Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

The Democrats Who Aren't

I am increasingly frustrated by the bunch of Democrats who are undermining the kind of things that Democrats generally stand for. If we can't make serious progress on issues with this much of the government under Democratic control, then it's not going to happen -- and some of it is really urgent, like making sure we don't destroy the environment and kill ourselves, or making sure that everyone has health care so we don't all frigging get sick and die.

Dems May Make Trouble for Climate Bill
Lisa Lerer and Patrick O'Connor, Politico: "California Rep. Henry Waxman has spent most of the year catering to the concerns of other Democrats on his Energy and Commerce Committee. Now it's everyone else's turn."

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship | Rx and the Single Payer
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Truthout: "In 2003, a young Illinois state senator named Barack Obama told an AFL-CIO meeting, 'I am a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.' Single payer. Universal. That's health coverage, like Medicare, but for everyone who wants it. Single payer eliminates insurance companies as pricey middlemen. The government pays care providers directly. It's a system that polls consistently have shown the American people favoring by as much as two to one."
Tags: news, politics
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 9 comments

Deleted comment

ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

May 23 2009, 16:28:39 UTC 12 years ago

A tempting image, but a more civilized approach would be to have them tried for murder, considering that they have knowingly created conditions that lead to the preventable death of human beings and that they pay other people for actions leading to such deaths. Lower-ranked employees could be charged as accessories or with other related crimes -- though I think murder would be a fair charge for the individuals who actually deny claims that lead to death.

Deleted comment

akaihyo

Re: Hmm...

akaihyo

May 24 2009, 00:36:48 UTC 12 years ago

Are you going to try the health care bureaucrats in the UK who deny treatments to those that are not judged cost effective as well? To legislators who have not authorized open ended funding of health care? To Doctors who do not spend every waking hour in hospitals and clinics? (Yes, just drifted into reductio ad absurdum there.)

Resources are limited in any system, at some point health care gets rationed by someone.
ysabetwordsmith

Re: Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

May 24 2009, 02:08:51 UTC 12 years ago

>>Are you going to try the health care bureaucrats in the UK who deny treatments to those that are not judged cost effective as well?<<

If it results in a preventable and unwilling death, then yes. I am not really okay with letting people die because it is not "cost effective" to save them. If the treatment isn't effective enough to qualify, or if none is available, that's different.

>> To legislators who have not authorized open ended funding of health care? <<

Probably not, though I'd take a close look at funding if it was so short that people were dying needlessly.

>> To Doctors who do not spend every waking hour in hospitals and clinics? <<

No, that would be abuse of doctors. If there aren't enough, more should be hired/trained.

>> Resources are limited in any system, at some point health care gets rationed by someone.<<

If you're letting people suffer and die needlessly, then either your system is broken or it does not have enough resources in it. Sometimes those things are unavoidable, but there is a great deal of it going on today that could and should be prevented.

Deleted comment

ysabetwordsmith

Thoughts

ysabetwordsmith

May 23 2009, 16:34:15 UTC 12 years ago

>>I've pretty much lost any chance of having any respect for politicians in general.<<

I have minimal respect for politicians in general, but can be convinced that some individuals are more worthy than others. I don't trust any of them, but I do watch for those who have a lower rate of lying than average.

>>If they don't listen to us, the people they are supposed to be representing, why expect no less than the undermining of programs and policies that could benefit us?<<

Because we have to find some way of flogging them into doing their jobs properly, or find people who will, before they demolish the country and the Earth and our lives in general. And we are running out of time.

Deleted comment

Deleted comment

akaihyo

akaihyo

May 24 2009, 00:40:42 UTC 12 years ago

Would that be the Climate Bill including cap and trade? The one opposed by Ralph Nader (among others) as a corporate give away?
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

May 24 2009, 02:04:02 UTC 12 years ago

There are several climate-related bills currently, but I think that's the one with the cap-and-trade, yes. Cap-and-trade is a great idea if the permits are SOLD to companies, the proceeds being returned to citizens as a dividend or used to fund important projects such as alternative energy research/development. If the permits are given away to corporations, then yes, it's a corporate giveaway and a bad idea. The bill evidently started out with an auction of permits and was modified to give them away after corporations exerted their considerable influence. Some people are still trying to get the original provisions restored.