NATIONALVIEW.ORG
www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs in NJ, NYC & Eastern PA
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This is What Democracy Looks Like
We
have just one question for the supporters of
President Bush.
Why?
Click Here to View Our "Note From a Madman" Newsletter Archives
Click Here to Subscribe to our "Note From a Madman" Newsletter
Click on an Image to View all of Note From a Madman's "Mad-Pic" Thumbnail Images
The Latest Pics
A Simple Voting Idea
Incorporating the Paper Trail
-A voter comes into vote using one of the newer machines (you know... the
ones that don't offer any paper trail, at least as of now)
-They vote
-A 2-part receipt, with a perforation, comes out
-They compare the 2 parts to make sure they voted for whom they say they voted
for
-They tear the receipt at its perforation and put one end in a paper ballot box
(only to be opened if a hand-count is necessary)
-When they get home, they can log onto a government website, put in the unique
receipt number, and view their ballot
-If there are any discrepancies, there'll be a toll-free number to call or, if
they prefer, there will be an online form to fill out.
-Noah Greenberg
"YO-YO"
QUESTION: What's the new name for "G"lobal "W"arming
Bush and the "G"reed "O"ver "P"eople party health care plan?
ANSWER: "YO-YO"
As in "YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN."
A New Blog Worthy of a Visit
I have set up a new blog at
http://www.usmediacorps.org/nj/. To blog, you need to log on using the Login
Form on the front page. Click "Blog" on the main menu, then "New." It's very
much like adding a published letter.
Note that you can set your post's "Published" state to "Published" to have your
blog entry appear right away.
-Eddie-Konczal
Iraq News
The Bush administration, John McCain-McBush and the pair's mouthpieces, which
include Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post and Fox News Channel, not
only think that the Iraq war going well, but that none other than Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Cabinet are doing a great job.
Why, it's almost as if former FEMA head Michael Brown were in charge there and
President bush were offering him yet another "and Brownie here - you're doing a
heck-of-a-job" compliments.
The ultra-conservative Krauthammer even had a question for Senator Barack Obama
in his "Make the Election About Iraq" article which appeared this past week in
the Washington Post, as well as other syndicated newspapers around the nation:
"...does (Obama) not read the papers?"
-Krauthammer
When one takes a peek at the US casualty rate in Iraq, one should ask Mr.
Krauthammer that very same question.
As 2007 grew to a close, President bush was touting the "low" killed in action
rate of our soldiers on the ground in Iraq. December 2007 had "only" twenty-five
US service men and women lose their lives in Bush's war, an average of less than
one soldier killed per day (0.81). Members of the Bush administration were
screaming the praises of their actions while explaining to any and all Sunday
morning talking heads that we are winning in Iraq, even though they still saw no
end to our efforts there.
But something funny (as in scary, not '"ha!ha!") has happened there since the
"good news" of December 2007: The US death count has erupted upward - again.
Even with the lower killed in action count of May (21 killed in 31 days) figured
into the mix, an average of 1.17 US service members have lost their lives each
and every day in Iraq since the new year. In 166 days, 195 have lost their lives
and - get this - an additional 1,098 service men and women have been wounded in
action. And the "wounded" number only included the first four months of 2008!
Other news from Iraq has seen a rise in Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as well. As 2007
closed down, Iraq casualties were decreasing from the THOUSANDS to the HUNDREDS
each month. Since the beginning of this year, 3,623 Iraqi military and civilians
have lost their lives.
In the mind of a Bush, that, too is, somehow, "progress".
Here are just some of the headlines in just two incomplete days from Iraq:
06/14/08 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills traffic policeman, wounds 6 others in
Samarra
06/14/08 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills three Iraqi soldiers in Dhuluiya
06/13/08 Reuters: Gunmen kill 3 people near Tuz Khurmato
06/13/08 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills 1 person, wounds 3 in Yusufiya
And if these headlines weren't enough to make one ill, the next one ought to
really make your stomach churn:
06/13/08 AKI: Child terrorists behind growing number of attacks
"An al-Qaeda cell composed of children under the age of 16, known as "Children
of Paradise", is believed to be responsible for a growing number of attacks in
Iraq."
So much for winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, I guess.
President Bush's deniability has been, however, true to form. Even as March 2008
closed with nearly one-thousand Iraqi casualties (980), the highest total of
Iraqi deaths since August 2007 when 1,674 Iraqis lost their lives, the White
House put out the following as part of their April 10, 2008 WhiteHouse.com web
page on Iraq:
"Neighborhoods once controlled by al Qaeda have been liberated. Sectarian
violence is down dramatically, and civilian and military deaths are also down."
-The White House from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/
I guess that President Bush doesn't read the news papers either. But we all knew
that already.
In the end, the Bush-McCain-McBush "Stay the Course" plan for Iraq is in place.
Even today, the former (Bush) is trying to put the next administration in a
position where they'll have no choice but to keep US forces in Iraq - and keep
our treasury in the red - for years, decades and maybe even a century to come.
(That's McCain-McBush's idea.) How much damage can President Bush and the
mouthpieces of the Bush administration do in the six months which remain for him
and his Administration of Diminished Responsibility?
Too much, and it may be irreparable.
-Noah Greenberg, June 15, 2008
A Child of Viet Nam
I was born into the Viet Nam war. No, I'm not Vietnamese or anything like that.
I was simply born in 1960 when that particular quagmire was really just getting
into its groove, so it and I have a common thread: We grew up together.
There was always a veil of concern in my parents' home. You see, I have three
brothers, all considerably older than I, and there was always this concern that
one, if not more of them, would have to go off and fight this war. Fortunately,
due to various reasons (including medical), they didn't have to fight and my mom
and dad didn't have to go through the hell of having a well-groomed military
officer come to the door voicing his regrets, as so many other military (and
reluctant-military) families have had to do over the years. Over 58,000 American
families went through it during the Viet Nam era and in excess of 4,000 have
gone through the same thing in relation to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, so
far.
My father, Abraham Greenberg, will always be linked to the Viet Nam war in my
mind. My brothers, being fifteen, twelve and ten years older, don't have the
same memories of their early years as I have. My father died in March 1975, just
as the last US troops were coming home from over there. To add to that was his
insistence that I not watch television on weekdays during the school year,
except for the news. So every night I sat on the floor in front of the TV and
watched Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News with (of course) Walter
Cronkite. And each and every night we got the casualty report together. If my
memory serves me correctly, it went something like this:
CRONKITE: Today in Viet Nam, 25 soldiers were killed in action and 45 were
wounded.
I got desensitized to it. I remember when the number was low it felt like a
"good day", and when the number was high, it was a "bad day". As that child, I
looked at the loss number much in the same way I looked at a New York Yankee of
Giant loss.
And I got over it... quickly.
But the truth of the matter was that my father and mother looked at those
numbers differently, much in the same way I look at them today. And I fear for
my son much in the same way my mother feared for my brothers back in the 1960's.
And I know what death is and it's far different than what an eight year old
thinks it is.
We Americans, today, don't look at the Iraq war in the same way we looked at the
Viet Nam war all those years ago. There are no draftees, just volunteers who
"knew what they were getting in to" as some who will use any rationale to keep
this war going have suggested.
The Viet Nam war was ended, in part, to the children who knew that they would
have to go fight in their generation's war. There is no draft today so it's easy
for the children of those protesters to not be touched by their war the way
their parents were touched by theirs.
My brothers' generation marched on Washington; they protested and made the kind
of noise which couldn't fall on deaf ears indefinitely. This non-draft war is
just the medicine which the Bush administration would have ordered. I remember
in the 2004 election, one of the bumper sticker slogans being, "Bush in 2004;
Draft in 2005". But there wasn't any draft. A draft would have put an end to
this war already. Our nation's families wouldn't put up with the loss of their
draftee children's lives for long. And as a nice side effect, the non-draft army
allows for war profiteers to make profits from the horrors of this war. They
provide food; they provide security protection for DC dignitaries who want to
tour Iraq; they make the profits of war.
If we had death, wounded and missing counts on the CBS Evening News with Katie
Couric today, perhaps this war would be brought home a bit more. maybe this war
wouldn't be a conflict fought "by someone's else's children" only.
The network and cable news channels are shirking their responsibility for not
showing flag-draped caskets coming home for the last time. They are not doing us
a service by excluding the horrific news from Iraq which contain the names,
ranks and home towns of our deceased heroes.
And if they were, perhaps this war would already be over.
-Noah Greenberg, May 20, 2008
Health Care Mandates
It's funny when you consider the things the Right wants to make mandatory. Take
school prayer, for example. I'm not against anyone praying but I am against
using prayer as a means to either convert or ostracize those whose beliefs are
different than yours.
In a nation where we mandate that our taxpayers subsidize insurance companies
who take huge premiums then cry poverty when they actually have to pay a claim,
we ignore the most obvious need of making sure each and every person living
within our borders has the right to see a doctor when they are sick. A mandate
which forces each and every one of us to have health care is not only a good
idea which requires consideration, it's the only choice we have.
By now, we're all familiar with the moral reasons that a health care mandate is
the only choice, but there's another reason as well, and it all comes down to
dollars. Any health care plan which our new Democratic President (and it has to
be a democratic President because John McCain has already taken the Bush Health
Savings Accounts as his own) puts forth has to account for those of us who don't
go to doctors when they are sick. How many of us have looked at "that little
thing" on our arm or leg and ignored it? And how many who ignored it found out
later that it was a skin melanoma? And how many of those people found out when
it was too late?
I often wonder how many of us don't go to a doctor when we're not feeling well
because we're out of shape and just don't want to hear what the medical advice
is going to be. After all, no news is good news, right?
Making sure all Americans have health care will allow each and every one of us
who needs to, or merely wants to see a doctor be able to see that doctor. it
will also reduce the costs of health care nationally because a great many of us
who don't see a doctor before it's too late will have the ability to get that
checkup to either find our that they're healthily, need a little work, or hear
the words, "It's a good thing you got here when you did."
But a financial mandate isn't enough. What I think should be included in any
health care mandate is a floating national health check up day. Most of us who
are actively employed today get sick and/ or personal days to either take off
when we're feeling ill, go to the DMV or use for any other number of reasons. My
proposal is to mandate that employers give their employees an extra personal day
each year to go to the doctor. It would work something like this:
-Each employee makes a doctor's appointment;
-The employee would get that day off, with pay;
-The employee would then have to bring a note back from the doctor merely
stating that the employee showed up.
A health care plan which not only mandates its purchase, but its use, will be
the safest and the most cost effective health care plan we could have. Certainly
some would object to being forced to have to go to a doctor for regular, annual
checkups saying that it would be a restriction on their first amendment rights,
and it might actually be. For those individuals I say okay, but you don't get
that extra day off.
A Single Payer Universal Health Care (SPUHC) plan might be the idea we should
strive towards but it isn't going to happen any time soon. We have seen the
power of the health insurance industry and the destruction which Hillary Clinton
lived through in 1993-1994 when she tried in vain to gain health care for all as
First Lady. It didn't end well and many say that it was the reason the Democrats
lost control of the Congress in 1994. I'm one of them. There will be no SPUHC
plan as long as the legal system of bribery - a.k.a. paid lobbyists - are
allowed to run unperturbed throughout our halls of government. But the cry for a
universal health care plan has grown to not only include those of us without
coverage, but those of us without enough coverage. It also includes those of us
who are paying way too much, whether it be in co-pays, deductibles, employee
participation fees or the dreaded "usual and customary" holes which force too
many to pay for the health care bills that insurance companies simply don't want
to pay. There is no recourse for the latter except to pay or fight, and lose.
Any health care plan which comes out of our next Democratic government has to
address the cost factor. Everyone has to be able to afford their health care.
Whereas some of us are paying our employee participation out of our paychecks
today, too many are paying too large a sum. Employee participation rates, as
well as health care insurance costs, in general, should be based on what we can
afford, not what they can get out of us.
In the end, health care has to take care of our bodies and our pocketbooks. If
allowed to continue, the health care industrial complex is going to have to have
regulations and watchdogs and be a part of the solution instead of being the
major part of the problem.
Finally, with all Americans included in the new health care family, everyone
would have a national health insurance card which states the insurance company
name and contact information on its face. A national database of individuals
should also be available on a secured government website to look up an
individuals insurance when a card is forgotten of an emergency occurs. Medical
records could be kept in that same database at each person's request and
approval.
-Noah Greenberg, February 10, 2008
Another "YO-YO" (You're-On-Your-Own) Health Care Plan
Courtesy of Senator John McCain
John McCain is now the guy to beat in the Republican party. After Rudy
Giuliani's self-destruction (yes - I'm writing him off even before all of those
displaced New-Yorkers-turned-Sunshine-Staters vote just over one week from
today); and Mitt Romney's ability to only win the states he calls "home" (don't
laugh - there's at least ten of them!), the senior Senator from Arizona has
risen like the phoenix from the ashes and is now 'da GOP man.
So in honor of his new-found title, it's time to examine Senator McCain on the
issues, and, as most of you might have already guessed, there is no more
important issue to me than health care.
After listening to the Democrats talk about their plans for the nation's un- and
under-insured, with most of the original candidates making health care a
mandate; and cringing when hearing the "ideas" that the Republican candidates
came up with (or took from President Bush), I wanted to examine "The Maverick's"
plans to help us out of the crisis which will eat up 20 cents out of every GDP
dollar by 2016 (the last year of the new President's second term, if he, or she,
makes it that far). McCain's website "straight talks" health care
(http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm)
in just the same manner that the GOP, the Right Wing and the Bush "base" of
"haves and have more" talk about health care: It's the YO-YO
(You're-On-Your-Own) plan all over again.
"John McCain is willing to address the fundamental problem: the rapidly rising
cost of U.S. health care."
-"The Maverick's" website
It's good to know that McCain is "willing" to address the fundamental problem"
that is health care in the United States today. Even though some might consider
it to be more of a "crisis" than a "problem", it's still good to know that he's
"willing" to offer up some lip-service towards what more than 25 percent of us
consider to be the most important problem facing America today. And while it's
true that the cost of US health care is "rising" at a pace that is hundreds of
times greater than the "rise" of our wages (for those of you whose wages have
actually risen - like the Global CEO's), it's also true that McCain's - like
President Bush's - "plan" is to say whatever he can to get elected an do nothing
once he achieving his goal.
"John McCain believes that insurance reforms should increase the variety and
affordability of insurance coverage available to American families by fostering
competition and innovation."
-from JohnMcCain.com
Allow me to interpret: If you can't afford health care insurance today, there is
little to suggest that you'll be able to afford it if McCain is elected. In a
nation where the median family of four's income is about $50,000, that same
family is paying almost $12,000 per year in health care insurance premiums
alone. That doesn't include what the average American family will have to pay
for deductibles, co-pays, medicines they need that the insurance companies will
consider "not proven effective for your disease", and the amount of the doctor's
fee that is out of the "usual and customary" fees that insurance company execs
determine that you, their insured, will pay.
By the way, not once did McCain's website mention bother that all bankruptcies
are due to health care. So as he's screaming about the pseudo-rich who bought
homes that were over their heads and the banks that we (the American middle
class) will be bailing out, many of "we" (that same American middle class) won't
be able to afford our health care bills.
That's a crisis.
"Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health
insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for
families) to increase incentives for insurance coverage. Individuals owning
innovative multi-year policies that cost less than the full credit can deposit
remainder in expanded health savings accounts."
-Part of the McClain plan
Well if the Republicans get their wish, there will be no more tax code because
there will be no more taxes. And what will a $2,500 or $5,000 tax cut do for
most Americans? When it comes to purchasing health care coverage for yourself
($2,500) or your family ($5,000), not much. Let's face facts here: The Average
American family without health insurance doesn't even pay $5,000 in federal
income taxes (remember - federal withholding taxes are for Social Security and
Medicare). So what will their minor adjustment net them? Not much.
And how with this great tax-cutter, as all of the GOP hopefuls claim to be,
going to pay for such a tax break anyway? Let's do the math: There are 180
million American households, most of which containing families (husband, wife,
children - husband, wife - one parent with children). If two-thirds of these
households get $5,000 each; and the other third are given $2,500 each to pay for
their health care, the total increase to our nation's annual budget would be
around $700 billion ($700,000,000,000.00).
President Bush has expanded the 2008 federal budget by about four percent from
207 to 2008 - larger than even the inflation rate. Today it stands at $2.9
trillion, which doesn't include the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which
are paid for by "appropriations". It would be well in excess of $3 trillion if
they were included.
John McCain wants to increase it - yes, increase it - by nearly one-third and it
still wouldn't cover most of the 47 million Americans who have no health care
coverage today.
Stupid, huh?
And to add insult to injury, McCain's plan would force states to pony up even
more of their taxpayers' dollars.
"Require any state receiving Medicaid to develop a financial 'risk adjustment'
bonus to high-cost and low-income families to supplement tax credits and
Medicaid funds."
-"The Plan"
Just as George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind educational program forces states
to pay for their federal mandates, John McCain's health care plan would force us
- the middle class taxpayer - to pay to cover those who still wouldn't be able
to afford their doctor's bills. We'll still have jammed emergency rooms; we'll
still have thousands of Americans dieing because they can't afford even a simple
check-up; and we'll still have health insurance companies running amok on our
middle class while their CEO's take millions in bonuses and perks.
"Allow individuals to get insurance through any organization or association that
they choose,"
-JohnMcCain.com
hey John... We're allowed to do just that now, but 47 million of us still can't
afford it.
As McCain closes his health care web page, he talks about making sure Americans
take care of themselves. He talks about "Childhood obesity, diabetes and high
blood pressure" as if those who develop these diseases should be considered
pariahs. Of course McCain himself might be one of those people who had brought
his own disease upon himself. After all, he hails from Arizona - the state with
The Sun on it flag - and probably spent too much time in the sun himself. Should
we, the US taxpayer, have been responsible for his skin caner treatment? Using
his own logic, the answer would have to be "No".
In the balance of health care plans being offered by the candidates left in the
race for the White House, McCain is just like the others on the Right side: A
lot of rhetoric with no substance.
It may make for good GOP politics, but the lack of health care for every
American is bad for every American, whether they have insurance or not.
-Noah Greenberg, January 20, 2008
A Social Security Idea
Raising the retirement age for regular, middle-class Americans to begin
collecting the Social security Insurance which they have spent a lifetime paying
into is not a choice I'm willing to make. In fact, there is a much better choice
that would keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent well into the latter half
of this century and beyond.
Step 1: Stop Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund
President Bush has raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for his war of
choice in Iraq. Of that there can be no doubt. During the 2000 campaign, sitting
Vice President and Democratic Presidential nominee Al Gore said he would put our
Social Security dollars into a "lock box" and not use that money for other
purposes. President Bush also swore the same thing, but went back on his word.
Today the Trust Fund is nothing more than a series of worthless I.O.U.'s that
the Bush administration has no intention of paying back.
Step 2: Lowering the Tax on Middle-Class and Lower Income Americans
No one should have to pay taxes on earnings when they're trying to make ends
meet. To that end, I recommend not charging any Social Security Tax on the first
$10,000 of income earned. That is a savings to everyone of some $620 per year,
regardless of your total income.
Step 3: Lowering the Tax Rate from 6.2 percent to 5.95 percent on Employee-Paid
Social Security Insurance
Next would be to lower the tax rate paid on Social Security insurance from 6.2
percent to 5.95 percent. This would allow for another $150 saved per $50,000 of
income earned for all Americans.
Step 3: Remove the Cap
Today, all taxes paid on Social Security insurance is capped at $97,000 of
earned income. If the cap is removed and all Americans pay equally on all earned
income over $10,000, Social Security not only will become solvent indefinitely,
but its cost will be spread evenly across the board for all Americans.
In a time when the Bush administration is looking to give those which President
Bush called his "base" of "haves and have mores" even more in tax breaks, we
should be looking for fairness in our tax structure. It's time for all Americans
to pay for Social Security fairly. As it stands now, Americans earning up to
$97,000 per year are paying over $7,400 in Social Security taxes while some CEO
earning $1 million per year pays the same. Under my plan, the American earner at
$50,000 would save some $770 per year while that CEO would more than make up the
difference.
With President Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Plan costing its
beneficiaries 95 percent of their drug's costs during the "Donut Hole" period,
aren't our elderly paying enough? Making sure that Social Security remains
stable at the cost of only six percent of our richest Americans is the only
choice.
If our economy is truly reliant on the middle class, this plan would be just the
spark that would ignite it once again.
-Noah Greenberg, November 19, 2007
Out of the Brain of a Madman
How much is too much? Well into his seventh year in office, President Bush is
surprised yet again. He can't understand why gas prices have risen and,
likewise, doesn't get why there's no answer as an alternative.
It's like someone else is sitting in the Big Chair in the oval office at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. Too bad there isn't.
So far under the administration of the man who called those ultra rich campaign
contributors his "base" of "haves and have mores", we have seen tax cuts that
have evaporated a budget surplus; a war begun with intelligence gathered to
prove a predetermined conclusion; an immigration proposal with a design to allow
a forced servitude of an entire race of people; the loss of a city without any
real effort to recover it; an education bill called "No Child Left Behind" which
performs exactly the opposite of its name and punishes schools in poor
neighborhoods by removing the money they need to become better; and the end of
an era of good relations after the horrific 911 attacks because of bullying and
name calling that was just plain stupid.
And instead of trying to make things better, this president keeps on attacking.
He attacks Democrats for getting nothing done in Congress, even as they get
members of the President's own party to side with them during the SCHIP
negotiations. As President Bush vetoes that bill yet another time, the burden
for insuring those who cannot insure themselves - the children of the
"not-poor-enough" - is going to be put on the states who feel that they have no
choice but to make sure the infirmed get to see a doctor when they are sick.
The President and the GOP - those on the Red side of the aisle not willing to
talk to the Democrats and many other members with sense in their own party -
have made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. They have taken their marginal defeat
in the 2006mid-term election and have used this opportunity to blame the
opposition party as obstructionists. If it doesn't sound familiar, it ought to.
After all, it's the same thing they claimed even as they enjoyed their place in
the White House and as the majority in both Houses of Congress.
Take the Iraq war, for example: When the Democrats in Congress decided to take a
stand, the GOP, led by Bush, Fox News and his cronies of the GOP yelled and
screamed that they were traitors and care nothing for the troops. Even prior to
the elections, a newly elected Ohio Congresswoman, Jean Schmidt, claimed that
Rep. John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was a coward for his views on war.
The freshman representative had to be reminded that Rep. Murtha was not only a
decorate veteran, but that he was decorated in not one, but two of America's
wars: In Korea, as an enlisted man and in Viet Nam as an officer. But that
wasn't important. The only important thing was the label affixed to a political
foe.
In fact, any time a Democrat of "Liberal" makes a remark, he or she is demonized
by the Right Wing media and every NeoCon in arm's length of a microphone. But
what happened when Tom DeLay, the de facto leader of the GOP pack was put on the
hot seat for things proven that he did and laws he is going to be tried for what
he appeared to break? They rallied around him and even tried to get him
re-elected before realizing that the heavily Republican district he represented
near Houston Texas was smarter than the GOP leadership was, and they asked him
to resign.
Does anyone remember Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska who brought home real tax
dollars and 911 money to the last US place on Earth that the terrorists want to
attack? And now that Sen. Stevens is answering serious charges in State Number
49 about his questionable dealings and freebies he received for
"considerations"? Stevens was also the guy who called email "The Internets" and
computers a "Series of tubes" while heading the committee that oversaw those
very same things.
Amazing!
And what about the pass Rep. Mark Foley got from his GOP brethren, which
included then Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (REPUBLICAN-IL)? While
defending Rep. Foley for his indiscretions with underage pages on staff in the
House, and even after being informed of his actions well before the rest of the
American people found out, the GOP leadership was standing firmly behind the
pedophile while they, and he - Foley himself - opposed those who sought the
company of those of the same sex as a right of freedom.
Let's face it, as far as the "party of morality" is concerned, the GOP is
lacking thee too.
Today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
have decided to get tough on President bush in relation to the war in Iraq.
Every time the Dems say they want accountability, the GOP points that cold,
stale finger right at the flag and calls them traitors. In my opinion, those who
seek and keep war as a matter of polarizing the people they represent are the
real traitors.
So far, these GOP scoundrels have succeeded in many ways of getting America to
blame those in Congress who want real change as those who stand in the way of
it. And considering they have the Presidential bully pulpit and a willing main
stream media led by Fox News, can it be any wonder that they've had any success
at all.
In the end, it's up to the Democrats and those of the Republican Party who
represent all of their constituents to stand up for their real base: all of the
American people. Let's just hope that they're smart enough and willing enough to
do that.
-Noah Greenberg, November 15, 2007
They Even Admit It!
The Bushies know that health care for all would
actually reduce costs
I've written this one quote for three days now. And it's the quote that
testifies to the FACT that the Bush administration knows that no health care for
all actually costs more than no health care for some, not enough health care for
others and great health care, as long as you can afford it.
"Denying healthcare to those in need only RAISES health care costs in the long
run,"
-Kerry Weems, the Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services , the guy who runs the S-CHIP program
But perhaps I took the quote out of context. here is the Original question,
along with Weems response and my thoughts (the following is taken directly as a
copy and paste from Ask the White House):
Wesley, from Fort Worth, Texas writes:
How much is health insurance for poor children expected to cost, after one year,
after ten years? The government does not have a bottomless pit of money.
Madman, from the middle of New Jersey:
First, let me state that Wesley from Fort Worth, Texas is right. The government
is not a bottomless pit of money. But why attack the children of the less than
fortunate, Wesley? After the Florida hurricanes of 2004, President Bush couldn't
wait to go down to his brother Jeb's state and hand out food and water to those
who were doing without. President Photo-Op was there with the Fox News cameras
(as well as others) in tow doing some manual labor that didn't involve the
switch grass on his Crawford, Texas ranch for the first time... perhaps ever.
Doesn't that food and water cost the American people money?
And what about Hurricane Katrina, who my Republican brother put in perspective
for me when he said, "If Katrina had hit in 2004, President Bush would have lost
in a landslide,"? Why are we providing any money at all to those hit hard by
this natural disaster when they can simply move? As Barbara Bush put it, "And so
many of the people (New Orleans refugees) in the arena here, you know, were
underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Maybe they could
have just stayed in the Astrodome as a sort-of new kind of public housing. The
good people of Texas, like "Wesley", could have charged them rent while energy
companies, such as Enron, could have charged them for the power the dome uses.
And to pay it all off, the "underprivileged", as Mrs. Bush calls them, could
have worked off their new debt as indentured servants to the wealthy people of
Texas. Why, they could have even done some of those jobs that "Americans won't
do," as the President likes to tell us. Maybe this could have actually been the
solution to the immigration problem we have been searching for, and it's all
thanks to people like Wesley and Barbara Bush.
But, perhaps Wesley meant to look at other areas where we spend our taxpayer
money poorly. Like bailing out the insurance industry who got billions of
dollars in "donations" by the federal government after the big 2004 hurricane
season. Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly, but aren't our nation's
insurance companies for-profit organizations who charge people whopping sums of
money to cover them just in case a catastrophe like a Hurricane Francis occurs?
What happened to all of that money anyway?
And what about American corporations taking advantage of tax laws which allow
them to move their offices and factories overseas to avoid paying any taxes in
the US at all, in some cases? What about those who "earn" their income - and it
is income - by playing the stock market and paying taxes on their "capital
gains" at a fraction of the rate that our middle class dollars are being taxed
at? I guess only OUR American dollar has been devalued after all.
Kerry Weems
Investment in the current and future health care of America's low-income
children is critical to the future of our nation. Not only is it this great
nation's duty to take care of its most vulnerable citizens--low-income children,
the elderly and the disabled--it doesn't make economic sense not to.
Madman:
And who makes the decision as to who can afford what? Sure people in the New
York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, etc., metropolitan areas earn more than
their counterparts performing in other areas of the US, but it costs more to
live there as well. So when Weems, and other Bushies say that families earning
above the national medium income can afford to pay for their children's medical
expenses, they are simply talking out of their asses. Sure, $45,000 might rent
you a three-bedroom house in some areas of the United States, but you couldn't
get a one-bedroom apartment within 60 miles of New York City for that sum.
So "low-income children" is a term with varied meaning in relation to one's
circumstances. My own definition is any child of any family who can't afford to
provide health care for their children, or any child who simply doesn't have
enough health care provided for them for their needs.
Go on and try to find a private health care plan on your own. Then try and find
one that will cover you when you, or your child has a pre-existing condition.
Then tell me what you found.
Weems:
You are correct that government does not have a bottomless pit of money.
However, denying healthcare to those in need only RAISES health care costs in
the long run.
Madman:
Notice the Freudian slip that Weems makes here. "those in need" is the correct
assumption here, not only "children in need" as the Bush administration would
have you believe. In truth, health care for all will not only save money for
those of us who pay taxes in the long run, but it will do so in the short run as
well.
Weems:
Children who don't have access to regular, quality health care have more
preventable illnesses, miss more school days due to preventable illnesses and
have parents who miss work days to stay home with sick kids. Children who are
denied routine well baby care can have illnesses that go undiagnosed and
untreated until a crisis develops. Not only does the child suffer, but the
expense of caring for a medical emergency for a preventable illness is
exponentially greater. The question is not whether programs like Medicaid and
SCHIP are vitally important to the health and economic future of the nation,
that is without question. The issue at hand today is just how much support is
the right amount of support for government to provide and how can we encourage
the use of private market solutions.
Madman:
In true Bushie-logic, Weems is able to steer this health care argument towards
what it means for business, as opposed to what it means for the individual. Kids
get sick, businesses'' bottom lines suffer. The Bushies solution revolves around
what they can get away with and still appear as if they care. In their view,
"private market solutions" is key and if Congress came up with a "solution" that
would have cost two or three times the $35 billion over five years program, that
would have included Blue Cross, HealthSouth and the other health care giants in
the equation, there can be no doubt that president bush would have jumped at it.
The proof is in their actions Seven billion dollars is roughly what it costs us
each month in Iraq alone! And much of it is spent on private contractors who
don't fall under any rule of law, as supplied by such firms as Blackwater. How
can anyone doubt the obvious?
Weems:
The Bush administration strongly supports the reauthorization of the SCHIP
program as well as the continued financial health of Medicaid for all the
children in this country who depend upon them. What we want to see, however, is
a return the SCHIP program's original goal of covering the lowest income kids
first before considering adding other, higher income children.
Madman:
But, in fact, the SCHIP program as authorized by a veto-proof majority in the
Senate and a near-veto-proof majority in the House does exactly what Weems wants
it to do: It continues to provide for those who were covered by it before; and
it will expand to include an additional 3.4 million Americans, most of which are
children whose meager allowances won't afford them health care premiums,
themselves.
Weems"
We will continue to work with Congress to reach an agreement over the future
direction of this vital program.
Madman:
Let's face the facts here: If the President supported the SCHIP program, he
would have signed the bill. Period. Nowhere in time has President Bush offered
more than lip-service towards programs for the poor and those who cannot protect
themselves. The "free market" taking care of everything are just empty words and
hollow promises never to be kept or realized.
-Noah Greenberg, October 7, 2007
-----
As it appeared on "Ask the White House, without commentary:
Wesley, from Fort Worth, Texas writes:
How much is health insurance for poor children expected to cost, after one year,
after ten years? The government does not have a bottomless pit of money.
Kerry Weems
Investment in the current and future health care of America's low-income
children is critical to the future of our nation. Not only is it this great
nation's duty to take care of its most vulnerable citizens--low-income children,
the elderly and the disabled--it doesn't make economic sense not to.
You are correct that government does not have a bottomless pit of money.
However, denying healthcare to those in need only RAISES health care costs in
the long run. Children who don't have access to regular, quality health care
have more preventable illnesses, miss more school days due to preventable
illnesses and have parents who miss work days to stay home with sick kids.
Children who are denied routine well baby care can have illnesses that go
undiagnosed and untreated until a crisis develops. Not only does the child
suffer, but the expense of caring for a medical emergency for a preventable
illness is exponentially greater. The question is not whether programs like
Medicaid and SCHIP are vitally important to the health and economic future of
the nation, that is without question. The issue at hand today is just how much
support is the right amount of support for government to provide and how can we
encourage the use of private market solutions.
The Bush administration strongly supports the reauthorization of the SCHIP
program as well as the continued financial health of Medicaid for all the
children in this country who depend upon them. What we want to see, however, is
a return the SCHIP program's original goal of covering the lowest income kids
first before considering adding other, higher income children.
We will continue to work with Congress to reach an agreement over the future
direction of this vital program
The Health Care Tax
I get a little tired of hearing "the other side" tell us all that Universal
health Care, let alone Single Payer Universal health Care, will cause our taxes
to rise to a point where the average American would be left with nothing. If
watching the bush administration has showed us anything, it has showed us that
no matter what is being paid for, the average American - a.k.a. the middle class
- is paying for it.
The average cost of a family's health care insurance policy - all through
private insurance - has risen to nearly $1,000 per month. And making matters
worse are other factors such as the rising cost of deductibles and co-pays, the
rising cost of prescription drugs, employee participation (the amount paid for
by employees versus the amount paid for by their employer), the loss of
disposable income and family savings and, for many families who have to go out
of network, the amount they pay outside of "the usual and customary" fee allowed
by the private health insurance providers.
America.... make no mistake about it... you are paying a health care tax right
now.
Many employers have had to either eliminate purchasing health care for their
employees altogether or are requiring their employees to pick up much more of
their monthly premiums. Many of us who live in New Jersey will remember the
outcry to require teachers to pay for some of their health care insurance with
cries of "We have to, so why shouldn't they?" This misses the point. We
shouldn't have to.
American health insurance companies are recording record profits while, at the
same time, claiming poverty. They show overhead costs of up to 40 percent and
their CEO's boast of million dollar salaries and multi-million dollar bonuses
and "golden parachutes". If ever collusion and conspiracy were taking place, it
is surely taking place among the America's insurance providers. And the Bush
answer is to tell us all that the free market will take care of everything. More
than any other president, this one has shown that the free market is not the
cure-all for all that ails us.
Many companies use some kind of formula to figure out what their employees will
pay. I have found that many will pay for the employee and make them pay the
difference in cost to cover their families. For arguments sake, let's use that
formula here and figure that employees are paying for approximately half of
their health care insurance costs.
If one were to factor in all of the health care related costs which we, the
average American family, pay for "out of pocket" expense, we can assume that
this family throws more than $600 per month of their salaries at health care.
Taking into account that this family earns less than $4,000 per month (before
federal, state, local and social security taxes), this means that, at a minimum,
we're paying fifteen percent of our income for our medical expenses. This
translates to nearly 20 percent of our take home pay, and that's just for the
average American family of four with four basically healthy members. If you
happen to be, or take care of, one of the chronically ill, you're probably
paying much, much more.
This is the American health care tax and most of us are paying much more than
our fair share. Just because it isn't collected by the government doesn't make
it any less of a tax.
it's too bad that when creating the Social Security Administration FDR hadn't
had the foresight to see what a national health care plan could have done for
his nation in its future. If he and the US Congress had that foresight then,
today, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no health
care companies to form lobbies with the dual purpose of bribing our elected
officials and mis-informing the American pubic that we have the greatest health
care system in the world. We don't and we had better stop thinking that we have
the greatest of everything before we become more third-world-like than we would
ever admit.
Imagine, if you will, that the Social Security administration were never created
(a thought which many Republicans still dream about). How much would Social
Security cost those of us who might be able to afford it? How many would have to
go without any retirement benefits at all? Who would pay for their living costs?
While health care companies claim their 40 percent overhead; and while doctors'
offices pay exorbitant amounts of money on pushing the paper which health care
companies require, the Social Security Administration pays less than two percent
of its collected monies in overhead. Using that same formula, we could assume
tat a national health care policy would cost us at least half of what it costs
us today.
Even more to the point, if we were to base our national health care costs, in
taxes versus premiums, those who earn more would pay more for the benefit of
all.
We look at other western nations and say their health care systems don't work.
It's a lie. England, where they have real socialized medicine and all doctors
are paid by the government, have more healthy people and less infant
mortalities, on average, than we do. Canada has more of a hybrid approach to
health care coverage and everyone pays their fair share of taxes for it.
Everyone has health care coverage there.
Is the Bush administration trying to tell us that our national health care costs
would be greater than 20 percent for the Average American Family? How stupid do
they think we are?
Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, was the first to come out with
a comprehensive health care plan. Others seeking his party's nomination have
followed with their own plans to cover the near 50 million Americans without any
health care insurance. While President Bush is still trying to push his health
care plan, which seems to be "plan to stay healthy", by telling us all to save
money, which we don't have, for our future health care needs; and while those on
the GOP side seeking the Oval Office say "I'm going to fix health care" but show
us nothing in the form of any real plan, most of us either go without or without
enough.
A true free market society, which President Bush and the GOP push and push in
the form of corporate welfare programs, will never succeed for the average
American because it isn't designed to. It's design is to make us a feudal
society where the rich stay rich and the rest of us can barely keep our heads
above water. Fixing health care is a way of helping not only our sick, but our
economy as well. After all, with more money to spend, the American middle class
will take more trips, buy more goods and strengthen our economy from the inside.
Electing a Republican president in 2008 will do nothing towards fixing our
nation health care crisis. Now that we have, finally, a national health care
dialogue we need to make it stick. Newspapers like the New York Times. which
barely give the debate any print space at all, need to come forward and take the
lead. They have to ignore their health care insurance company advertisers and
need to start doing their job as our nation's watchdog. That goes for all of the
other mass media outlets as well. Maybe we'll have to embarrass them to do so.
It's time to get rid of our national health care tax and institute a better
plan. Beginning to speak about it is a good first step, but rhetoric isn't
enough.
-Noah Greenberg, Friday-Sunday. June 15-17, 2007
Click Here to Read Madman's Thoughts About September 11, 2001, 4 Years Later
Bad Luck Bush - Click Here to Read More
Definition: The GOP - GREED OVER PEOPLE
Click Here to Read What you have to believe to be a "Bush Republican"
SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY
Here's How
-
REDUCE THE PAYROLL TAX on employee earnings from 6.2% to 5.95%
-
NO PAYROLL TAXES ON THE FIRST $10,000 OF EARNED INCOME, to reduce the burden on the NATION'S MOST NEEDY
-
LEAVE THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION AS IS - 6.2% of all earned income to $87,900, with Consumer Price Index increases yearly
-
REMOVE THE CAP ON ALL EARNED INCOME
Click here to see the whole SOCIAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION PLAN and to download the PDF files
An Open Letter to Stockholders of Corporate USA
by Herbert M. Greenberg, Ph.D., President and CEO of the Caliper Group, Princeton, N.J.
I have been a corporate CEO for 43 years. Over the years, my company has helped scores of organizations, large and small, to select CEO’s and evaluate their performance. As a stockholder in a great institution – the United States – I, along with millions of other stockholders, have a critical decision to make: Do we fire or rehire our CEO based on our evaluation of his performance? A CEO needs to demonstrate that he or she is capable of continually moving that institution in a progressive, steady growth manner. (Continue reading here)
Click here to see what President Bush's Drug Plan REALLY means to Seniors
Send your comments to: mailto:comments@nationalview.org
Compiled by Noah Greenberg