HR 676
United States National Health Insurance Program (the Program) to provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services.
Who is going to pay for this fiasco in the making? The poor benighted chumps who actually work for a living….........It sounds great until you get the bill.
Posted by texasindependent on Nov 8, 2006 at 5:15 PM
YU ARE PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY ...FOOL
Many who work do not have health coverage…is there a news white-out in Texas…or are yu just stupid…one would gather…both…
Maybe yu could get help for your….hetro-boredom….
TexasTagger…yu are just what the neo-cons love…ostentatiously uninformed , too psuedo- prideful…working middle-class idiot, that for some unexplained psycosomatic reasonings ; identifies with agendas that do not effect your own best interest….
Yu…Mr.Tagger need to be protected from yourself…
Maybe a rubber room or a straight jacket….meds…?
Posted by Redhorse on Nov 9, 2006 at 2:41 AM
Look….Tex….Redhorse is gonna throw yu a bone, what good it will do is up to yu….
Google…Ben Cohens Cookie Graph…or go to Youtube and search for… Oreo cookies & BB’S….TOO MUCH LIKE RIGHT….with Tavis Smiley…...
Now Ben Cohen is a Jewish name…so we don’t want to hear any denialist bullshit….
Maybe we will all learn something….....
10 billion from nukes too health care….not so hard…...eeh
ah…..the never ending wisdom of plain ol’ common sense…........
Posted by Redhorse on Nov 9, 2006 at 4:02 AM
The article brings up a critical point: That of the cognitive political dissonance over ideological alignment in the USA today. It is a dissonance that covers the terms “conservative” and “liberal” as well as “progressive”. Thus radical rightists such as Bush/Cheney are called “conservatives”, liberals such as Pelosi are called “progressives”, and so forth. In general it masks the profound shift to the right that has occured since Reagan. The ‘06 election results only open a door of possible reversal, they do not actually reverse it.
It is in this befogged atmosphere that the Democrats are trying to carry out a hijacking of “progressivism”, in a frantic attempt to delay a mass bolt of grassroots progressive activists - who assume a RADICAL LEFT content for the term - from a conservative party with no substantial solutions to the deep problems facing America and the world. Unless of course one believes stem cell research is the solution to all our problems.
Mapping the actual history of the term “progressive” would begin to resolve this confusion. It would also reveal the the present is not the first time conservatives and liberals have hijacked “progressivism”.
Posted by Radical Left on Nov 10, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Now on to the substance of the article:
The Bleifuss/Burt/Bowers comments promise a renewed assault upon independent-minded leftists. Given the bullying tone and abusive terminology, it looks to be nasty. It will have to be, for hard core Democrat leftists will have their work cut out over the next 2 years covering the left flank of the Democratic Party as it betrays the hopes placed in it by grassroots progressive left activists. Signally, these will be the failure to impeach Bush/Cheney - necessary for expeditious Iraq withdrawal - failure to repeal the Military Commissions Act and failure to repeal the Patriot Acts.
After 6 years of Roves’ lying spinmanship, are we now to be subject to a “Pwog” version of dissembling spin?
Example: The article headline claims “The big winners from the ‘06 midterms were members of the House Progressive Caucus”, misleading one into a sense that the Caucus received some sort of popular mandate in the 2006 elections. But as one reads a bit further, it is revealed that all this amounts to is that certain select progressive Democrats now occupy key House committee chairmanships due, not to popular election, but to the extremely undemocratic anachronism of House seniority rules! These invariably benefit Congresspeople in “safe” districts who are automatically relected term after term, which means for the Democrats, districts where Republicans are very weak, often weaker than the independent Left. This is not “democracy”, but bureaucracy, in action.
Example: “In an unprecedented move this fall, CPC members—coming together under the newly formed Progressive Majority Project—pooled their money, time and staff to lend support to progressives running in 12 House races. Eight of those CPC-backed candidates won, which makes all this talk about conservative Democrats in the ascendancy a bunch of bunk.” We are not told if these presumably “progressive” Democrats replaced Republicans or even conservative Democrats in “swing” districts - an event that, if it were true, would indicate a fairly dramatic and unprecedented (in recent times) shift to the left by formerly conservative voters. But no evidence of this is given at all. For all anybody knows, these are either liberal to progressive replacements for a previous liberal occupant. No change there.
Finally, no concrete analysis is presented of the politics of Democrats elected in Republican “swing” districts - the races that actually gave the Democrats the House majority.
The rest is largely hopeful happy talk. The day we have universal health care in the USA will be, under present conditions, the day Corporate America realizes how it is shooting itself in the foot with the present idiotic system. No doubt “pwogs” of the Bleifuss/Burt/Bowers stripe will be there to claim “credit” for Corporate America’s actions.
But what enables this sort of spin is a deliberately confounding abuse of the term “progressive”. In particular it is combined with “liberal”, the latter a different political species. In this way Pelosi is represented as a “progressive” simply because she is a member of the CPC. But Pelosi pledged 100% support for the murdurous, US sponsored apartheid state of Israel before AIPAC, now under criminal investigation: http://brickburner.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/11/nancy_pelosi_an.html
Since when is this stance - hardly a minor issue today - become “progressive”? It would be hardly be the only issue that would define Pelosi as something other than progressive.
Conversely, it is assumed that a correct stance on, say, abortion rights signifies “progressivism”. That would be news to Giuliani, McCain and may other genuine conservatives!
So dance, spinmeisters, dance! We on the independant Left are also pleased that the election results have placed such ripe and juicy targets in our sights!
Posted by Radical Left on Nov 10, 2006 at 8:14 PM
Reader Comments
HR 676
United States National Health Insurance Program (the Program) to provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services.
Who is going to pay for this fiasco in the making? The poor benighted chumps who actually work for a living….........It sounds great until you get the bill.
Posted by texasindependent on Nov 8, 2006 at 5:15 PM
YU ARE PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY ...FOOL
Many who work do not have health coverage…is there a news white-out in Texas…or are yu just stupid…one would gather…both…
Maybe yu could get help for your….hetro-boredom….
TexasTagger…yu are just what the neo-cons love…ostentatiously uninformed , too psuedo- prideful…working middle-class idiot, that for some unexplained psycosomatic reasonings ; identifies with agendas that do not effect your own best interest….
Yu…Mr.Tagger need to be protected from yourself…
Maybe a rubber room or a straight jacket….meds…?
Posted by Redhorse on Nov 9, 2006 at 2:41 AM
Look….Tex….Redhorse is gonna throw yu a bone, what good it will do is up to yu….
Google…Ben Cohens Cookie Graph…or go to Youtube and search for… Oreo cookies & BB’S….TOO MUCH LIKE RIGHT….with Tavis Smiley…...
Now Ben Cohen is a Jewish name…so we don’t want to hear any denialist bullshit….
Maybe we will all learn something….....
10 billion from nukes too health care….not so hard…...eeh
ah…..the never ending wisdom of plain ol’ common sense…........
Posted by Redhorse on Nov 9, 2006 at 4:02 AM
The article brings up a critical point: That of the cognitive political dissonance over ideological alignment in the USA today. It is a dissonance that covers the terms “conservative” and “liberal” as well as “progressive”. Thus radical rightists such as Bush/Cheney are called “conservatives”, liberals such as Pelosi are called “progressives”, and so forth. In general it masks the profound shift to the right that has occured since Reagan. The ‘06 election results only open a door of possible reversal, they do not actually reverse it.
It is in this befogged atmosphere that the Democrats are trying to carry out a hijacking of “progressivism”, in a frantic attempt to delay a mass bolt of grassroots progressive activists - who assume a RADICAL LEFT content for the term - from a conservative party with no substantial solutions to the deep problems facing America and the world. Unless of course one believes stem cell research is the solution to all our problems.
Mapping the actual history of the term “progressive” would begin to resolve this confusion. It would also reveal the the present is not the first time conservatives and liberals have hijacked “progressivism”.
Posted by Radical Left on Nov 10, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Now on to the substance of the article:
The Bleifuss/Burt/Bowers comments promise a renewed assault upon independent-minded leftists. Given the bullying tone and abusive terminology, it looks to be nasty. It will have to be, for hard core Democrat leftists will have their work cut out over the next 2 years covering the left flank of the Democratic Party as it betrays the hopes placed in it by grassroots progressive left activists. Signally, these will be the failure to impeach Bush/Cheney - necessary for expeditious Iraq withdrawal - failure to repeal the Military Commissions Act and failure to repeal the Patriot Acts.
After 6 years of Roves’ lying spinmanship, are we now to be subject to a “Pwog” version of dissembling spin?
Example: The article headline claims “The big winners from the ‘06 midterms were members of the House Progressive Caucus”, misleading one into a sense that the Caucus received some sort of popular mandate in the 2006 elections. But as one reads a bit further, it is revealed that all this amounts to is that certain select progressive Democrats now occupy key House committee chairmanships due, not to popular election, but to the extremely undemocratic anachronism of House seniority rules! These invariably benefit Congresspeople in “safe” districts who are automatically relected term after term, which means for the Democrats, districts where Republicans are very weak, often weaker than the independent Left. This is not “democracy”, but bureaucracy, in action.
Example: “In an unprecedented move this fall, CPC members—coming together under the newly formed Progressive Majority Project—pooled their money, time and staff to lend support to progressives running in 12 House races. Eight of those CPC-backed candidates won, which makes all this talk about conservative Democrats in the ascendancy a bunch of bunk.” We are not told if these presumably “progressive” Democrats replaced Republicans or even conservative Democrats in “swing” districts - an event that, if it were true, would indicate a fairly dramatic and unprecedented (in recent times) shift to the left by formerly conservative voters. But no evidence of this is given at all. For all anybody knows, these are either liberal to progressive replacements for a previous liberal occupant. No change there.
Finally, no concrete analysis is presented of the politics of Democrats elected in Republican “swing” districts - the races that actually gave the Democrats the House majority.
The rest is largely hopeful happy talk. The day we have universal health care in the USA will be, under present conditions, the day Corporate America realizes how it is shooting itself in the foot with the present idiotic system. No doubt “pwogs” of the Bleifuss/Burt/Bowers stripe will be there to claim “credit” for Corporate America’s actions.
But what enables this sort of spin is a deliberately confounding abuse of the term “progressive”. In particular it is combined with “liberal”, the latter a different political species. In this way Pelosi is represented as a “progressive” simply because she is a member of the CPC. But Pelosi pledged 100% support for the murdurous, US sponsored apartheid state of Israel before AIPAC, now under criminal investigation: http://brickburner.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/11/nancy_pelosi_an.html
Since when is this stance - hardly a minor issue today - become “progressive”? It would be hardly be the only issue that would define Pelosi as something other than progressive.
Conversely, it is assumed that a correct stance on, say, abortion rights signifies “progressivism”. That would be news to Giuliani, McCain and may other genuine conservatives!
So dance, spinmeisters, dance! We on the independant Left are also pleased that the election results have placed such ripe and juicy targets in our sights!
Posted by Radical Left on Nov 10, 2006 at 8:14 PM