We watch as Stephen turns from an able-bodied carpenter to a person unable to use his hands.  From conceiving his own child to imagining a third person in the bedroom to help satisfy his wife.  From an outspoken jester to a man with increasingly slurred speech…until it leaves him altogether.  The last glimpse we see of Stephen, he is on a permanent respirator and only able to communicate through the pushing of buttons located on his wheelchair’s headrest.  It is a sad and debilitating disease.  At one point, Stephen denies he is a fighter, but the dignity and grace he showed in the face of such a grim prognosis proves him otherwise.

Yet, the movie is not only about him.  It is equally about his family, and in particular his brother Jamie.  When discovering the illness faced by his brother, Jamie quits his day job and establishes a foundation to find a cure for his brother in time to save his life.  Similar to the ruthlessness that the disease attacks Stephen’s body, Jamie attacks his new vocation.

Jamie faces ridicule from peers who conduct their research in a more conventional manner due to his cavalier approach, from those who provide him with the foundation’s funding due to his excessive spending, and from his very own wife for his inattention to their relationship.  Jamie’s focus and aggressiveness is admirable, but you can’t help but believe he is in a losing battle against the disease and his own well being.

However, the real hero in the movie is Stephen, who faces a certain ending with dignity, humor, and voice for life.  3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

The Kulas Rating Guide:

• One Star:  If I believed in burning books or movies, please find the nearest burning bush;
• Two Stars:  Don’t burn it, but don’t watch it;
• Three Stars:  Average…if you are bored and have it, you could watch it…but, there probably is a good book somewhere you would enjoy much more;
• Four Stars:  Find it, watch it, enjoy it. 
• Five Stars:  If you miss this movie, you truly are not a “movie buff.”  Stop what you are doing, get this movie, and watch it now!!!

http://liberalrag.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/feeling-sick-yet-an-examination-of-americas-health-care-system-part-iv/

In order to receive insurance coverage, you are required to pay into a collective pool established by the insurer for the benefit of the whole group.  Yet, these health insurance companies bilk billions in profits from its consumers and use it to pay shareholders, executives, and to cover their behinds in the latest corporate scandal (e.g.,  Unitedhealth Group).  These billions of dollars would be better served remaining in the health care industry to insure the uninsured, providing better care and facilities, and streamlining the administration of claims.  Instead, those billions are pulled out of the system and the money we all have paid is never returned to us in services.

Are their better options out there for the United States to emulate?  Undeniably, yes.  Today, there is only one industrialized country which fails to provide all its citizens with basic health care coverage.  That one country also happens to be the wealthiest nation to have ever existed.  That means the United States is only lagging Germany by about 125 years, as they were the first country in the world to mandate health insurance in 1883.  Yet, Germany is certainly not alone.  Countries with universal health care include:

Japan, Kuwait, India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, Israel, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Singapore, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia (not the Georgia represented by Saxby Chambliss, of course), Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and many many more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

One country, Canada, in my opinion, has the best approach.  I like Canada’s solution because:

1. It is probably the most easily understood of all the universal health care systems.  This is no small accomplishment when attempting to dumb it down for American consumption.  In fact, I believe one of the great failures of HilaryCare, as it is now infamously known, was the fact it was impossible to understand and explain.  If your target audience doesn’t understand what you are trying to do for them, they will think you are trying to do it to them;
2. The Canadian system outperforms the American system in virtually any meaningful statistic used in evaluating a national health care system.  Actually, this fact is not uncommon when comparing the United States’ health care system to any universal health care system throughout the world.  I will analyze many of these statistical facts in future installments.  So, I guess in the end, I like Canada’s system because it is so easy for this dumb American to understand.

The Canadians have implemented a single-payer system.  It is basically socialized health insurance.  Their government, as administered through each individual province, is the health insurer for each citizen.  The government pays its private doctors and private and public hospitals on a fee for service basis.  Essentially, think of Unitedhealth Group without the loss of billions of dollars to executives, corruption, and lobbying efforts.  Canadians are not faced with health care coverage decisions tied to employment, so they may quit and accept another job or move across the country without fear of losing insurance for their family.  Of course, this system is easily adaptable for use in America and the various states, which could model Canada andits various provinces. 

I’m not alone in advocating a Canadian style single payer system in the United States.  People a lot smarter than me have chimed in as well…and not all of them are your usual left-wing suspects, like me.  Physicians for a National Health Program (“PNHP”) is a leading advocate of a single-payer system.  PNHP has an organization of 15,000 members made up of physicians, medical students, and health professionals.  These are the exact Americans who treat patients and witness the ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of the current system on a daily basis.  I tend to trust their recommendations more than a Unitedhealth Group lobbyist, Rush Limbaugh, or Norm Coleman:

 http://www.pnhp.org/

Over the coming installments on this issue, I will show how the Canadian system is superior to the American national health care system.  Is a single payer system perfect?  No.  Can we improve upon the Canadian model?  Probably.  But, one thing I know for certain;  a single payer Canadian type approach is infinitely better than the broken system currently utilized by the United States.

http://liberalrag.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/feeling-sick-yet-an-examination-of-americas-health-care-system-part-iii/

I have shown how Republicans, in their endless compulsion to label, have effectively demonized universal health care as socialized medicine.  Yet, I have shown how our private health insurance companies continue to adopt socialism as their economic model in the way they require contributions from every individual, not based on need or services rendered, but based on the need of the collective group.

I have discussed the reasons behind the Republicans’ scare tactics by examining just one company, Unitedhealth Group.  Billions in profits, millions more in executive compensation, and still millions more wasted on corporate and CEO malfeasance.  That money is taken out of the hands of consumers and placed in the backpockets of the wealthy.  Instead of using those billions more wisely to provide requisite services, focusing on preventative medicine, and insuring all Americans, the money instead is lost down a cesspool of corporate greed and corruption. 

If you will permit, I would like one additional big picture day, before I begin to compare and contrast America’s health care system and its results with the rest of the world.  I want this one additional day to address the question of whether health care in the United States should properly be considered a right or a responsibility.  That was the exact question posed to the candidates at one of the three presidential debates this year.  Neither of them answered it sufficiently:

Grandpa McCain, in between his free of charge colonoscopies and cancer screenings, stated that health care in the United States was a responsibility.  Meaning, every single individual was “responsible” for ensuring they could gain access to affordable health insurance.  Only in the Christian right-wing orthodoxy could someone advocate forcing all pregnancies to term, then in their next breath state that a newly born infant was somehow responsible for finding health insurance.  I realize that my summation of McCain’s response is taking his position to the extreme, but it isn’t an extreme for many Republicans who advocate the abolition of Medicaid and Social Security.  How anyone calling themselves a Christian can support such an immoral stance is beyond me.

On the flip side, Obama clearly intoned that health care is a right afforded every American citizen.  He has support for his answer by many on the left, including Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jesse-jackson-jr/building-a-new-wall-the-f_b_146606.html

Jackson advocates a Constitutional Amendment codifying a basic right to health care for every American.  While I do not necessarily believe such an Amendment is required to recognize that the document does inherently afford each and every American such protection, Jackson’s position correctly points out that placing it explicitly in the Constitution prevents subsequent governments from taking the right away without amending the Constitution a second time.  Let’s not forget that the Constitution was previously amended to prohibit the sale, manufacture, and transportation of another much less consequential commodity, which was later repealed (i.e., liquor).

To me, health care is a right and a responsibility.  As I watched that debate, I sat quietly and listened to McCain.  I knew his answer would lack any reason or coherence.  I rose from the couch as Obama began to talk, thinking, incorrectly, that he would nail the response by providing an answer noting the dual necessity for thinking of health care as a right and responsibility.  Instead he failed as well, and I unleashed a trail of expletives usually only reserved for the current head coach of the Minnesota Vikings on any random Sunday.

Yes, health care is both a right and a responsibility.  It is a right in that any nation purportedly representing the equality of all its citizens must recognize that the one factor potentially placing even the newest of its citizens at a decided disadvantage is the lack of access to affordable health care.  How can a child viewed as an equal to another, when the first is lacking proper immunizations?  How can one child who loses her mother to a preventable disease be on equal footing to another child from a wealthy family with access to the best doctors and hospitals?  Access to health care is one area where we as a society can guarantee everyone is competing from a level playing field.  In that respect, it is a right inherent in our Constitution. 

Yet, it is a responsibility in that Americans need to take ownership of their family’s health.  Grossly obese children is pandemic in the United States.  People don’t eat properly and working out has become anathema to a busy and involved populace.  Trigger locks should be made mandatory on guns.  Even more public pressure should be directed at people to give up their cigarettes.  Nobody expects perfection and a bunch of hard bodies running around American streets.  I know I don’t need the distraction of more such women.  But, our leaders can and should demand more responsibility from the nation’s citizens.  After all, we already all pay for such overindulgence through the socialized private health care system.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/when_the_warmest_in_history_is.html

She, again, is wrong on an important issue affecting billions of people.  She appears to question man’s contribution to global warming.  She is actually claiming the Earth isn’t warming.  Usually, skeptics argue the Earth is warming due to natural causes beyond the control of humans.  She just blatantly lies and seems to indicate the Earth isn’t even warming.  In fact, in the past 15 years or so, we have seen the hottest annual temperatures ever recorded.  She claims that adjustments to NASA records actually showed 1934 was actually hotter than 1998 and 2005, which are in a virtual tie for hottest years on record.  But, what she fails to reveal is that this is a United States anomaly.  1934 is the hottest year on record in the United States, but that is like saying because Dumbfuck, Alabama, sets a new record low temperature on one particular July morning, climate change is bunk.  Why do some Americans think the world starts and ends within our borders?  Regardless of those change to NASA records, 1998 and 2005 are still the hottest years on record globally, not 1934.  A good book to read on the entire subject is The Hot Topic by Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King.  They are much more reliable than conservative kingpin Debra Saunders.

I’m so tired of conservatives lying or deceiving in order to build up their side of the truth.  Does it really build up their sense of self worth to use lies and deception to win an argument?  Look no further than money to determine a Conservative’s motivation.  Republicans represent industry, corporate America, defense contractors, polluters, and big money.  All those entities have a vested interest in polluting as much as possible.  All those entities contribute vast piles of cash to the GOP.  Liberals represent the air you breathe, the water you drink, the animals and plants increasingly dependent on us for their survival, etc.  There is no cash to be found in those constituencies. 

Debra Saunders is this weeks #1 environmental terrorist for lies and deception aimed at maintaining the status quo for poisoning our environment and children.  Congratulations!!!

http://liberalrag.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/feeling-sick-yet-an-examination-of-americas-health-care-system-part-ii/

In essence, all insurance programs work that way, as it is the only effective way of balancing risks and rewards for the company and the consumer.  So, if we obtain our insurance through private companies we are contributing our share in premiums for the collective good of all who contribute.  Regardless of whether we eat properly, work out regularly, and refuse to smoke, we still pay for the benefit of overweight drug addict slobs like Rush Limbaugh.  That is about as socialistic as it gets.  As I said in my previous entry, Republicans repeatedly claim that free markets and private enterprise are always right.  I say we take them at their word in this instance and socialize the entire health insurance industry.

Yet, those aren’t the only arguments why a socialistic model works when it comes to providing health insurance.  The reasons are numerous and I will explore them over future installments.  And, just like in other debates, the accusations thrown out by Republicans are deceptive and outright lies.  Again, they are the masters of scare tactics.  For example, their main argument against universal health care I’ve already debunked in these few short words.  Talk universal health care and the Pavlovian response from every inbred Republican is one word;  socialism.  It really isn’t their fault.  It’s almost a nervous tick.  So, despite the fact that all insurance is essentially “socialist” in nature, the Republican school of thought in responding to such suggestions is really without thought.  “Socialism,” they scream!  The rest of us should respond, “Yes,” and hand them a Kleenex.

Moving the responsibility of providing health insurance away from private companies to the government would have one big concomitant benefit.  It would remove all motivation for profit from the equation.  The push for profits, normally a beneficial thing, is contrary to what should be the nation’s primary goal in providing health insurance.  The health care provided a nation’s citizens should not be subject to the whims of the free market.

Let’s look at one company, Unitedhealth Group, Inc.  Here is their income statement from the previous year:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=UNH

In their quarter ending 09/30/2008, they had net income of nearly one billion dollars.  Yep, you read that right.  One billion dollars profit in one single quarter of business. 

Meaning, the health insurance premiums they received from everyday Americans and their employers was nowhere near met with equal services provided.  Is that what we want from our health insurance providers?  Profit at all costs?  They can accomplish such profits by:

1. Denying services where possible;
2. Refusing to insure “risky” consumers at every turn;
3. Requiring consumers to negotiate a myriad of restrictions and qualifications prior to obtaining health services;
4. Restricting doctors a consumer is qualified to see;
5. Requiring the imposition of additional fees, co-pays, deductibles, etc., which are hidden, until a patient is sick or requires medical attention.

Additionally, these profit factories pay their executives exorbitant salaries in the millions of dollars:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=UNH

As you can see from the link, more than one executive receives millions in compensation.  Which, of course, leads to the occasional free market scandal which has become so prevalent in today’s capitalist system:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080910/unitedhealth_mcguire.html?.v=3

So, billions in profits for health insurance companies and their shareholders.  Billions more for their executives and CEOs.  Billions more wasted on scandals in which the consumer and shareholders are cheated.  Placing the responsibility on government to provide health insurance would essentially remove all that wasted money.  Rather than billions on profits, salaries, and corruption, money spent for health care coverage could actually be provided to consumers in doctor’s visits, immunizations, preventative medicine, and universal coverage. 

The arguments in favor of universal coverage are nearly limitless.  I’ll continue to cover them and push Obama and his team to guarantee medical access to all Americans.  The time for such action was decades ago, but Republicans and their fears of socialism have stood in the way for thirty years.  Thirty years of wasted time and useless arguments.  No wonder they are on a sinking ship.

I can think of a host of movies I saw before 30 that made me laugh hysterically.  They included Planes, Trains & Automobiles, The Jerk, Stripes, There’s Something About Mary, Fargo, and the Graduate.  But, maybe today’s humor has been lost on me.

I wanted to see Tropic Thunder for a few reasons.  I heard it was funny.  I heard Tom Cruise delivered a side-splitting cameo (He was entertaining, but not gut-busting).  There were some minor controversies surrounding the depiction of the mentally disabled and Robert Downey Jr. playing an entire role in black face.

I found this film mildly humorous.  It had its moments, and in my opinion, the best involved Robert Downey Jr.  I’m far from advocating everyone adhere to my version of political correctness, therefore, the black face and black stereotypes displayed in the movie didn’t particularly bother me.  Nor did the depiction of Ben Stiller playing a mentally disabled stable boy.  In fact, the funniest portion of the movie came when the two politically incorrect moments were mixed together.  Downey had a hilarious routine where his character offered a stinging critique of Ben Stiller’s character’s choice of a role that went “full retard.” 

In the end, this movie isn’t really even poking fun at African-Americans nor the mentally challenged.  It is really poking the entire Hollywood movie making industry in the ribs.  From its depiction of agents demanding their clients receive Tivo in the middle of the jungle set, and studio executives displaying their God complex, to each actor believing the entire movie revolves around them and their role. 

I enjoyed it, but it wasn’t a classic.  3 1/2 stars out of five.

The Kulas Rating Guide:

• One Star:  If I believed in burning books or movies, please find the nearest burning bush;
• Two Stars:  Don’t burn it, but don’t watch it;
• Three Stars:  Average…if you are bored and have it, you could watch it…but, there probably is a good book somewhere you would enjoy much more;
• Four Stars:  Find it, watch it, enjoy it. 
• Five Stars:  If you miss this movie, you truly are not a “movie buff.”  Stop what you are doing, get this movie, and watch it now!!!

1.  The love of my daughter and wife;

2.  The opportunity to love them both back;

3.  A good job with a good company in these trying times;

4.  The fact I got laid before ever even getting out of bed on Thanksgiving morning;

5.  That I live in the greatest country in the world;

6.  The opportunity to vote for Barack Obama;

7.  George Bush is almost done;

8.  My health;

9.  Peanut M & Ms;

10.  The transparency of America’s electoral system.  Has anyone checked this out?  You can actually see challenged ballots from the Minnesota Senate election and track who should receive the vote for each ballot.  They have about 600 of the over 5000 challenged ballots on the Star Tribune website.  I’ve done 90, thusfar.  So far, I’ve given 40 of the ballots to Coleman, 37 to Franken, and 13 to other/none.  Not good for my candidate, but how many other countries would even afford me that opportunity?

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/

11.  Did I mention I got laid this morning?

Happy Thanksgiving!!

The socialist label became a very familiar refrain in Republican circles this year.  Fox News, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and nearly every other Republican tried to scare the pants off every American voter by alleging the socialists were here to take over the country.  But, in a year when so many Americans have already been stripped of their pants and were down to their underwear due to Republican economic injustices, those scare tactics were not as effective in 2008.

The socialist label was thrown out largely in response to Obama’s plan to raise taxes on persons making $250,000 or more.  Because of the economic crisis enveloping the whole world, health care was rarely discussed in the campaign.  But, when that topic is broached again in the coming year or two, you can bet your increasing deductible payment that Republicans are ready with their label making machine.  They’ll stamp “socialism” on the end of every sentence when discussing health care plans.  They may send out pictures of Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama wearing pink in an attempt to raise the spectre of communism, with a hint of man-love thrown in for good measure.  Republicans are the masters of this game.  But, remember, it’s the only game they have.  They are desperate to maintain the current system, as they are Conservatives to the core.  They abhor change.  Why stop banging your forehead against the wall after 30 years of hard knocks, especially when you have friends stuffing your back pockets full of cash after every lump inducing smack?

Republicans may abhor change, but I abhor labels.  They demean our national debate.  In fact, they serve to stop all debate, before it can even begin.  If a person sticks another with a detestable name, there is no possible way that they can save face and swallow an unpalatable idea at some future date.  So, they effectively boxed themselves into a position based on the fact they haven’t progressed beyond second grade, when name calling was en vogue. 

But, there are more substantive reasons for decrying labels.  For instance, what does the term socialism mean?  If you ask ten different people, you will most likely receive ten different answers.  Some, led by Sarah Palin, will offer some overly simplistic definition that it entails a loss of freedom.  As if socialism was diametrically opposed to democratic principles.  Many Americans incorrectly believe a move to socialism means they will lose their First Amendment rights, their make-believe individual Second Amendment rights, their right to vote, etc.  This is a direct result of the person offering the label failing to appropriately define the term as well as the person accepting the label to demand such a definition.  But, that is the exact intent of the person using the label.  They don’t wish to define the term, as that would subject their definition to review for accuracy.  Rather, they want members of the public to create their own definition for which the accuser will never be held accountable. 

So, what is the definition of socialism, or at least the socialism for which Republicans accused Barack Obama of acceding to during the campaign?  I don’t believe Obama has called for complete abolition of private enterprise, nor do I think Republicans accused him of such ideas.  Therefore, they weren’t, in effect, calling him a communist.  Since, all communists are socialists, but not vice versa, it is an important distinction.  Rather, I believe, they were calling some of his ideas socialist in nature.  Meaning, they accused him of supporting government, or collective, intervention in a sphere of society they believe is better left to private entities.  For example, Obama proposed to raise taxes.  Never mind that raising the taxes necessary to pay for programs already implemented, yet never funded, under Republican reign is an act of moral righteousness.  Their Conservative ideology tells them that individuals are better able to spend their money than the government.  Therefore, the government taking extra income away from upper income Americans to pay for existing and past due debts is tantamount to socialism in their myopic view.  I think it is fair to say that those same Republicans would call any government intervention in the health care insurance industry as a step toward socialism.  And, I think that assumption is fair given our established definition.  But, is a move toward nationalizing America’s health insurance industry the wrong approach?

If you ask, most Americans would probably answer that socialism is not an economic theory to which the United States should prescribe.  Americans generally believe that a capitalist system based on competition and free and fair open-markets is the best economic model created.  They wouldn’t be wrong in that observation.  Yet, concluding that any socialist program is unworkable is equally incorrect.  Ask those same Americans who should perform the following tasks, individuals or the government:

1. Educating our children;
2. Building roads and interstate highway system;
3. Safeguarding our environment and public lands;
4. Defending our nation from foreign and domestic threats;
5. Responding to natural and man-made disasters;
6. Testing our food supply and the imported toys used by our children;  and
7. Regulating industry, including the mortgage industry.

I think most Americans would agree that all of those activities, and more, are better performed collectively through government intervention.  Additionally, although it may not always seem apparent, sharing the costs of these activities with the rest of the nation’s taxpayers is a more cost effective approach than each individual performing these tasks alone.  While a person with no children may take exception to the cost effective argument, the childless taxpayer must realize they benefit many times over from having a nation of educated, productive, and literate citizens that are able to work, pay taxes, raise their own children, and not burden society.

So, should the providing of health insurance remain a capitalist, private enterprise, free market endeavor, or should government intervene to ensure a more collective approach?  I’ll answer that question over coming days with facts showing nations with a universal health care system have better results and are more cost effective than the American health care system.  I’ll show that those countries receive better results and save money simply because they have adopted a socialistic universal health care system.  But, one thing that I have never seen addressed is the ironic fact that the American private health care insurers have adopted a socialistic economic model to provide health insurance to their customers.

Health care services in this country are not provided in a manner that consumers pay for the services they receive.  My wife and I go to the gym five days a week and eat healthy, but my pay is docked just as much as the Republican in my office who is one hundred pounds overweight and eats donuts and Egg McMuffins every morning.  How does that make any sense?  Because the insurance companies have correctly figured out that the only economic model that will work is a socialist one whereby we all pay into a pool.  Our payments into the pool are not necessarily for the benefit of us, but for the benefit of the overall group.  Some people take more than they provide.  My family takes less than we provide.  Again, it’s not fair or individualistic.  Rather, it is collective, socialist, and the only way in which it will work.

So, if we are to believe that private enterprise always finds the most efficient and utilitarian mode of providing goods and services, then it is abundantly obvious that health insurance services are best provided through an economic system appropriately identified as socialist.  Therefore, my right-wing Republican friends and I are in agreement.  Capitalism proves socialism works for providing a nation’s health care insurance benefits. 

More to come!!

Next, I’ll turn my attention to health care.  This subject was debated repeatedly during the Democratic primaries.  But, due in large part to the economic crisis perpetrated by the Republicans, health care was mostly an after thought during the general election campaign.  Yet, our increasing expenditures for the nation’s health care system are intimately intertwined with the illness afflicting our economic well being. 

America’s health care system is another issue upon which Republicans continually lie and deceive American voters in order to increase the enrichment of their base, in this case the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  But, as I’ve stated before, Americans are too easily persuaded by deception and fear.  They don’t care enough about their future or that of their children and grandchildren to investigate and separate fact from fiction.  Too often, Americans go for the easy sound bite pitting us against them.

On the other side, Democrats again and again fail to make their case in a persuasive manner.  They need to come to the table with undeniable facts.  They need to present the country with a proposal for bold action.  Too often, Democrats come to the table with their own hidden agenda, secreted away in some private think tank a la Hillary Clinton in the early 1990s.  The facts are on the side of universal health care coverage, and I will prove it over the coming days, so there is no need for secretive societies.  Or, Democrats advance some piecemeal approach that gets so watered down through compromising negotiations that it dies a quick and justifiable death down the drain of Congressional lobbying.

So, the only group capable of advancing this issue with an honest fact-based approach is the true liberal warrior.  I still have major doubts on whether Obama is the person to advance such an agenda.  I’m fearful of his desire and willingness to negotiate with the other side, who openly represents the monied interests in this debate.  Now is the time, when the Republican brand is on life support, to stick their collective necks in the turkey execution machine, slit their throats, and pass a universal health care package that our children and grandchildren will take pride in decades from now. 

So, I’ll examine why the free market capitalist approach doesn’t work in providing health insurance compared to a socialistic model.  I’ll discuss whether health care is a right or a responsibility, a question placed to McCain and Obama during one debate.  I’ll examine how various socialistic models actually outperform the American system based on private insurance.  I’ll show how the socialistic models actually cost less than our private system.

Our nation is in big trouble.  Our system of governance is unsustainable.  We can’t continue to go forward in a similar vein as the past thirty years.  The Republican model of governance has infected us all.  Hopefully, it is still curable.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081124/economy.html

In order to stem the tide, Obama and the Democrats are now contemplating an economic stimulus package of up to $700 billion.  The bailout and rescue numbers have officially become meaningless.  A trillion here and a trillion there.  Some money for you and a whole bunch of money for them.  In the end, however, look at your children and grandchildren and apologize.  They are the ones who will pay our bills.  Our gross abuse of future generations has become unconscionable.

On top of all this, Obama is now wavering on his campaign pledges regarding taxes, but not in the manner most Republicans predicted.  Apparently, Obama may not immediately raise taxes on those making over $250,000.  Joe the Plumber’s monopoly money is safe from government confiscation after all.  See all these little nuggets of information within the following article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/24/obama-to-introduce-his-ec_n_145969.html

Not immediately raising the upper income tax rates is a huge mistake.  As I’ve addressed in the Liberal Rag before, we no longer have the option of cutting taxes for lower and middle income Americans without raising them on wealthier Americans.  No longer can we push our burdens onto future Americans.

So, repeating what I have written earlier, my suggested plan is as follows.  Taking the 2008 tax rates for married couples filing jointly:

http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm

I would make the following amendments:

• Reduce the first income tax bracket from 10% to 0%.  Meaning, for every family with at least $16,050.00 of taxable income, they would immediately see a $1,605.00 tax reduction.  This would benefit most Americans from main street to Bill Gates equally.  Additionally, because most Americans could use that money today, it would also serve to stimulate the economy in order to avert is total and complete collapse.  Tax cuts for middle and lower income Americans will actually stimulate the economy as opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy…families in the lower income brackets will actually spend the money and create demand for products and services.  Of course, this will require companies to hire new employees to increase supply to meet the increasing demand.  Millionaires and billionaires would most likely pocket their tax break, especially in times of economic uncertainty;
• Leave the next three tax brackets exactly where they currently reside.  Meaning, every single family having taxable income of $200,300 or less would receive a much needed tax reduction.  That is how Washington can protect middle-class taxpayers in these difficult times;
• Congress and Obama should immediately increase the 33% tax bracket for joint filers to 36%.  Meaning, families earning income between $200,300 and $357,700 would pay an additional 3% tax on that income.  At the maximum, for a family making $357,700, it would result in $4722.00 of additional taxes within that bracket.  But, because they already received a tax cut in the lowest bracket, the maximum amount a married couple filing jointly would pay is additional taxes is only $3,117.00.  I hardly think this will break the bank of anyone earning $357,700;
• Congress and Obama should immediately increase the top tax bracket from 35% to 40%.  As of now, the 35% tax bracket applies to all earned income above $357,700.  They should alter that figure so that the 40% tax bracket applies to all earned income between $357,700 and $650,000.  For any couple making $650,000, this would equal an additional $17,732.00 in taxes, including the additional taxes and reductions under lower tax brackets;
• For any income earned between $650,000 and $1,000,000, Congress and Obama should establish another tax bracket of 45%;
• Finally, for any income earned over $1,000,000, Congress and Obama should establish a new tax bracket of 50%, which is still far lower than the 70% and 90% maximum income tax brackets in place prior to the 1980s.

It is irresponsible to fund tax cuts for anyone today by imposing a hidden tax on future generations.  That is effectively what Bush and the Republicans have done for thirty years.  So, Obama must avoid falling into that trap at all costs. 

Congress and Obama should dole out any increased tax revenue realized due to the tax cuts and increased taxes to investments in the nation’s infrastructure, including schools, roads, bridges, and hospitals.  Additionally, the government must immediately promote and encourage investment in green technologies that will increase the number of green-collar jobs manufacturing products and services for the American consumer and exportation abroad, especially to the emerging economies.

When the news gets worse, our politicians need to become even bolder.  Refusing to pay for proposed tax cuts, even if the group receiving the cuts are lower and middle income Americans, is the Republican way.  My two-year old daughter has already committed enough of her money.  It’s time to recognize her commitment and refuse to burden her further.