Tonight while the Iowa caucus is underway I keep having this recurring thought... Pick a card... any card... but just pick one quick! I imagine a magician with extreme sleight of hands abilities flashing the candidates' smiling faces around while we all try to get a glimpse of what is on the other side that tells who they really are. I happen to be a liberal Democrat, but I don't think Republicans feel any differently. Oh, we're all passionate about the election, but we haven't felt sure about anything. The election is eleven months away, but the clock is still ticking.
I disagree with the current analysis that we are all pussy-footing around this election because we are apathetic or tuned out, although some of us might be. I believe the true reason is that we know what a mess things are in this country and we want to pick somebody who can come in and fix everything, all at once.
The saddest aspect of the damage that has been done in the last seven years is that it will take more than one President to even unwrangle what's gone wrong. There will be no remediation for the families of almost 4,000 soldiers who have been killed, and the other thousands of wounded vets can kiss normal life good-bye. At times I feel like the country had a drive-by mugging and now we are looking for remuneration and justice while we try to recover sitting in the middle of the street, still in harm's way.
It ain't gonna happen that quickly, and that is what I think is causing all this commotion and indecision about the candidates.
I took one of those Internet, on-line surveys to show me which candidate held the views closest to mine, and it was Dennis Kucinich. I never once considered voting for him, even once I knew we shared similar views. Why? I can't explain it. As wonderful and dedicated a man as I believe he is, progressive as all get-out, he doesn't move me. Even he has passed the Iowa baton and suggested his supporters vote for Barack.
Now Edwards has stepped up and called for removing the bulk of our troops within 10 or 11 months from being sworn in as president. I might have considered voting for his wife, but he didn't seem strong enough to pull off the general election until very recently. Now I am reconsidering my thoughts on him. It depends, I guess, on whether I want to vote for a man who will end this war faster than any other, based on a solid analysis that the leaders in Iraq refuse to give an inch while our sons and daughters die.
I do think Edwards is making sense, particularly after reading about his health care plan with a single-payer method of cutting out the insurance companies - like all other civilized countries now do at much less cost!
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. If she wins I will vote for her in the general election only because I will vote for a Democrat, but in the meantime I am hoping she doesn't. As a woman I feel almost traitorous, but I wouldn't vote for anyone based strictly on gender and I don't feel she represents what I believe.
I do admit that if times weren't so awful and the problems weren't so cavernous, I might have voted for her to break that gender barrier. Now I cannot make that kind of sacrifice. There are real solutions that have to be addressed, and I don't hear her talking the way I would like her to talk. She seems unendearingly conservative. Maybe she needs to do that to win, but that's not who I want to be my president.
Then there is Obama, who I really thought was wonderful, but then I looked at his ideas about dealing with Iraq. They are certainly less radical than Edwards and about the same as Hillary's, unless I am missing those subtle differences of policy that would make his ideas more palatable than hers. He was against the war in the first place, but now he seems to be worrying about the same things Hillary is concerned about and all the other democrats. Looking weak on terror.
I've got news for them. Looking stupid on terror is a lot worse than deciding to change course, pull our soldiers out and train Iraq to protect itself without putting American lives at further risk. Maybe I'm a weenie in some people's minds, but I don't want to be the policeman for the world. That is what the United Nations was meant to do, and there is no reason on earth why we appointed ourselves to that position other than greed by our multinational corporations. Their only concern is protecting their market places and off-shore suppliers and outsourced jobs which all translates into profit.
I don't know why after my last political article, I am writing about politics again, but what the heck. Have a go at me. The scars on my neck are healing and I'd like to hear your (civil) opinions and if you agree with me for the reason so many of us are undecided.
P.S. My friend Kevin sent me this link to paste into your browser and take the Minnesota Public Radio Candidate Test: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/poll.php?race_id=13
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 57
I don't expect them to fix it in four. (But perhaps that has some value as a new lead-em-in political slogan.)
Please continue writing...and I'll watch to see what fools front you on this...so I can be part of the "fix the fools" game.
Write on, and write often.
Wilka
The saddest aspect of the damage that has been done in the last seven years is that it will take more than one President to even unwrangle what's gone wrong.
I think you nailed it.
There are real solutions that have to be addressed, and I don't hear her talking the way I would like her to talk. She seems unendearingly conservative. Maybe she needs to do that to win, but that's not who I want to be my president.
I couldn't agree more.
Must have been the will of a higher power.
and....
I am still asking, why are we so OMG shocked and awed at where we are at? If I, a seriously underinvolved, lazy follower of politics...could have drawn a map 8 years ago of all this...I want to know how anyone who seriously follows this did't have a clue.
Now, my opinion on dismantling industries and sniffing out dragons...
dismantling industry has always impacted individuals, just the wrong ones, and its time we stop listening to that fear tactic to keep the tower standing, I for one am looking for a leader who at this point plays a mean game of jinga
We are already aware of the trials we face as a nation, if we choose to see it. I agree with KAT, we need brilliance in the presidential office(for at least 12 more years).
We need to start looking in to our future right now, so these last 8 years never happen again.
oh and great post!
I enjoyed your elloquence as well!
There are certain inalienable rights that I believe a modern, compassionate society of our resources and riches should provide to its citizens. One of them is health care. I have it, at great personal sacrifice I might add, but almost 50,000,000 people don't. Playing Russian Roulette with one's health is a bad policy; bad for the person and bad for the country.
I am sorry if those with jobs now would need to be trained to do something else. I have seen the effect the decline of Logging in the northwest had on families, recessions that affected certain industries, 9/11's effect on travel and the airlines and various economic cycles that have negatively affected my own personal finances. That said, people should have the right to access to health care. If Canada and England and every other responsible western-style government can do it, why can't we?
Sometimes we have to sacrifice for the greater good. I think Lou Anne said it much better than I could.
I don't think Dennis K. could win all the way and so I feel like voting for him creates the "Nader" factor. He doesn't come across in this telegenic campaign world as the great person he really is. Until I researched his positions (after my Internet shock), I had no idea what a thoughtful deep man he is. Not wanting to vote for him doesn't mean I don't respect him or don't admire him. It doesn't mean I don't wish the world were not so superficial. I would be more daring in my vote if I thought there was a chance he could win, but the competition is incredibly smooth and well-financed.
Of all the candidates, I liked what I heard from Biden and Richardson best, but they didn't fire up the votors or get the monetary support needed to be serious contenders. Whichever Democratic candidate ultimately gets the nod, I will vote for him/her in hopes of making a clean sweep in Washi ngton next November.
Thanks.
Kucinich lacks the leadership ability to be president, in my view. While he is able to articulate well his beliefs, leadership requires more than articulation and an effective president needs to be able to reach Americans on many levels, not just one or two.
So I want to keep hearing Kucinich and believe he should be a national voice, but I don't think the presidential one.
Maybe once we find them we could slay them ourselves instead of putting our trust in people who promise us the world but deliver nothing.
Personally I feel our concerns for change and reform should be focused on Congress instead of who are next President would be. Considering the fact that 90% of all decisions are made by this body of the government my focus is there.
As another made an analogy of a magician I have to say that to me the "President" is the item the magician wants us to have our eyes trained on while he uses slight of hand to produce his "magic". Much in the same way that a President bears the fault and repercussions in many of the decisions made, even though he had no hand in them nor any power to enact them without the Congress.
Though I am not suggesting that the role is completely non effectual or that in some cases fault may well lay in the lap of this "leader" .... in most cases the President is nothing more then the stage prop or the "whipping boy" for all the ideas gone wrong. If one really looks at the reality of government it is the Congress who runs the country, not the person whom we elect as our leader.
Elizabeth
I don't have health care at all and know all to well the pitfalls of not having it. However I am not at all in favor of placing my physical or medical well being into the hands of a government that has little concern for that well being. This I assess by their own actions thus far in how they assume they offer me a "better life". Republican or Democrat makes no difference in my book, they live in luxury while I foot their bill.
What I do love about this country is that there is always the hope that the next election will finally give us what we want. It never does, of course, but we get to believe for a while. Americans are still so divided on what that should be, we are really no different than the warring tribal and ethnic groups around the world. We just think we are superior.
This really didn't have anything to do with any of the comments, but occurred to me as I was reading them.
Everybody has great points here, although I respectfully disagree with some.
sort of like running a car at top speed for a while.... you won't see the damage until you slow down and the oil leaks start and the exhaust pours out the muffler seams, etc.
In other words, medical care as it is delivered now and by whom is going to get worse.
Kevin -> I wouldn't call it manipulation but I would talk about the leadership Johnson showed when he shepherded the Civil Rights Bill through Congress and developed broad support for the Great Society Programs.
I think Kucinich has been unable to connect with others in politics and in the general public to gain the support needed for his ideas.
An example who comes to mind is Jimmy Carter, a brilliant and decent man, who was not able to provide the full leadership needed at the time. Had Carter been able to do so, I think the history of the last 25 years would have been very different.
There is a balance of policy, thought, practicality and inspirational ability required to lead and few have it.
Does that make sense?
No problem ... and thank you! You have no idea how many people I meet on a daily basis who have no clue or flat out deny that the President's powers are vastly limited. I went to the trouble to look them up and go through each one and basically he is a very high paid ambassador. The only power he holds is once THE CONGRESS declares war. After that he is the Commander and Chief with the power to direct the forces. However, that power is also limited by a time limit and he still must rely on Congress for all other actions.
The point however is that it is not the President who runs the country, it is the Congress. So basically what our Candidates should be saying is that if they are elected they will try to convince Congress to do whatever it is they are promising they will get done.
You say it is a "nonprofit" approach to health care. Well then who is footing the bill? If not us, someone must be. The only one left that I can surmise is the government. Believe me I will research this further as I want to be sure before falling into fact as opposed to my feelings and opinions (which is what these are now). However from what I have read it does not look appealing to me when I scrape off the pretty packaging.
Now let's look at the other end of that statement "nonprofit". How many doctors would you like to visit if you knew they were not making money in a field that once offered them a comfortable life style. Suddenly they are limited to what they can receive for their work. They can no longer afford their plush homes, golfing on Tuesdays, the nice car and so on. One of two things occur -- they leave the practice of medicine to find a way to finance their already expensive life style. Or their service to the public sinks to an all time low and more and more people are physically damaged by the lack of care from someone more worried about their financial future then which foot they need to remove.
Not to mention they have done this in England and I know many friends there that say that to get care for anything short of major surgery the wait can be up to 3 or 4 months to get into a doctor. So, should I plan when I get a cold or flu, or just schedule in advance and hope I will be sick by the time they can see me. It is 10 times harder for them to get approval for specialists or operations and at times it causes severe complications in the procedure performed.
I just am not seeing an upside to this type of move in health care. However here is a suggestion. Stop people from suing a doctor for things that should never enter a court. If a medication turns out to cause problems unforeseen then shouldn't those who regulate those medications, our FDA, explain why they approved the drug, and then be responsible for the cost of fixing the problem. (Note I said fix the problem, not pay billions to the person(s) suing.
If millions of dollars were not paid out on a yearly basis for ridiculous cases then doctors would not need millions of dollars in malpractice insurance. Let's just process the cases that have some real merit to them, and pay out an appropriate compensation to those who were injured. This would greatly reduce the cost of health care.
Let's take health care back to the basics. Let's not allow doctors to invest in drug companies so they do not feel inclined to put us on unnecessary medications, and then give us medications to treat the side effects of the first medication ....... and so on until we find ourselves chucking down 25 pills a day for our supposed "health conditions".
To me these are more practical suggestions then anything our candidates are suggesting.
Actually no, I think health insurance companies were among the major mistakes made by this country. These are almost more terrifying then our government .. who by the way license and regulate them only to be sure they get their share off the top. Let's be honest you need a license from the state or the government to do anything today, but does that make you professional?
To reform health care would mean doing away with insurance companies completely, or vastly reducing the power they have over our health care as a whole. The entire system is defunct, but handing it out to everyone is not going to improve the problems that exist, it will only add complications to them. Anyone who has ever seen the movie "Patch Adams" can understand what I am saying. By the way his Gesundheit Institute is an actual place, where doctors are trained to be human as opposed to what we are confronted with today. Let's fund that baby and make it law that to practice a doctor must attend the Institute and we might see a different kind of doctor standing before us to offer care.
Let's be honest when is the last time you went to a doctor and he knew your name? Knew your family, remembered what medicines he had given you last time? Or even discussed how to take you off a medicine you may no longer need!? "Universal Health Care" is not going to solve these problems. I want the kind of doctor I had as a child. He knew our family, stopped by for dinner every once in a while. He came to the house when we (the children) were sick, he cared about the welfare of our family in every thing he did. Let's work on that kind of health care and I will jump on the band wagon with you. Saying that giving it to me free, or by single payer, or by any other of these means is not going to deliver us quality health care.
On a personal level my concern is for other people because I do not use doctors. If I had not been in a car accident last year the last time I would have visited a doctor was about 20 years ago. I can also assure you that my stay in the hospital was no picnic for them as I know how they operate having taken care of my father. I left the hospital without being placed on one medication, refused half of the tests as they were unnecessary and insisted that I be allowed to use my alternative medicines or they could just let me go home. They could not have been happier to sign my butt out the door as soon as possible and my bill was a lot less then most uninsured folks would have paid.
I don't know how old you are, but cancer screenings are something you should start by the time you are forty if you are a woman. One of my sisters is 61 and doesn't have insurance either, which terrifies me as we have all kinds of illnesses in our family. She doesn't take any medications except daily ibuprophen, but that doesn't mean she doesn't need any. She doesn't know. With four grandparents who had cancer (age 38 to 81), we have the worst genetics you could. Perhaps that is why I am so adamant about everybody getting access to medical care. My sister wants insurance, but she can't afford a private policy for $850 a month and her boss won't provide benefits. Medical care shouldn't be about who has money and who doesn't. It is just not right. If you choose not to see a doctor, fine, but you shouldn't have to check your bank account balance before you decide to see one.
Please do not misunderstand my stand. I agree with you totally in that no one should be in a position that they cannot seek care if they choose to. My stand is that there are better ways of achieving this goal then the ones presented to us. If we stand against those things that prevent our ability to have and afford health care the results would be long term instead of only until the next dysfunction in the system occurs.
As a country when we unite to achieve a goal we are an unstoppable force, but when we are divided and squabbling we have no power to change the wrongs that exist. Political parties divide us and keep us arguing among ourselves and this achieves the goals of those in power. We are so busy arguing and feeling powerless that we do nothing but follow their every whim to find the prize at the end of the rainbow.
I want change, I want everyone to be able to see a doctor if they wish to. I want doctors that we can entrust our lives to and be secure in our belief that this man or woman is going to do the best they can to keep us healthy. I do not want companies or the government dictating to us what we can and cannot have. I want the FREEDOM to have that type of health care without anyone denying me my right to it.
I am not willing to take second best, I want the best and my only hope is that there will be more who want this and be willing to fight for it. For how long have we followed the promises only to find them to be full of empty hopes. It never gets better it only gets worse with each path they lead us down. It is time for us to say no to the politicians and take back our right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I want my freedoms back, and one of those is to have health care professionals that have become such because of a deep desire to serve those they treat.
If this is wrong then I apologize, but I can see no better solution to our problems then to solve them ourselves with the power of a people tired of being raped of our rights.
I'm not sure which candidate of the crew will bring about real change, but I'm with you on the need for it and the need for restoring our Constitutional protections. The way we are all so self-centered and out for ourselves is the real problem with our society. If human beings were always like this, I don't think we'd ever have made it out of the jungle. There has to be some social order that works for the good of the group, not just those in power.
Maybe we'll all come together in November and create some real change for the better. I hope so, for me and you and everybody else in this country and this world.
One big difference under the NHS is that routine care is provided at an appropriate level. If you show up at the clinic with a bruise, the flu or a host of other such issues, it is more likely that a nurse will triage you and provide treatment as appropriate.
Additionally, drug companies are not able to in effect bribe the doctors to prescribe their treatments. Prescriptions are much more effective when they are not the result of marketing.
Most of the improvements in public health during the 20th century were not due to new medical technologies but rest on a platform of clean water, safe food and air, and accessibility to routine and preventative treatment. In the US we fall down on that last part - accessibility.
It's important to note that we already have here a successful single payer model, Medicare, which allows the individual to choose their treatment and doctors and controls the sky high cost of insurance.
We also have or used to have an extraordinarily good public medical system with the VA hospitals.
Both of these programs have been under vicious assault by the current administration and are now so wounded, I don't know if they will survive, but for at least two generations they showed how these alternatives to the current patchwork can and do work well.
There's a lot wrong with medical care in this country. The cost of insurance to the participant and to the doctors is outrageously high, pharmaceutical companies are so heavily subsidized by the government and do far too much marketing of only marginal improvements to be taken seriously (witness the repackaging of over the counter Prilosec to the "little purple pill" and the creation of something called "Restless Leg Syndrome" for only two examples)
Medical offices are choking on the amount of work and the complexity of myriad insurance payment schemes. All of them have at least one full time person and often several who spend their time working this maze. It's a bureaucratic nightmare. Quick suggestion: at your next doctor visit, ask for an estimate of how many staff hours he (and you) are paying for to comply with insurance requirements. I think you will be taken aback.
I agree with you that individual control is important. My experience is that control has been long ago surrendered to the insurance companies and that if we really have to choose, I would rather that our government, who can at least be held accountable, be the ones administering the program.
And for what it is worth, I would much prefer to see a single payer systems rather than nationalized medicine. I suspect but can't prove that this approach would allow more flexibility where it counts at the medical level.
(and can I add that it's kind of fun to be disagreeing about this stuff with someone intelligent like yourself. There is so much good stuff in what you are writing. This is why I am getting to like Gather.)
When I was diagnosed with cancer 7 years ago, I begged my oncologist to give me my 'survival odds' (they never use the word cure as cancer is now considered a chronic illness even after treatment). He kept avoiding answering my question, but I got so intense that he finally said, "Well you're chances are great, because you've got the gold standard of insurance. Blue Cross."
Ever since then those words have been ringing in my ears and keeping my insurance has been the only way I feel safe from a recurrence. (Fortunately, I haven't had any.) Several other people I know with lesser insurance and my same cancer have died.
If I seem a bit maniacal about the single-payer, health insurance for all who want/need it, it is because I cannot tolerate the idea that people are dying or being diagnosed when all hope is gone. I have had seven years of bliss which include my daughter getting married, my son graduating from college, a biological granddaughter, a life with just my husband and me free of (God-bless-them) kids. Learning to sculpt, finally finishing some short stories and working on a script... my life is fantastic and I want the same for everyone else. Not my dreams, but theirs and that they live a long and healthy life and get to enjoy some of it!
Again, Kevin, thanks for expressing everything so much better than I can.