Re: [UC] Best coverage... more...

[Glenn moyer]

Rick,

Ask yourself, who would the American people have supported if the well-intentioned democrats had allowed and championed a real health care policy debate? The people gave them a landslide victory and control of the house, senate, and executive branches.  The idiocy of the Sarah Palins would have been laughed at in the midst of an honest debate treating the majority of Americans like mature adults. 

 Real health care experts will always win against advocates of a profit based system, whenever a real and honest data driven policy debate takes place.  The evidence is not even close.  The blue dogs would have put their tails between their legs, but of course, that is not what happened.

That is why I point to the very "health care reform committee" that the well-intentioned democrats controlled and steadfastly defended.  They controlled the debate and they would not allow real health reform experts a seat at the table nor a forum to advocate for universal healthcare. That is crucially important.  It simply has nothing to do with Republicans, because the democrats completely controlled that corporate committee that unveiled Romneycare as Obamacare. .

 It's exactly the same unacceptable anti-democratic coup that we saw piloted here a decade ago, when UCD and the civic associations announced a hand picked steering committee to redesign Clark Park.  They lied about inviting all the stakeholders to the table, and offered a list of all the local corporations and universities as the entirety of "the community."  And when confronted about the closed, exclusive, secretive, corporate committee, they did not make amends and open the committee or allow transparency.  Instead they used ad hominem attacks against dissenters, just like Rahm Emanual called health reformers, "fucking retards."  The fake committee already had a pre-conceived plot and could not allow an honest public debate.  It's identical.

The well-intentioned democrats would never have needed to do anything except allow a real health reform policy debate to go in front of the American people.  The people were expecting the democrats to champion health reform. They gave the democrats the power and backing to do so, but the democrats would not even allow the debate when they had the power. When any entity uses deception to hide an antidemocratic exclusive process, and then refuses to open the process when caught, they actually lose their credibility at that point.  Expecting "good" results from such an unfair process is referred to in addiction literature as "wishful thinking."    

These fundamental concepts and processes of democracy aren't window dressing. They are absolutely required to allow for open and honest debate.  (By the way, I read a report about a year ago, documenting how many of the power brokers around the Bacchus committee had been rewarded with lucrative jobs in the health care industrial complex.)

If we support unfair processes and deceptions, we turn our backs on principles and descend into a culture no different than a street gang.  Loyalty to the leadership rather than to principles is the difference between gang processes and acceptable democratic processes. All we need do is watch the idiocy of Fox News and MSNBC to see gangland posturing!      

Please don't get me wrong, I and other single payer activists, really want Obamacare to live up to the promises of the democrats and benefit the American people!!! I sincerely hope you are right to support this plan of the Republican think tanks.  But when I go over the data in front of me, with all sincerity, I am quite certain it will not.

Sincerely,

Glenn  

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Conrad
Sent: Nov 4, 2013 11:34 AM
To: Glenn moyer
Cc: "William H. Magill" , "Mr. Craig Melidosian" , "univcity@list.purple.com"
Subject: Re: [UC] Best coverage... more...

On Nov 4, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Glenn moyer <glen...@earthlink.net> wrote:

And back to Magill's statement.  The democrats could have placed a bill before the American people with this statement, "Medicare will be extended to all Americans at birth" on the first day of Obama's presidency.  The American people had given the democrats the mandate and the power to do so!  The American people would have supported Obama and the democrats to enact a single payer system like most of the world has adopted, except the countries whose governments have been overthrown by the international war industry!

During the two years the democrats had power, it seemed like they did not address the many serious issues many supporters believed they would, and seemed to be focused on a huge complicated fake debate around healthcare reform.  Honestly, it seemed to me that the marketing of the Obama campaign had been so successful that the democrats were deliberately wasting time until the Republicans could retake the House and the media could sing about partisan gridlock.

Dear Glenn,  

While I largely feel sympathy with the second paragraph, I could not disagree more strongly with the first.  

Blue Dog Democrats in many cases acted like or even worse than the core Republicans, and the Koch inspired ‘tea partiers’ threats -  with the (Republican controlled) Supreme Court having hugely enhanced and unleashed the previously regulated abilities of Republican States’ officials, corporate $$$, and even secreted influences by foreign powers… all this and more stood in the way of the better minded and frequently well-intentioned core of the Democrats.  

Magill ALSO seems to forget (or hide the fact) that the Supreme Court which gave Bush the election that Gore had just won... still reigned (supreme)… and TWO OUT OF THREE is not by any means, an unchecked or unbalanced domination.

We certainly could improve the rosters of both parties… but as you’ve agreed, there is a MAJOR difference between them.

Sincerely,  Rick Conrad

---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .