A Patriot's Message to the Right-wing & Republican Party

Came across this among the responses to David Broder's newest column entitled "The GOP Loses Ground" at the Washington Post website.

charliemunn wrote:

I'm an average, Independent American who retired from the USAF. I don't believe in pre-emptive wars, and do believe in fiscal responsibility. I hate Big Money Lobby and our bought and paid for, do nothing, blow hard congress. Because I retired from the USAF, wife and I have good health care which mimics socialized medicine. We've also long advocated single pay universal health care, strong unions, and breaking up large corporations such as GM, et al, into small worker owned and managed co-ops. That is, we are capitalist who believe in the fundamentals of Adam Smith and David Hume. Smith and Hume firmly believed in small business, either family owned or worker owned, as well as tight government regulations. They did not believe in large corporations which must grow or die and are inherently unsustainable.

If polled, I'll tell you I'm a conservative after the style of Einsenhower. Based upon that one question, today's so-called "republican" would incorrectly label me as center right. But based upon all of my other beliefs, that so-called "republican" would call me a communist, or worse. That is, you and your ilk just don't get it. Most of you are ideological Reaganista's who pull your "beliefs" out of thin air. You spend government money like drunken sailors, never questioning your leaders and seem to be intent on destroying unions, and the blue collar working class who built this country. Yet you claim to believe in fiscal responsibility and the working man. That's obviously a blatant lie that you either can't see, or refuse to admit. Either way, I don't want that kind of person in our government. My last republican vote was for George H. W. Bush when he was candidate for the republican party. When that phony old B movie star won, then made our country into a debtor nation, I suspected it signaled the end of the republican party.

Although I'm not that happy with spineless, bought and paid for democrats, I now belong to the Obama movement. We intend to continue to put pressure on all politicians, including Obama. We'll only vote for those who work against Big Money Lobby, and for We The People, and we don't give a damn what you call us.

Another poster responded: "Bravo, Airman."

Bravo, indeed.

Broder's column is here. It's impossible to link to the Airman's post in the comments section because the page numbers shift as new comments are posted. Look for the posts by "charliemunn" and "Attucks".

About the photograph:

WISE, VA - JULY 26, 2008: Patients await dental care at the Remote Area Medical (RAM) in Wise, Virginia. The free clinic, which lasts 2 1/2 days, is the largest of its kind in the nation, and organizers expected to treat more than 2,500 people over the weekend, mostly providing dental and vision services. Residents of the "coal counties" of Appalachia are some of the most impoverished in the nation, and most are either underinsured or have no health insurance at all. For many, the RAM clinic is the only medical care they may receive each year.

The G.O.P. Vetting Emporium: coming soon to a mall near you!

A little humor along the campaign trail.

That being said, the extreme left, obamabots and newly converted zealots have not failed to show their complete lack of empathy for a woman (and her children) who while being wrong on the issues, has shown some impressive qualities as an individual personality and as a strong woman. Hypocrisy can amply be found in both campaigns in heaping steaming piles.

The personal attacks truly are evidence of the ubiquity of sexism and misogyny in our culture -- it sure wasn't in Hillary's mind -- not to mention the complete effete sniffing snobbery of the belt-way elites, partisan bloggers and the media. Cynicism is the daily vitamin of both sides of the aisle.

Meanwhile: the dems should concede that Sarah Palin may be an impressive person with charming qualities. The republican party is not impressive in the least.

Hillary Rosen has a smart post over at the increasingly out-of-touch-with-reality Huffington Post.

Warning! This pundit isn't feeling the same way as most of my colleagues about Sarah Palin. She is being attacked for her lack of experience for the job and for whether she should be putting her family first instead of her career. This just isn't that unusual in my book. And the more it goes on, the more uncomfortable I feel with that message.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

I'm glad that Ms Palin and her family have the choice to make their own decisions, which should be private decisions. I'm especially happy that they and their children and soon to be grand-child will continue to have access to top-notch medical care; in fact if she wins, they will have the best medical care in the world.

I only wish they and the republican party agreed that all americans have constitutional rights to make their/OUR own personal and medical choices in privacy and that all americans should be afforded access to medical care at least as good as that of our elected federal representatives. We're the only industrialized nation which does not promote the health and well being of its citizens. The republicans have proved they intend to continue dismantling what is left of both privacy rights and the social safety network and social contract.

Don't forget the Republican Health Care Policy for at least 47 million of us:

Clinton Hospital Story is Actually True: Washington Post

UPDATE: Clinton Hospital Story is Actually True According to Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post

Clinton Told True Tale of Woe, Says Kin

By Anne E. Kornblut

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

"...she was sorry it had hurt the Clinton campaign.
She was, and is, she said, a supporter.
"Did I vote for Hillary?" she said. "You'd better bet I did."

For weeks, Clinton repeated an anecdote she heard in Ohio on Feb. 28 involving a young woman who lost her baby and later died because she lacked health insurance and did not have $100 to gain access to a nearby hospital.

But over the weekend, Clinton came under fire when officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, after reading about her remarks, demanded that she stop recounting it because the patient, Trina Bechtel, was admitted there and did have insurance.

That part, it turns out, is true. But so is Clinton's claim that Bechtel did not get care at another hospital that wanted a $100 pre-payment before seeing her, according to the young woman's aunt, Lisa Casto. "It's a true story," said Casto, 53.

Casto added some details that were not part -- or differed from -- the Clinton anecdote: She said her niece had previously been in debt to a local hospital that later sent her a letter informing her that she could only be treated there in the future if she gave them a $100 deposit. At the time she went into debt to that hospital, Casto said, Bechtel was uninsured, though she later obtained health insurance and was insured at the time of her death.

Casto said she did not want to give the name of the offending hospital because the flood of calls over the incident has overwhelmed her and Meigs County deputy sheriff Bryan Holman, a friend of hers who retold the story to Clinton when she campaigned in southern Ohio.

But court records show that Bechtel had a civil judgment against her by the Holzer Hospital Foundation for the amount of $4,426, entered in 2002, which was repaid in 2005. A call to an official at Holzer Medical Center, which is run by the foundation, in Ohio was not immediately returned.

Casto said her niece, who suffered from preeclampsia during her pregnancy, did not seek care at the first hospital when she fell ill because she knew she did not have the $100 out-of-pocket she believed she would need to be seen. Instead, she went to O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, where her baby was stillborn. Bechtel was later flown to Columbus and died there. She was 35.

Casto said she has been stunned by the amount of negative attention her niece's story generated, and that she was sorry it had hurt the Clinton campaign. She was, and is, she said, a supporter. "Did I vote for Hillary?" she said. "You'd better bet I did."

Source: from the Washington Post (but I'm not hearing it anywhere on the 24 hour blatherers of cable network news!)

Krugman: Only Clinton Achieves Universal Healthcare, Obama Won't

Universal Health Care: Only One Candidate's Plan Achieves It

(and it sure ain't one of the Republicans)

The New York Times's Economist and Columnist, Paul Krugman's analysis and bottom line: If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

...the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.

Obama's plan costs more than 80 percent as much as Clinton's and covers only about half of those 47 million currently uninsured

...the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn’t look like a trivial difference ... One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although [Obama's plan] costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

Krugman's complete explanation of his analysis is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

Repugnacons continue heading toward barely-on-life-support. R.I.P. ASAP

From the Brilliant Mike Luckovich at the Atlanta Journal Constitution

Technorati Tags:
Atlanta Constitution Journal, Luckovich cartoons

In Praise of Hillary Clinton

She is a forward thinking leader and problem-solver: One thing you have to give Hillary credit for (which the Republicans will NEVER admit) is that 15 years ago she already knew the national crisis we were headed toward in the Health Care system (the pharmaceutical insurance industrial medical lobbying complex).

Under the past year of the Bush-Cheney admin, 2 million more people joined the ranks of the uninsured; I'm betting it's worse than the stats show.

American Denial: USA Healthcare System is NOT World's Best

A continuing series about: Primary Reasons Americans Should Reject Bush, Cheney, Rove & the Republicans Now and in 2008

World’s Best Medical Care?

NYTimes Editorial

August 12, 2007

Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.

Michael Moore struck a nerve in his new documentary, “Sicko,” when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.

Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.

Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs.

Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors.

Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.

Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world.

Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.

Life and death. In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor.

Patient satisfaction. Despite the declarations of their political leaders, many Americans hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system. Polls in Europe and North America seven to nine years ago found that only 40 percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s health care system, placing us 14th out of 17 countries. In recent Commonwealth Fund surveys of five countries, American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada.

That may be because Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. On the other hand, Gallup polls in recent years have shown that three-quarters of the respondents in the United States, in Canada and in Britain rate their personal care as excellent or good, so it could be hard to motivate these people for the wholesale change sought by the disaffected.

Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. This makes it harder to coordinate care, spot errors and adhere to standard clinical guidelines.

Top-of-the-line care. Despite our poor showing in many international comparisons, it is doubtful that many Americans, faced with a life-threatening illness, would rather be treated elsewhere. We tend to think that our very best medical centers are the best in the world. But whether this is a realistic assessment or merely a cultural preference for the home team is difficult to say. Only when better measures of clinical excellence are developed will discerning medical shoppers know for sure who is the best of the best.

•

With health care emerging as a major issue in the presidential campaign and in Congress, it will be important to get beyond empty boasts that this country has “the best health care system in the world” and turn instead to fixing its very real defects. The main goal should be to reduce the huge number of uninsured, who are a major reason for our poor standing globally. But there is also plenty of room to improve our coordination of care, our use of computerized records, communications between doctors and patients, and dozens of other factors that impair the quality of care. The world’s most powerful economy should be able to provide a health care system that really is the best.

Source: NY Times Editorial

buzzzed.blogspot.com
www.buzzzed.com
buzZzed blue

Technorati Tags:
uninsured, universal health care, US health care, worst health care system, WHO

What's Wrong With America? Why Americans Should Not Elect ANY Republicans to ANY Office Again.

An Important Reminder About What's at Stake in 2008

AFL-CIO Democratic Debate, Aug. 7, 2007


A retired steelworker who was forced to retire due to a disability and who lost his pension and his health care coverage asks John Edwards what's wrong with America and what will you do to change it? Edwards responds with what he'd do and stresses the importance of unions and universal health care.

Run time: 02:44
direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaBvGEklBvg

Clearly Edwards meant this gentleman is an example of the consequences of Republican policies including: Greed; Profits Before People; Accountability is for Suckers; American Voters are Suckers; Americans Vote Against Their Own Economic Interests in the Hysteria of Right-Wing Hate and Fear... and many others -- which ones come to mind for you?

Technorati Tags:
economic justice, economic stress, health insurance, inequality, injustice, John Edwards, presidential forum, uninsured, universal health care, voter responsibility, working families, Keith Olbermann, youtube

The LOGO Debate: Why Marriage Is NOT The Only Question

Watched the majority of the Human Rights Campaign + LOGO Presidential Candidates Forum last night.

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic has "A Reported Blog on Politics" with a post-HRC/Logo entry entitled The LOGO Debate: Marriage Is The Question which really was mainly an overview of what the candidates said, mainly about the issue of gay marriage.

Ambinder writes that " It’s helpful to look at this debate through two lenses: the hopeful lens of the gay community and the skeptical lens of the pundit who is always peering around the corner at the general election."

One commenter wrote: "The LGBT community will never accept John Edwards as long as he keeps up with his stump speech about how "conflicted" he is over gay marriage."

But as Ambinder writes "...gay marriage – that’s the holy grail for many (though by no means all) of the gay community."

I couldn't agree more. And that's what I wrote at Marc's blog too:

Am I disappointed that Edwards is not more 'developed'? Sure, but I have not completely dismissed his viability as an electible presidential candidate. I for one am not a single issue voter, or okay, i am RARELY a single issue voter.

Something I would argue is valuable to keep in mind about what John Edwards does bring to the table: Economic Justice issues for working and middle class folks -- that includes most of us in the GLBT community, some are far more privileged and economically elite, but most of us are not.

Here's why I believe Edwards should not be completely dismissed: His focus on the economy and economic justice, health care and his national economic stimulation plans to put people to work for more than minimum wage and to make sure workers no longer suffer while the richest and greediest -- the friends of Bush and Cheney -- become even wealthier at the expense of all the rest of us.

When the majority of regular working people begin experiencing and reaping economic benefits which currently are not available to most working people, zero to poor people and most are not being experienced by many other middle class working families -- i.e. the less stressed, less crunched they feel and the less economically stressed they actually are -- the more open to change, the more generous their attitudes in many areas toward social progress, social justice including GLBT issues.

Kevin Phillips and others have well-documented Republican administrations' devastation to working families (especially pointed beginning with Reagan) -- it has become far worse under Bush Cheney despite the happy talk. Look what is happening in the financial markets right now. None of these people give a crap about whether middle class, working, much less poor people have houses, health care or jobs. All they care about is whether their investments make profits. That is the real republican mandate. They obfuscate that truth and hide it from the stupid evangelicals with emotional sleights of hand to keep them from understanding and knowing their own economic issues.

How/Why do we fail to understand the same thing?

While their own economic survival is at stake -- which it very much is at this point in our country -- It is harder for people to feel generous and tolerant toward others.

When people feel/believe/know/experience the very real economic devastation this administration has wrought on working people and on this economy for the past seven years (helped along by Bill Clinton's kowtowing to the global profiteers and multinational corporations via NAFTA), they do not/are not feeling very 'secure' and thus less tolerant, less generous, less sure about what this means for them.

Couple that with the mean-spirited divisiveness -- the republicans have known exactly how to keep americans divided, stressed, fighting, fragmented and NOT focusing on the most foundational important issues, especially the utter lack of concern that the republican party truly has for anyone but the truly wealthy. Right now they are demagoging the color of brown people and immigration BECAUSE it takes our eyes off the economic devastation they have inflicted upon this citizenry.

I do not condone Edwards' lack of progress in the marriage issue (Hillary and Obama are no better in their explanations), but I believe there are underlying foundational issues -- ECONOMIC ISSUES, THE ECONOMY, ECONOMIC JUSTICE -- to consider which have a critical impact on how people view/experience/talk/feel about not only OUR issues, but others such as: WAR, DOMESTIC SECURITY, IMMIGRATION, INTERNATIONAL POLICIES...etc

These are especially interconnected and extremely linked to how working families are doing economically (in addition to the leadership of our so-called leaders, grassroots efforts, personal relationships that folks have with their GLBT family members and friends....)

There are historical trends (yellow scare, brown scare, civil rights, womens rights, gay rights) which are deeply linked to economic (and educational and legal) progress as experienced by the masses in industrial societies.

I'm actually far more concerned about first tackling economic justice, health care, restoring pensions and benefits to retirees and workers, getting jobs to inner city -- and RURAL -- citizens and youth....because if our economic foundation crumbles further (like our infrastructure is doing), you can bet there will little or no mass support for OUR issues -- which will seem irrelevant to many many people.

If the republicans and their toadies continue to destroy the working families of this country (including GLBT families), there will continue to be accelerating, even more rapidly growing legions of our fellow citizens who are living in perpetual violence, despair, base indignities, who have children who are starving, dying, murdering, being murdered, parents who cannot get health care or elder care ... this is the road we are headed down at this moment unless there are major changes toward putting people in this country back to work at jobs that pay more than McDonald's or Walmart pittances.

That is why I will still listen to what John Edwards has to say despite his lack of progress at this point -- he has the capacity to learn and grow -- just like Obama, just like Clinton -- and one of these three -- or hell if only Gore would jump in, i'd support him -- but more than likely one of these three (none of whom has the perfect position on our issues) is likely to be the candidate. Sure I'd love Kucinich, but it's not realistic.

I for one am sick of the evil of the republican demagogues and if Edwards can win key voters in key states that Hillary and Obama can not, then his economic justice and health care platform combined with his commitment to full legal rights, is a major step in the right direction. I have no doubt that just as america will come along over the next five years (like Gravel stated), Edwards will grow too.

I could be wrong, but that's my take on things at this point. I'm not willing to count Edwards out yet.

Ambinder's Atlantic blog on the topic is here, my specific comments (mostly the same as above) here. And HRC Back Story Blog has some analysis and linked stories, too.

Technorati Tags:
HRC, LOGO,presidential forum, Los Angeles, human rights campaign, health care in America, health insurance, inequality, injustice, universal health care, John Edwards, Kucinich, economic justice, working families, working class, Kevin Phillips, economy,inner city, economic benefits, economic stress, financial markets, housing market

Paul Krugman: The Waiting Game

PAUL KRUGMAN

NY Times Columnist

Sunday, July 15, 2007


Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he said last week. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”

This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it’s not as if those kids really need insurance — they can just go to emergency rooms, right?

O.K., it’s not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that “the poorest Americans are getting far better service” than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?

A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: “In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.”

A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.

We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures — and I suspect that France, which wasn’t included in the study, matches Germany’s performance.

Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they’re often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.

This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. “It was only later,” writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, “that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn’t know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to ‘Tier II,’ which would have meant higher co-payments.”

He adds, “I don’t know how many people my insurance company waited to death that year, but I’m certain the number wasn’t zero.”

To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment costs. But there’s no question that some Americans who seemingly have good insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their “medical losses” — the industry term for actually having to pay for care.

On the other hand, it’s true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there’s a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

That’s right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that’s what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding — end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.

The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health care here in America.

Technorati Tags:
dehumanization, health care in America, health insurance, universal health care, uninsured, injustice, inequality, rich get richer, medicare, US health care, worst health care system

Yay Michael Moore! Kicks Wolfie's Lame-Ass Butt!

Okay, for the less slangy types let's call it:

"Michael Moore Chastises Wolf Blitzer Live on CNN in Heated Rebuttal"

And in kicking Wolfie's mealy-mouthed cowering spineless 'never speaks truth to power, only kicks down' butt, he kicked CNN's mealy-mouthed cowering butt and the symbolic butt of all cowering so-called mainstream media who as he stated not only didn't ask the hard questions about the Iraq War from pre-war to now, they aren't asking the hard questions about our dismal, shameful health care system now.

As Moore stated, Wolf Blitzer and CNN acted as spokespersons FOR Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon warhawks when Farenheit 911 came out -- yet it was Moore who got it right, not the lying, shuffling, mendacious, non-transparent administration.

And in this case and his new movie "Sicko" -- it is Moore who gets it right not Dr. Sanjay Gupta or CNN or most of the media who are still cowards bowing before the greedy gods of corporate news hucksters.


CNN and most practitioners of contempoary mainstream corporate journalism (I use that term lightly) are in fact slaves to the prevalent, ever-ambient and stupidly banal kind of obedience to authority.

I ♥ Michael Moore.

You can read and see it all at Michael Moore's website here.

Crooks & Liars has some viewable and downloadable video and links as well.