Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts

Friday, November 20, 2009

No More Waiting

How stupid it is to wait:

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Insurance Rationing and Death Panels Already Exist

Why We Need Healthcare Reform

The future of healthcare in America, according to Sarah Palin, might look something like this: A sick 17-year-old girl needs a liver transplant. Doctors find an available organ, and they're ready to operate, but the bureaucracy -- or as Palin would put it, the "death panel" -- steps in and says it won't pay for the surgery. Despite protests from the girl's family and her doctors, the heartless hacks hold their ground for a critical 10 days. Eventually, under massive public pressure, they relent -- but the patient dies before the operation can proceed.

It certainly sounds scary enough to make you want to go show up at a town hall meeting and yell about how misguided President Obama's healthcare reform plans are. Except that's not the future of healthcare -- it's the present. Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

Coverage of Palin's remarks, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's defense of them, over the weekend did point out that the idea that the reform plans would encourage government-sponsored euthanasia is one of a handful of deliberate falsehoods being peddled by opponents of the legislation. But the idea that only if reform passes would the government start setting up rationing and interfering with care goes beyond just the bogus euthanasia claim.

Opponents of reform often seem to skip right past any problems with the current system -- but it's rife with them. A study by the American Medical Association found the biggest insurance companies in the country denied between 2 and 5 percent of claims put in by doctors last year (though the AMA noted that not all the denials were improper). There is no national database of insurance claim denials, though, because private insurance companies aren't required to disclose such stats.

source: SALON

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Palin Becoming a Babbling Idiot

Sarah Palin, not satisfied that she embarrassed herself and the Republican Party with her "DEATH PANEL" charges, has now gone one step further. She now claims President Barack Obama is making light of concerns over what she has called "death panels" determining or denying care in the Democratic health care proposal.

Palin makes the claim in a Facebook posting Wednesday evening.

Obama on Tuesday said the Democratic health care legislation would not create "death panels" to deny care to frail seniors — or "basically pull the plug on grandma because we decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore," as the president put it.

Rather, Obama contends the provision that led to such talk would only authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care if they want it and to pay for the costs of a Living Will.

But Palin, the former Republican vice presidential candidate, says the provision reads otherwise and will lead to health care rationing. source: raw story

Georgia’s junior Republican senator has something to say about Sarah Palin’s interpretation of US healthcare reform.

It’s “nuts.”

The Republican lawmaker, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), made the comments in an interview with Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein Monday. His remarks may underscore how far Palin has strayed from the Republican base. Isakson co-sponsored a measure in 2007 aimed at educating Medicare patients about their options for end-of-life care and it is his measure that has become a part of the proposed healthcare bill.

“Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother?” Klein asked Isakson, referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s comments that Democrats’ healthcare proposal would create “death panels.” “What are we talking about here?”

“In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that’s because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves,” Isakson said. “So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia ‘durable power of attorney,’ you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you’re unable to make those decisions.”

“How did this become a question of euthanasia?” Klein asked.

He may ask Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Senator Grassley, and the other soulless Republicans who spread these lies about a health care plan designed to help Americans. Here are some FACTS about what Healthcare Reform WILL DO:

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-ins...r-protections/

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Insurance Execs Get Rich by Denying Care

The Health Insurance Racket:

Getting Rich by Denying Americans Care

UnitedHealthcare CEO Stephen Hemsley owns $744,232,068 in unexercised stock options. CIGNA’s Edward Hanway spends his holidays in a $13 million beach house in New Jersey. Meanwhile, regular Americans are routinely denied coverage for the care they need when they need it most.

Welcome to the American health insurance industry. Instead of helping policyholders attain the health security they need for their families, big insurance companies get rich by denying coverage to patients. Now they’re sending lobbyists to Washington, DC to twist the arms of lawmakers to oppose reform of the status quo. Why? Because the status quo pays.

Learn more about the glamorous lives of billionaire health insurance executives and tell us your story of being victimized by their greed. Then contribute to Brave New Films so we can continue to get the word out about the health insurance racket.

SICKFORPROFIT.COM

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Healthcare Reform is a Moral Obligation

Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado:

We have an urgent moral obligation to change the health care system in this country so that every American has access to affordable, quality health care.

Yet when I held a town hall in Pueblo on Saturday, I was greeted by a self-described "mob" with chants of "Health care...NO!" and "I hate Obama-nation."

While we should have a substantive conversation about health care, we cannot back down in the face of these intimidation tactics.

Republican Senator Calls Palin's Healthcare Claims "NUTS"

Republican Senator Johnny Isakson

Georgia’s junior Republican senator has something to say about Sarah Palin’s interpretation of US healthcare reform.

It’s “nuts.”

The Republican lawmaker, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), made the comments in an interview with Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein Monday. His remarks may underscore how far Palin has strayed from the Republican base. Isakson co-sponsored a measure in 2007 aimed at educating Medicare patients about their options for end-of-life care.

“Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother?” Klein asked Isakson, referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s comments that Democrats’ healthcare proposal would create “death panels.” “What are we talking about here?”

“In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that’s because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves,” Isakson said. “So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia ‘durable power of attorney,’ you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you’re unable to make those decisions.”

“How did this become a question of euthanasia?” Klein asked.

Read complete story at RAW STORY.

Come On America, You are Smarter than That!

If Medicare for Everyone is So Bad,

Why Does Every Nation Who Has It Keep It?

A BUZZFLASH Guest Commentary Forwarded by Dave Lindorff (based on an idea from one of his readers)

Questions Should You Find Yourself at a microphone at a 'Town Meeting':

1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer?

2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada?

3. Wouldn't single-payer mean that companies could no longer threaten working people with the loss of their health insurance? Why is this a bad idea?

4. The bigger the insurance pool, the better. So doesn't having a national pool, as with single-payer, make the most sense?

5. Why should we be allowing politicians who are taking money from the medical industry to write the new health care legislation?

6. How can the Congress be developing a health system reform scheme and not even invite experts from Canada down to explain their successful system?

7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us?

8. Isn't it true that Medicare currently finances the most costly patient group--the elderly and infirm--so that extending it to the rest of the population--most of whom are young and healthy--would be much cheaper, per person?

9. The AMA, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Insurance Industry all bitterly opposed Medicare in 1964-5 when it was being debated in Congress and passed into law, with the right, led by Ronald Reagan, calling it creeping socialism. It became a life-saver for the elderly and didn't turn the US into a soviet republic. Why should we give a tinker's damn what those same three industry groups and the Republican right think of expanding single-payer now?

10. The executives of Canadian subsidiaries of US companies all support Canada's single-payer system, and even lobby collectively to have it expanded and better funded. Why does Congress listen to the executives of the parent companies here at home, and not invite those Canadian execs down to explain why they like single-payer?

Don't let the Republican dirty tricks, misinformation and disinformation destroy this opportunity to fix the healthcare system just as they did to the Clinton plan in the early 1990's. Come on, America, you are smarter than that.

Monday, August 10, 2009

A Simple Explanation of Single Payer Healthcare

Elizabeth Kucininch gives a simple and reasonable explanation of single payer universal healthcare.

"HR-676 is really the policy that will stop this nonsense debate that goes on in Congress all the time. Its just disgusting what goes on in the presidential campaign....with all the other candidates. They try to spin that they are for universal healthcare. But what they are really for is for the for-profit system to remain in control. So you can continue to pay premiums co-payments and deductibles, with the option of the for insurance companies not to cover you, and if you can't afford the premiums co-payments and deductibles, it's ok the government will subsidize you. Well whop-tee-do. Then you get more of your tax dollars going into the the for profit system, it doesn't put caps on that, it doesn't keep the expenses down, it raises it up, and again we start to bankrupt government. These are policies for people who don't want to see government working for people. I want to see a government that represents people."

Saturday, August 1, 2009

The Democrats Strike Back! House Vote on Single Payer

Congressman Anthony Weiner

WHY DO WE NEED HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES?

Fed up with the propaganda and misinformation being spread at the tune of over $1.3 million per day by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, as well as resistance at every step of the way by the Republican Party which seems to think that stopping healthcare reform in American will somehow destroy the Obama administration, Nancy Pelosi has decided to strike back.

First, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), hoping to force the GOP to put up or shut up on health reform, introduced an amendment Thursday night that would have repealed medicare, thereby forcing Republicans to show their support for the largest form of government-run healthcare in the U.S. Speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Thursday broadcast, he took his point even further and wondered aloud why America even needs health insurance companies. “What we’ve learned is that government-administered healthcare works pretty darn well,” he told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday. “It’s got low overhead and people like it. So, when my colleagues pound the drum and pound the podium about how they hate government-run healthcare, I guess they haven’t looked at what they get.”

The congressman added that he believes medicare works so well and is so simple that America does not need the health insurance companies at all. “Why do we even need the insurance companies?” he asked. “What constructive role are they playing? They’re taking tens of billions of dollars each year and putting that into profits when that should have been going into healthcare.”

He declared that only a “true single-payer system” will work and said he plans to introduce legislation that would accomplish those ends. “It’s simpler and we know it works,” he said.

PELOSI PROMISES HOUSE VOTE ON SINGLE PAYER

In a surprising development Friday evening, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promised to allow a debate and vote on a single-payer plan for health care reform.

The promise was made after Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) agreed to withdraw a proposed amendment to create a universal Medicare system for the entire nation.

According to the New York Daily News, “The Brooklyn-Queens Rep. looked a little surprised when Chairman Henry Waxman said Pelosi would allow that vote, and made Waxman repeat the deal to be sure it was clear and on the record. It’s an especially big deal for advocates of a single health care system — who see it as cheaper and simpler than the complicated measure being drawn up — because they have been complaining that they have not even been able to get an airing of their position.”

The development came as the House Energy and Commerce Committee was meeting to finalize its own version of health care legislation, which passed by a vote of 31-28, with five Democratic members of the committee and all Republicans opposed.

As reported by the Associated Press, “the committee agreed to cap increases in the cost of insurance sold under the bill, and also to give the federal government authority to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare.”

source: RAW STORY

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Uninsured Desperate for Healthcare

Jul 22 - As congress debates overhauling the U.S. healthcare system, Americans with and without health insurance struggle to protect themselves.

source: REUTERS

Monday, July 20, 2009

GOP Plan: Force Poor to Buy Worthless Insurance

Republican Healthcare Plan:
DON'T GET SICK!

While the pharmaceutical industry spends over $1 million PER DAY to spread misinformation and disinformation about President Obama's proposed health care plan despite the fact that nobody has seen the final version, the Republican Party, the party of NO, has finally come up with an idea.

Republican Senator Judd Gregg, Obama's erstwhile nominee for Commerce Secretary, has offered his solution to this crisis. He wants to force the poor to purchase inexpensive HIGH DEDUCTIBLE plans which will not cover the "insured" unless they are able to come up with the $5,000 to $25,000 deductibles, upfront. He gets even more bizarre, but why not just listen to this wingnut?

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Michael Moore's "Sicko" Hit the Nail on the Head

In an interview with PBS's Bill Moyers, a former insurance executive reveals a secret plan by the insurance industry to discredit Michael Moore's health care documentary, 'Sicko,' that also included lobbyists threatening negative, attack-style ads aimed at politicians supporting the formation of a government sponsored public health care option during election campaigns.

Wendell Potter, former Head of Corporate Communications at CIGNA (which provides health insurance to nearly 70 percent of the Fortune 100 companies) admits that, in fact, "Sicko" "hit the nail on the head" and told the real truth about how much better people in other countries have it when it comes to their health care.

In his first television interview since leaving the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter tells Bill Moyers why he left his successful career as the head of Public Relations for CIGNA, one of the nation's largest insurers, and decided to speak out against the industry. "I didn't intend to [speak out], until it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they've used over the years, and particularly back in the early '90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan."

Part One:

Part Two, this portion of the interview is where Potter talks about ithe insurance industry strategies of discrediting Michael Moore:

Now that the truth has come out and the insurance industry's efforts to destroy healthcare and discredit Michael Moore's efforts to inform the public about the truth regarding our healthcare system, we feel it is our duty to provide you the opportunity to view the film "SICKO" in its entirety. Enjoy:

SICKO by MICHAEL MOORE

Friday, June 5, 2009

Obama Proposes National Public Healthcare Plan

Since taking office, President Obama hasn't said much about a key plank of health care reform—the public health insurance option. Some worried he had backed off from his support of it. Yesterday, all that changed. Obama said: "I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest."

This is a huge deal. It's Obama using some of his massive political capital to take a crucial stand. And it's going to make a bunch of Republicans and insurance company lobbyists pretty angry at him. In fact, they're spending $20 million to crush this key part of his plan. A public health insurance option is the heart of real health care reform.

The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee — a moderate who is seen as the leading figure on Congressional proposals to create a national healthcare mandate — says that his bill is almost certain to include a public healthcare option, in a blow to the managed care industry and a possible major victory for progressives.

“I think a bill that passes the Senate will have some version of a public option,” said Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Chairman. His remarks come two days after President Barack Obama signaled in a letter that a public competitor to the private health insurance companies was a key part of his agenda.

Of course, the measure will still have to pass the full Senate. Republicans are vehemently opposed to a public healthcare plan, saying it will interfere with the markets and handicap existing private insurance companies.

“Despite the happy talk from the four Senators about progress and compromise, Baucus’ concession that a government-run, public insurance option will likely be included in the reform bill could sink its bipartisan support,” Roll Call’s David Drucker wrote late Thursday. “Additional items are also making compromise difficult, including the issues of government mandates and how to pay for it.”

“Our caucus is very much against [a public plan.] It’s kind of a litmus test,” ranking Senate Finance Committee Republican Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said. “That’s all you can say. There’s no follow-up question that you can ask me. There’s no further statement I can make about it.”

The creation of a public healthcare option could revolutionize health care in America. As the President also said yesterday, "In 2009, health care reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity we cannot defer."

SOURCE: RawStory

CLICK HERE

to Play YOU BET YOUR HEALTH

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Public Health Insurance Option Key to Obama Healthcare Plan

If Congress passes Obama's plan and Americans are given the choice of a public health insurance option similar to Medicare, we could all save up to 30% on our health care premiums. That's a huge savings, and we'd still get high-quality coverage and be able to choose our doctors.

And even if you choose to keep your current insurance, you'd save anyway. HMOs and big insurance companies are the only game in town right now—so they overcharge us to boost profits and pay out CEO bonuses. If Obama's plan passes, they'd have to compete with it, and their prices would have to be more honest.

Lower premiums for us means lower profits for them, so insurance companies are putting extreme pressure on Congress to drop the public health insurance option. But Americans deserve to have this choice—and it's necessary to help rein in out-of-control health care costs.

Imagine how different things would be if we all had quality health care that costs up to 30% less than what we're paying now. Would you use the money toward college for a child? A safe retirement? Or maybe you'll finally be able to afford the treatment or medicines you need.

The simple truth is that having the choice of a public health insurance option would make all of our lives better. Here's why:

Health care costs are spiraling out of control. From 2000 to 2008, health insurance premiums increased five times faster than wages.

A public health insurance option would provide an affordable, quality alternative. Two new studies show that Americans could save 25% or more off of a traditional private plan. The New York Times says this would "keep the private plans honest."They'll have to lower rates and offer better value to compete.

Plus, a public health insurance option would be reliable coverage for all.

Private insurers are notorious for dumping people with little notice. A public option would allow consumers who've been dropped—or just don't like their current coverage—to switch to a steady public choice.

Thankfully, the public health insurance option is gaining steam in Congress. The 77-member Progressive Caucus recently endorsed the policy. And the chairmen of five critical congressional committees came out in support. Now we need to get the rest of Washington on board. Click below to

Tell Congress how the choice would help you.

Sources:

1."The Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System," The Commonwealth Fund, February 19, 2009

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51221&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=5

2. "Health Insurance Costs Outpace Wages," WebMD, October 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51311&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=6

3."The Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System," The Commonwealth Fund, February 19, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51221&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=7

"The Cost and Coverage Impacts of a Public Plan: Alternative Design Options," The Lewin Group, April 6, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51315&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=8

4."A Public Plan for Health Insurance?" The New York Times, April 6, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07tue1.html

5. "Obama Should Offer Public Health Insurance to All," The Progressive, March 13, 2009
http://www.progressive.org/mag/mpcastellblanch031309.html

6. "Progressive Caucus Draws a Line on Health Care," Open Left, April 2, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51313&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=9

7. "Democrats Agree on a Health Plan: Now Comes the Hard Part," New York Times, March 31, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51314&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=10

Monday, March 30, 2009

The American Health Security Act of 2009

Universal Healthcare

While the one reform that could cure what ails America's health care system has attracted plenty of adherents in the House -- 72 members have signed on as backers of House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers' single-payer proposal and others back a plan introduced by Washington Democrat Jim McDermott's legislation -- there has not been a Senate proposal to rally around. Until now.

That's what makes Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' proposed "American Health Security Act of 2009" such an important piece of legislation. In addition to being the first single-payer bill introduced in the Senate since the mid-1990s -- when the late Paul Wellstone, D-Minnesota, sponsored a bill similar to the plan now being advanced by Sanders -- it raises the profile of the doctors, nurses, patients and other campaigners who are trying to tell the Obama administration and its congressional allies that the legislative compromises they entertain are doomed to fail.

Under the American Health Security Act of 2009:

Patients could seek care from the doctor or hospital of their choice.
The new national health care program would be paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new taxes amounting to less than what people now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
Funding would come from the federal government, but the program would be administered by the states.
The high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry would be eliminated, along with the burdensome paperwork imposed on physicians and other providers. As a result, the plan would save at least $400 billion annually – enough money to provide comprehensive, quality care to all.
Community health centers would be fully funded, giving the 60 million Americans now living in rural and underserved areas access to care.
To address the critical shortage of primary care physicians and dentists, resources for the National Health Service Corps to train an additional 24,000 health professionals would be provided.

CLICK TO READ COMPLETE STORY AT THE NATION.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Please Tell the Republicans to Just SHUT UP

The Faces of Dissent in America

When the Bush administration came to power, we were facing budget surpluses so large that we were within paying off the entire deficit in about 10 years. Budget surplus projections went far into the future. Bush immediately cut taxes and gave the money to his base and his donors, increased spending by massive amounts, and started a war based upon lies that was and still is funded entirely with borrowed money. He intentionally left our borders unprotected and encouraged corporations to outsource their high paying jobs through tax incentives. He cut taxes during time of war (something no President has ever done) and did everything he could to eliminate the middle class and achieve the goal of his grandfather Prescott that was to establish a global economy by making the U.S. the equivalent of a third world country. He was wildly successful.

In my opinion, it was a calculated decision to bankrupt the economy and to destroy the very social programs that President Obama is trying so hard to grow. The banking fiasco has it's roots in the deregulation craze of the overrated and overhyped Reagan Administration, then took off under George W. Bush. To blame the current administration for this mess is not only unbelievable, but disingenuous and untrue. American taxpayers became part owners of the banking system in the last months of the Bush administration---BEFORE Obama had ever made a decision--and now these Republican so-called patriots are calling Obama's proposal to get us out of this mess "Socialist". The mess is real, the deficit of the last 8 years tragic, and the challenges before our new President are enormous.

To deal with our economy, two wars, failing education, healthcare, an energy system that is bound to fail without real change, a job market that claims 12% unemployment but that all knowledgeable people realize may well be double that if the government would ever get around to counting those whose benefits have run out, will take someone who has an enormous ability to multi-task, a word that is foreign to Republicans who for eight years, followed their single syllable President like sheep, a man who was unable to think and chew gum at the same time; a man who embarrassed this country at home and abroad with his stupidity and lack of grace.

You guys know who you are. You are Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh, the hypocritical radio personality with an ego the size of Jupiter and a heart that has yet to be discovered. This glorified disc jockey has told his fervent Republican followers that he "wants Obama to fail", yet he tries to color his hate-filled words with a desire to improve this country. B.S., Rush. You want to improve your ratings, period.

Then there is the Emperor of Evil, John Boehner, who sports a voting record just to the right of Attila the Hun and whose glare and negative persona reveal a walking, talking right wing Zombie.

Finally, there is the Ancient One, John McCain, the losing candidate for the Presidency who demonstrated his standing of 894 from a class of 899, by running a comical campaign and his decision making abilities by selecting the worldly Sarah the Mayor, and insisting that "the principles of our economy are strong".

The American people can be thankful for one thing. The Republican Party has earned its way into obscurity and with "leaders" like these, will soon be there.

In President Obama we have a man capable of handling many important issues at once. If there was only one or two critical problems to deal with it would be different, but with the war, economy, jobs, education, healthcare, energy, etc., as all problems that MUST be handled effectively immediately, he is the answer to the prayers of America. He explained it through his press secretary this way:

If your house is on fire, all the rooms are important. Do you just save the living room and perhaps the kitchen? That seems to be the Republican plan. They are scared to death to act. Obama instead intends to gather all his forces and attack the fire all at once in an attempt to save the entire house, or NATION.

As the greatest drug dealer of all time once said: "READ MY LIPS". To all Republicans. If you can't participate as co-partners in this effort to restore America's greatness, then SHUT UP and stay the hell out of his way. Your type of patriotism makes me sick.

The Candid Blogger

Thoughts on Voting