Saturday, August 15, 2009

Best Health Care in the World


The U.S. health care is very good for many people including me---but it is not very good for the 40 million plus who have no care. And it is not very good for the 90,000 people who die each year from infections acquired in hospitals and the same number w ho die due to incorrect drug treatment. Except for the first mentioned the care here is a disgrace. This is the richest country in the world. What’s wrong? More than 100 years ago, Germany put in a national plan. Europe and the rest of the industrialized world have had it for 50 years or more. The profit system is blamed, yet Germany did it under the capitalist profit system?

As an advocate of socialist principles, I believe that in a true socialist society , this would never even be a question; it would automatically be instituted.

Tom R. Dooley. 8/15/09


AA said...

The following article, published at today, is well worth reading in relation to your post:

It makes one wonder what kind of a barbarous society the USA is. But as I am wont to say, it's not the right that's the obstacle to real progress in the USA; it's the limp and pathetic left -- a bunch of jerk-offs. Until the left collectively pounds its fist on the table and makes the pretty black boy and his corporate sponsors dirty their pants in fear, there is going to be no real change -- in healthcare, in financial regulation, or in any other area.

Red Frog said...

Calling Obama a 'boy' does not help your argument. He might be a 'boy' to Wall Street or the Republican Party, but not to others. The word is part of the 'code' of the South. I would not use it ever.

AA said...

I wouldn't use "boy" to describe, say, Malcolm X. The problem is political correctness severely circumscribes what we're allowed to say, and people focus so much (and often so disingenuously) on words that content and meaning are lost. Yes, Obama is the boy of US oligarchic interests. But he's also a "boy" in other senses: polite, meek, domesticated. The kind white liberals can vote for and then proudly announce that voting for Obama proves they're not "racist" (as they're doing in my apartment building). Their claim itself demonstrates quite the opposite: if Obama were blacker, had more negroid features, they wouldn't have voted for him. Alternatively, if he'd been more bellicose, they again would not have voted for him. They wanted a boy, and that's what they got.

AA said...

If, say, McCain had been doing any of this -- ratcheting up the invasion of Afghanistan, financial bailouts for the very crooks largely responsible for the financial crisis, making secret deals with big pharma -- the American Left (to the extent it exists) would have been up in arms. But because it's Obama -- a black man -- he gets a free pass. Mustn't be thought racist, after all.

Red Frog said...

I think Obama is not 'black' - he's mixed black and white. You are right, an actual black person from the U.S. would not have been elected. Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or Jesse Jackson Jr. are off the table. He did marry a black woman though, which is commendable. He's a middle class professional, per his class. He's become part of the 'talented 10th' that thought it could run the civil rights movement. Or any law firm. But instead, as Malcolm would say, he's a 'house Negro.' Most 'black' folks in the U.S. are 'mixed' actually, but Obama is very clearly 'mixed'.

At any rate, if we attacked McCain for being a 'geezer' we'd be barking up the wrong tree. McCain's age is not so much the problem. His health might be, but that is another issue. Again, I don't think ethnic slurs are appropriate. And that has nothing to do with 'political correctness.'

FellowCommodityDooley said...

The level of discourse here is pretty sad if we're debating whether it's politically correct or not to call that Neo-Liberal Nazi, Obama, 'boy' or not. of course, it's wrong but at the same time what is he doing to the people in Afganistan, Iraq, and all the other victims of America's continuing imperialist stranglehold on the world.

by Tom's mystery guest.

AA said...

America's ruling elite has hidden itself behind a black face. This compliant black -- I dare not use terms like "boy" or "house negro" anymore -- is not any less reactionary and venal than his predecessor. A telling comment was made in a piece at dissidentvoice yesterday:

QUOTE Upon the election of Barack H. Obama many well-meaning Americans congratulated themselves for the eradication of racism in their country. However, persons protesting the president's policies—either by way of demonstrating or what Alex Jones terms “the Poster Revolution—have been labelled racists.UNQUOTE

But we are quibbling over irrelevancies. With regard to what is important, I can sniff massive discontent in the air -- a discontent and despair of explosive proportions.

AA said...

Some cogent analysis on the prospects of healthcare reform from this worthless b@stard of a president: