Take This "Reform" and Shove It

The insurance companies won and the people lost - that's how I read it.

Should we be surprised? Imagine the megabucks flowing from the powerful players - Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Medical Associations, etc. As usual, we got the best legislation money can buy - unfortunately, those that write the checks got to write the legislation.

Obama put his presidency on the line to get some semblance of health care reform passed, and some progressives chose to see the glass as half full rather than empty. They reasoned better some reform than none, and hoped it would form the baseline that frames future incremental improvements. The intentions were good, but the results are worse than doing nothing.

In the midst of the curiously rancorous and divisive debate, Republicans pulled out all stops to oppose and obstruct, but failed. Some conservatives, such as Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, actually came up with reasonable-sounding alternatives, but for the most part, the Republican party is bankrupt of ideas. They represent those who either benefit from the present system, or are wealthy enough to not care. They fan the flames of fear and discord with loaded phrases such as "Socialism" and "Government Takeover of Health Care". It remains to be seen whether they will reap any electoral benefits from these tactics in November.

One thing Republicans are correct about: The legislation is a budget-buster and will cause a lot of economic damage. Although clearly in disagreement with their motives or agenda, I rooted for their efforts to stop the legislation. Hopefully the more heinous elements can be repealed by the next Congress.

Cutting Medicare to offset new spending makes no sense; one immediate effect will be more doctors and providers pulling out of Medicare practice, and reduced quality of service from those that remain.

Placing mandates and higher taxes on employers will likely backfire, particularly in an economy which is already teetering on a renewed downward dip.

Already insurance companies are arguing over and resisting some of the new mandates, and who knows what details are tucked away within the vast pages of legislation. Look for a series of unpleasant surprises to emerge.

As stated earlier in this blog, the basic concept of insurance is ill-suited for funding medical care. The "single payer public option" is the most reasonable solution that spreads costs among the widest possible base. Unfortunately for backers of true reform, this leaves insurance companies out of the equation, and they refuse to accept this outcome quietly.

Rationing is another monster in the closet that obstructs true reform. Is rationing a truly bad thing? This isn't about "pulling the plug on Grandma", although many feel as I do that being kept alive artificially is hardly a good thing. Rationing must be addressed because unlimited access to health care potentially means unlimited expense. We must decide what level of expenditure is appropriate, and allowing the percentage of wealth spent on health care to climb toward infinity is not appropriate.

There is an optimal point to be found in the cost/benefit curve, but the big money interests that benefit from unlimited funding of medical technology must be excluded from the debate. Of course, this touches on basic issues and questions regarding the practice of allopathic medicine in this country. Any debate on medical expenditures must take on the broad issues, with enormous amounts of money at stake. It's a battle that the big money is not likely to lose in a head-on fight.

A more likely outcome will be the gradual collapse of the present health care system as the overall economy continues to slide into depression, so most of this debate has been a moot point.

Believe it or not, there is a bright side to this, and that's what this blog is all about. Things are shifting! Something new is emerging. Stay tuned.

-Darkwave

Taking Another Contract out on America

So ex-speaker Newt Gingrich has another contract drawn up to take out on America. Apparently he feels that not enough damage was done to the country under the Reagan-Bush reich.

Newt may be right about one thing: He proclaims that, in order to succeed, Republicans must propose alternative leadership and not function merely as the opposition party. However, to be really serious about that, Republicans would need to wrench themselves out of their alliance with the corrupt corptocratic system. I would not hold my breath waiting for this to happen any time soon.

The Democrats are generally not much better off. Voters hoped for change, but found only improved theme music as a result. Health care reform was auctioned off to the highest bidders, and senator Al Franken says he supports Obama's illegal war in Afghanistan. As the song by The Who put it, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." Contrary to the lyrics, however, we do continue to get fooled again and again.

The new faces Bush Jr. installed on the Supreme Court value corporate rights over that of individuals, as several key rulings have shown. The most recent outrageous ruling opens the floodgates of unfettered campaign spending by corporations. The only possible bright side is that this could result in big money's influence being revealed more transparently than ever. Perhaps a backlash will develop, as people scurry to consult their copies of the constitution to discover that corporate entities are not named as having rights equal to individual citizens.

I'll say it again: We need to dispose of the myth that our two-party system offers real choice.

-Darkwave

Candidates for The Hall of Shame

There appears to be a need for a Hall of Shame to bring recognition to public figures who stray from the bounds of commmon decency in pursuit of their agendas. The currently unfolding horrendous disaster in Haiti seems to have brought out the worst in some people. Topping the list is erstwhile evangelist Pat Robertson, ever a reliable source of ludicrous gaffes, who has outdone himself once again.

Seems that each time disaster strikes in some unfortunate part of the word, Roberston feels the need to link events with The Wrathful Almighty God. By his twisted logic, hurricane Katrina was a logical response by God to the "sinful" reputation of New Orleans. So, with Haiti undergoing unimaginable horrors, Roberston links it to a "Pact made with the Devil" by slaves during French colonial rule. One wonders how much credibility he retains with Christians of any stripe anywhere, so he should be a shoo-in to the Hall of Shame on the first ballot.

The next Hall of Shame candidate is far more popular and should certainly know better: Rush Limbaugh. His quick reaction to scenes of devastation and misery in Haiti was to accuse Obama of planning to use it for political gain. He blasted the idea of rushing aid to Haiti, suggesting that paying income taxes was already enough sacrifice. This was too much for even some of his conservative listeners, and those who called in to disagree were dismissed on the air as "blockheads".

Limbaugh's arrogant stupidity may cost him some listeners, but there is probably a segment of his audience that applauds notoriety and resonates well with the lowest gutter nonsense that spews into the microphone. Many of these people still have not accepted the notion of an African-American in the White House, and gleefully latch on to attack phrases such as "socialist agenda" as code words for racial bigotry. On this wavelength, Obama is sure to be attacked no matter how successful he is. Not surprising, since Rush has already told us how he "hopes Obama fails". Apparently, if nothing is done to halt the downward spiral in this country, Rush and his listeners will be overjoyed.

- Darkwave

Thanks to the "Senator from Tel Aviv"

Normally, I would be disgusted at Mr. Lieberman selling out to the right wing on yet another crucial issue. However, the emerging health care "reform" legislation has become such cave-in to greedy corporate interests, that it deserves to die on the vine. The average citizen will be much better served by having congress reboot and try again from scratch next year.

Thank you Mr. Lieberman for your opposition to the pending health care legislation, however misplaced your reasoning might be! Now if you would just rethink your warmongering policies just a bit...

-Darkwave

Health Care Reform Turning into Debacle

Back when Mr. O introduced his health care reform proposals, a commonly-heard tidbit went something like "anything that passes will be better than doing nothing". Indeed, that rationale boosted support among many in congress.

However, the gist of current versions being debated in the senate increases the appeal of doing nothing. Big Pharma and Big Insurance have spent millions to craft legislation they are happy with, and their happiness is a worrisome sign. The system that results could be more costly and complex than ever.

The fundamental problem is simple enough, and should lend itself to simple solutions. Since everyone potentially needs health care, a universal system of spreading costs makes sense. The current distortions in health care funding, along with the numbers of uninsured are the driving force behind reform efforts. Still, it's hard to see how the present legislation will bring about any improvement. We may end up with insurance companies barred from excluding pre-existing conditions or charging more for them, but at a cost that threatens to push even further out of reach of the average citizen.

Obama has pushed hard for "cost containment", but which players are going to line up for the haircut? Not big Pharma. Not Big Blue and the other insurers - they have lined the pockets of enough senators and congressmen to see to that. So the soft targets for cuts are Medicare and Medicaid, and just how will that be accomplished? Doctors and hospitals get the haircut, just as they are struggling with increasing amounts of uninsured care. Not much sense in that; "cost containment" is just a PR slogan to sell the delusion that expanded care can be achieved at no extra cost.

Republicans have helped stir passionate opposition to "socialized medicine" by invoking rhetoric such as "rationing", "government takeover" and "death panels" to "pull the plug on Grandma". For those currently well-covered, this may have its appeal, but who would really stand to lose if the present insurance system were replaced by a single-payer entity? If you guessed "insurance companies", then you understand why they spent so much to manipulate the ongoing debate.

Why do we keep hearing that polls show support for a "public option", yet the chances of it passing dwindle with each passing day? The answer is obvious; big money talks much louder than individual voters.

Then we hear of nonsense such as annual and lifetime benefit caps reappearing in amendments with titles like "ending benefit caps". This is exactly the type of legislation that would be worse than doing nothing - a thousand page monstrosity that passes without anyone knowing for sure what the contents are (except for the lobbyists that crafted the details). If it ends up mandating expensive coverage that few can afford, the system will be further destabilized.

The simple solution? Why not simply expand the present Medicare/Medicaid system and fund it with the existing payroll tax. The tax rate could slide progressively according to income, with middle class workers and their employers paying no more than the amount now spent on insurance. This solution would require no increase in bureaucracy and still maintain the potential for "cost containment". With near-universal participation, costs would be spread among the largest possible base. Unfortunately, it would mean the end of the line for insurance companies, and that's why you won't see anything like this proposed.

And why is "rationing" such a bad idea? There is a cost-effectiveness curve that means most improvement in public health comes from the bottom 50% of expenditures, with further improvements diminishing as expenditures increase. With an open-ended approach to new therapies and technologies, costs can ultimately approach infinity. Some therapies provide questionable benefit or even prolong suffering. Should we bankrupt ourselves to extend the average life a few extra months? With the proper balance, we could be healthier and spend less.

This discussion inevitably leads to the choice between allopathic and integrative medicine. If alternative therapies could compete on cost-effectiveness with the accepted mainstream on a level playing field, everyone would win (except for those invested in the present high-cost system). Don't look for reform legislation to favor integrative medicine, since the big money will be lined up against it.

Perhaps our best hope is to wait for the present system to collapse completely, while adopting healthier lifestyles and learning what we can do to enhance our own health.

It's Official - Obama is a Warmonger

It's really no surprise - he made his intentions clear during the campaign. Many of his supporters focused on the "withdraw from Iraq" promises and tuned out the "get tough" rhetoric on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus, when Obama announced a major escalation of troop levels in Afghanistan, it caused some surprise and dismay among his supporters.

Sure, this isn't Bush's war. Despite Al-Qaeda’s acknowledged presence in Afghanistan, Bush chose to wage war against Saddam and the people of Iraq. However, war is war, and American bombs are inflicting hell on Afghan people just as surely they did under Bush in Iraq. After suffering so long with Bush fatigue, many of us thought we were voting for change.

So why the warmongering stance from the guy we expected to reverse Bush's policies? Why indeed. What geopolitical strategy or national security interest could possibly be served by chasing Taliban fighters through the mountains and valleys of this country? Obama has been hard-pressed to deliver a cogent answer. His fig leaf invokes "regional stability" and carrying on the so-called "war on terror". So what are the real reasons our soldiers are being sent- besides protecting the opium trade from undue disruption?

In search of clues, let's review a little recent history in that part of the world.

We must recall that the Taliban were considered US allies and intelligence assets during the Soviet Union's ill-fated intervention. Bin Laden was a CIA asset with handlers assigned to him.

During the Clinton administration, a major push was undertaken by a consortium of oil interests to negotiate approval for a gas pipeline across Afghanistan and surrounding territories. In one infamous photo-op, Bin Laden sat with a delegation of Taliban in the presence of Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney was involved in negotiations as chief of Haliburton.

The Taliban ultimately turned thumbs down the deal, which is the primary reason they became candidates for "regime change". Added to this was the fact that they eradicated the poppy trade and put a crimp in the flow of narcotics from the region - don't forget that the "war on drugs" is a phony ruse to maintain control of the drug trade by criminal elements within the PTB. All that was needed was the "new Pearl Harbor" that Cheney wrote hopefully about in 2000 to provide a pretext to take out the Taliban and replace them with trusted CIA asset Harmid Karzai. The pipeline still gets blown up regularly, but the poppy crop is doing rather well now.

OK, so Obama's not stupid, so he must be aware of the real policy objectives in Afghanistan. So why doesn't he just take a stand against that nonsense, as his liberal supporters hoped and expected? Bottom line: The sad fact is that American presidents are not granted much autonomy for decision making. Oh sure, they are allowed enough latitude around the margins of policy decisions to make it look like they are in charge. The press reported that Obama mulled and chewed on the Afghan escalation for weeks, but the only question at stake was how much escalation and for how long. General McChrystal defined terms of the debate by proposing an 80,000 troop increase, so the president could appear to take the "moderate" course of only increasing by 30,000. You can be sure that immediate withdrawal was not on his list of options.

To be sure, the Afghan war is becoming unpopular, and people are beginning to ask and wonder why they voted against warmongering and still got more warmongering anyway. Obama may eventually pay the political price for this, but he must understand that this is how the system works. JFK will forever serve as the example of what happens to presidents that have delusions of actually being in charge of anything beyond choosing drapes for the oval office.

It's vital that Americans wake out of their delusion that they choose our leaders and influence policy. The Right-Left, Liberal-Conservative polemic must be exposed as a fraud. Blowhards such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly may claim to defend our constitutional liberties, but never tackle issues of substance, such as the myriad unconstitutional actions taken under Bush. Instead, they acted as shills for the Republican National Committee and now attack anything Obama. Only true conservatives such as Ron Paul take principled stands of any kind, and of course he is marginalized as a result.

The Left is in sorry shape as well, and now their integrity is tested as Obama ramps up his warmongering, forgets about abolishing the Guantanamo Bay, and generally defends the sanctity of Bush’s dirty secrets. Will they meekly parrot the party line the way Republicans do?

One bright spot is talk show host Thom Hartman. It’s no coincidence that he co-authored a recent book on JFK assassination research. One you understand the fact that powerful forces exist within our governmental corptocracy that can take down a president at will, your view of the system will never be the same.

Let’s face it: The intervention in Afghanistan is just as illegal and based on lies as the Iraq campaign. There is no legitimate reason to send troops into harm’s way and have them return with missing limbs or worse. The so-called terrorist threat is trumped up and fabricated, and 911 was a false-flag operation perpetrated by the PTB to manipulate public opinion. The use of depleted uranium ordinance is contaminating vast areas of Afghanistan and Iraq and sentencing millions (including our troops) to premature deaths from cancer. The mainstream media (MSM) will not report on the DU issue for obvious reasons.

Hopefully, the truth is beginning to emerge.

-Darkwave

To Tell the Truth

Van Jones, White House "Green" advisor, was forced out following allegations that he had signed several petitions circulated by the 9/11 "truth movement".

Jones quickly became the target of ridicule from both ends of the political spectrum. Pundits gasped in mock bewilderment and outrage.

Charles Krauthammer summed up the pundit reaction with "...this is no trivial matter. It's beyond radicalism, beyond partisanship. It takes us into the realm of political psychosis, a malignant paranoia that, unlike the Marxist posturing, is not amusing. It's dangerous. In America, movements and parties are required to police their extremes. Bill Buckley did that with Birchers. Liberals need to do that with “truthers”."

This is really getting interesting. You would think we was referring to the Unabomber or something. Up until recently, the MSM scarcely even acknowledged the existence of the 9/11 Truth Movement, or that a sizeable percentage of citizens told pollsters that they doubted the official version of 9/11 events. The fact that a number of respected academics had banded together to form “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” certainly was not covered.

Now that the truth movement has broken through the news blackout, tactics are switching to ridicule and open attack. Van Jones was, by all accounts, a great guy and was much sought after for the position, but now he's viewed as an embarrassing pariah. Could the PTB possibly be getting nervous?

My take on this is simple: We need an independent, credible investigation. We simply don’t know who was responsible, but the official account of 9/11 events reads like a whackjob conspiracy theory that the Internet is infamous for circulating. The only thing going for it is the “official” label.

The leading members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth generally don’t speculate as to what happened. Rather, they focus on the flaws and lapses of reason found in the official account and in the Keane commission report. They cite credible technical analysis that steel beams cannot be melted like putty by burning jet fuel. There are many other points well covered by their books and articles. Authors like David Ray Griffin provide a great starting point for those who are curious.



Whoever pulled off 9/11 had high level access to the national air defense system, and was able to influence key supervisors in the FBI to quash investigation into activities by the alleged terrorists. Large passenger jets were piloted through intricate maneuvers that experienced pilots have said would have greatly challenged their own abilities. The people behind this most assuredly were not bearded Muslim extremists huddling in a cave in Afghanistan, and those who piloted the planes into buildings were not among the 19 dim-witted Saudis that crashed their flight simulators.

So who did it? Theories abound, but the primary point is that we need a credible investigation, which we have not had. Recall that Bush was loathe to consider any investigation, and then reluctantly went along with the idea and mentioned Henry Kissinger as potential chairman! This is the same disgraced former Secretary of State who cannot even set foot in several countries due to pending criminal indictments against him! Tom Keane got the job done, however, and thus the official coverup is in place.

The unassailable fact is that the government has taken numerous actions to thwart meaningful investigation, to destroy evidence, to intimidate those who might be able to challenge official claims, and we’re supposed to believe they have nothing to conceal?

Another regrettable fact is that the MSM operates under unspoken rules that blacklists certain topics from receiving balanced coverage; 9/11 is clearly one of those topics, and the extreme words penned against Jones by Krauthammer and others is no accident. This is comparable to the ridicule that JFK assassination investigators have long been subjected to, and the fact that the Warren Commission “magic bullet theory” is held as an article of faith by virtually all MSM journalists. Polls indicate that the vast majority view “magic bullet” as ridiculous, but the MSM operates in a different world.

The official 9/11 coverup could be poised for trouble. The linguistics analysis by Cliff High at www.halfpasthuman.com has picked up persistent memes floating about of “secrets revealed” that eventually lead to a breakdown of governmental authority. The town hall protests and “tea party” demonstrations could be early signals of what could evolve. If nasty secrets truly start to get revealed in convincing manner, the conditions could be ripe for serious trouble. With unemployment and homelessness approaching depression levels, the populace will be in no mood for swallowing the government line any further.

The only (faint) hope is that Obama could perceive the threat and risk martyrdom by getting ahead of the “secrets revealed” curve. If the government suddenly began to tell the truth on a number of hideous topics we have been lied to about, and did it in a responsible manner, then perhaps the worst outcome could be avoided.

Faint hope, that.

-Darkwave