Thursday, May 7, 2009

U. S. Senators Forced into Frightening Health Risk!

The following news snippet appeared last week. MeanMesa's attention was brought to it by comments on the Ed Schultz radio show, May 7th (1350AM, Albuquerque, "The Ed Schultz Show," 10AM to 1PM weekdays)93

Protesters disrupt Senate health care hearing

May-5-09 8:51am

Protesters pushing for a government-run health system have been thrown out of a Senate hearing room after disrupting the meeting.

It happened at the start of a Senate Finance Committee session on overhauling the health care system to cover some 50 million uninsured Americans.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has said that a so-called single-payer system — one that's run by the government — is not on the table. Many liberals favor that approach but Baucus and others say it's not practical or politically feasible.

Single-payer supporters repeatedly interrupted as Baucus tried to convene Tuesday's hearing.

When one protester shouted "we want a seat at the table," Baucus responded, "We want police."

Capitol Police removed eight people.

Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Senator Baucus's current term expires in 2009.

By now we have all watched the Senate long enough to understand the terrifying gambit our democratic system places on Senators. The health care question is a great example.

Of course, there is the voting population which is painfully aware that any approach to health care which excludes the single payer option will never amount to anything other than more of the same. Wallowing under a patiently and carefully crafted umbrella of Senatorial protection, the entire health care industry franchise has every intention of extending its incredibly profitable extraction scheme well into the future. That is, well into our future.

Down here on the “receiving end” of the current health care outrage, we know about the constantly increasing prices for coverage, the ever more rapacious denial of “preexisting conditions,” the total control over treatment in the hands of the corporate bureaucrats who make the decisions about what treatment will be available.

40 or 50 million of us know what it feels like to have no health care coverage at all.

Even those who are “covered” know that any kind of health emergency can plunge them into bankruptcy. Yet, that flow of “profits” to the health care providers, the HMO’s and the pharmaceutical giants must not be interrupted, must not be interfered with in any way. Our lot in this disaster is to simply keep paying and paying or simply suffer silently through illness and injuries. Too often, even for the “covered,” it amounts to both.

The industry has paid billions in campaign contributions to reinforce this strangle hold and the guarantee the “profits” it will inevitably provide to them. Now, the “rooster is home to roost.” The Senators who have received such extravagant largesse are now on the spot to perform their part, to provide the services they have been paid so well to render.

Here’s what these poor, belabored Senators now must face.

On one side, there is the immense money for campaign contributions from their “friends” (masters?) in the industry. The idea here is that enough money will keep getting them elected regardless of how unrepresentative their Senate votes might be on the matter. On the other side, there are all these voters who can’t count on access to the health care system because they have crappy coverage or no coverage at all. The problem is, although all these health care victims can’t provide campaign financing, they can provide votes.

If you are one of these Senators, the beautiful song from reelection heaven is a chorus of uninformed voters.

The gambit for the Senators? Can enough campaign contributions overcome not enough votes? Oh, dear.

Of course we expect greedy neo-con reactionaries to be against anything that might injure their corporate sponsors. There is no reason for us to whine with expectations of them actually representing the needs of their constituencies. The neo-con approach promises that enough campaign spending will bury any serious issues and replace them with tried and true hillbilly favorites such as god, gays and guns. That gamble is based on reaping the advantage of an under-informed or un-informed electorate which can be maintained in that state by constant inebriation with endless rounds of free reactionary KoolAid. This has been the quite successful strategy of both the stinky Senate bigots from the south and their proteges peddling the same gaseous lies in the north.

These crooks have managed to convince their constituencies with relentless, frenzied lies that:
health care is way too expensive
universal health care is a nightmare of lethally bad service
government bureaucrats will decide if they can get care or treatment
that poor people just want to go to the Doctor because it will be free.

Now, however, President Obama has “soiled the pot” for Democrats in the Senate. He has raised the unruly possibility of actually providing actual health care for the entire country. For the broke, nearly “over the edge” urbanites. For the presently uninsured. For the “wrong colored.” For those too poor to purchase Senators. For everyone.

Reactionaries and neo-cons claim that they don't actually ever get sick because they always seem to be able to "lift themselves up by their bootstraps" in time for more tax cuts. That is because, uh, they are so superior. No problem. Obama wants them to have health care, too.

Well, Senator Max Baucus, having no single payer voices at the table during your health care hearings was already an outrage. The arrest of any citizen in the audience who asked why you did that was even more of an outrage. Too bad your health insurance benefactors didn’t pony up a little extra cash to buy off Ed Schultz. The “fat redhead” is getting ready to feed you a delicious recap of all this on his radio and television shows.

Ahem, it’s already reached MeanMesa.

The Senate reactionaries can’t do anything else besides what they’ve been paid to do. Of course there’s going to be a scrap. As voters, our job is to keep a list of which Senators voted for what we want and which Senators voted for more profits from their campaign contributors. Will they pick “cash” or “votes?” Or, will they keep thrashing along on a wet dream that, if only they manage us a little better, they can have both?

In 2006 and 2008 we met the Republicans.

In 2010 and 2012 we will meet the incumbents.

Gosh. I wonder how that’s going to turn out?

For a recap with plenty of statistics, check out:

and the article cited for the account of the hearing:

No comments:

Post a Comment