion at NPR.

Conservatives Love Torture But Don't Want Others To See It

If you were not already sick and tired of hearing about torture there is another issue to add to the debate.  

In April, President Obama announced that his administration would be releasing hundreds of photos of torture victims.  President Obama has made transparency a top priority in his administration including the past administration. 

The conservative talking point news network Fox News was outraged at the release of American torture photos.  Sean Hannity and Governor Mike Huckabee called the action a great danger to the United States.

Hannity and other conservatives argued that the release of the photos would further inflame potential terrorists.  What about the actual torture?  Isn't that what is really inflaming the potential for violence?

Conservatives are not outraged or even disappointed by the fact that we are torturing as a Democratic nation, they are outraged that we are releasing the pictures of our torturing.  

Liz Cheney, torture expert and experienced politician(or just daughter of Vice President Cheney?) told Fox News that this clearly makes Obama a terrorist.  The fact that Obama is disclosing the last 8 years of violence under President Bush to the American people, clearly means he sides with the terrorists.

Clearly what they are doing is releasing images that show American military men and women in a very negative light. And I have heard from families of service members, from families of 9/11 victims, this question about, you know, when did it become so fashionable for us to side, really,with the terrorists? Liz Cheney told Fox News.

 Cheney also added that we never tortured:

[T]he tactics are not torture, we did not torture. The memos lay out the extent of exactly how far we could go before it would become torture because it was very important that we not cross that line into torture.

It certainly is fun to pass blame isn't it?  Now that these photos are being released it is clear that Bush and Cheney tortured and violated the Geneva Convention agreements.  Shifting blame from those that ordered the actions performed to the ones that found the photos is pretty remarkable.