By two authors, called collectively JJ Kennedy
Please check out our sites: groups.myspace.com/stophatej, jj.kennedy@live.com, and more to come with our main website, myspace, facebook, twitter, and youtube. Expect seriousness, commedy, and satire all rolled into one massive networked political site.
Join our effort and become a member and contribute within our network, send us an email.
Healthcare Reform Reality Check
Some people say that a public option is not the way to go because it will cost too much, its a ranting lie that will kill grandma, it is too socialist; the opposition to the public option needs a reality check.
1. One of the arguments against President Obama's plan is that it is simply too expensive and will drain our economy increasing the already massive deficit left behind by the Bush administration. Reality check? The health care reform plan will not add anything to the deficit, and in fact it is paid for upfront. Fiscal responsibility is written all over this reform, addressing the realistic need for money and still providing effective health care. The first step is to start off fixing what is broken within the system. Namely, returning to realistic health care costs, which have risen four times faster than inflation based on a big business principle of maximizing profit rather than health. President Obama's plan focuses on quality care rather than quantity, a system where successful treatment of patients is more important than wasteful big medical business fraud. The plan will implement various delivery system reforms, making the medical system both more affordable and effective. Most importantly, the plan will bring about more effective preventative care which will reduce over-all long-term medical expenses; preventing illness before they happen and masively reducing the excessive future medical bills.
2. Clearly republicans are not in sync with the people. Some believe in the lies and propaganda from FOX NEWS and other right-wing whackjobs. This junk from the 'Death Panals' or 'Deathers', or that it will fund euthanasia and abortion, or the absurd notions that this plan will 'kill grandma' are the most ridiculous mythical arguments geared to convince the nearsighted right-wing zombies. Once again, right wing deception emerges. Why do people so easily fall for this junk? Can't people see how foolish and absurd these pack of lies are.
3. Is this socialism? Yes and no. It is socialistic in the nature that giving equal education to our children is socialism. It is socialistic in the manner which social security and care for the disabled is socialism. It is socialism as in creating an American nation with opportunity for the American dream. At the same time, it is not a complete socialistic system. It is socialsitic tools used properly within an over-all capitalistic framework. Not all forms of socialism are negative, and in fact many forms create positive results as any disabled person, senior citizen on social security, or a person who is a product of the an education system would necessarily attest to. It is creating opportunity and creating human dignity.
A civilization is measured by its characteristics, ethics, and culture. A mark of our civilization is how we as a society treat the least amongst us. The love we show within our treatment to our elderly, disabled, innocent children, and medically ill is a reflection of the value we place within human dignity.
"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government."– President Barack Obama
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die"Ted Kennedy
For more details, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/
http://groups.myspace.com/stophatej
Join our discussions! Get involved with community service, volunteering, and fund raising efforts. Lets make the changes through our actions. Unity we can create the change we need.“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (Henceforth LL & P/H)LL & P/H are self-evident truths, not given by the Declaration of Independence but by human nature itself – as stated. These ‘rights’ are ‘self-evident’ in human nature, entailing the existence of a natural 'self-evidentual' causation of these rights; I here put forward that this causation is some innate value within human nature. This value seems to be happiness itself; assuming happiness to mean something like ‘positive and ultimately preferred state of mind in a rational and Sentient being’ (See NOTE 1).To put this value under ethical consideration would mean analyzing any given set of variable actions in any given situation for what action would be best/better, therefore right, or worst/worse, therefore wrong. Furthermore, if we accept that each possessor of this value itself has a ‘right’ to it and has a unique value separated from the whole then there could be no ultimate utilitarian or collective value to this happiness at the expense of one for the other. i.e. To maximize over-all value is ideal, however this value is a right to each individual which implies that maximization of over-all value would not be allowed to come at a sacrifice to an individual’s own rights to their own value (NOTE 2). This would imply a preventative like that of Kant’s Ends and Means principle. Each possessor of this value must necessarily be treated as an end in and of itself and never as a mere means to some other end (NOTE 3).Based upon this theory, could torture or detainee mistreatment ever be a right action?To answer this question we must first note that as far as ethics are concerned there is no national preference. This innate value is capable of being experienced within human nature itself equally among all races, cultures, and national affiliation. LL & P/H are ‘self-evident’ in human nature itself, reflecting that this natural right is only capable of being stolen and not being given by any government/nation or culture. Ergo, if torture is permissible on a foreigner in an ethical situation it would necessarily be permissible on an American in a like ethical situation. Also, if it is right/wrong for a foreign body to torture a U.S. combatant for national security it would also be right/wrong to torture foreign combatant personnel for national security. If my previous ethical considerations are accepted, I do not think any rational patriot would conclude that it is right to torture a U.S. combatant therefore it would follow that it is equally wrong to torture foreign combatants. So let us move forward and only consider what the government defines as ‘unlawful’ enemy combatants.To torture someone who is merely suspected of something (i.e. guilt or innocence unknown) would clearly be unjustifiably treating a possessor of value as a means to another countries’ end. If punishment or torture for information was accepted on those basis’s, it would not respect the others innate rights based on human nature; furthermore if it is done in the name of security the implications would necessarily spiral downward to multiple levels of security including U.S. prisoners suspected being murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and etc – whose guilt, by definition, has not yet been determined. Hence, guilt must be properly established before detainee is treated as if guilty and the detainee must be respectful as ‘end’ in and of him/herself.What if the guilt is already determined? If someone violates the law it is clear that for preventative purposes that individual loses some of their rights. At the same time, to torture someone who merely pick-pocketed would be absurd and obviously wrong – and even a violation of that persons rights despite having lost some rights due to their action. Where, then, exactly is the line in the treatment of people who have lost their rights based upon being guilty? This is an obvious ethical grey area which would require far more writing then here available, but I will discuss one common argument. What about the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario? That is, someone says “I have a bomb in X city but I am not going to tell you where it is”. This scenario is always mentioned by torture supporters but the scenario itself is rarely ever an actuality – instead, it seems more of an excuse to permit torture in other cases for punishment or strategic information seeking. What I will say here is that any treatment of the detainee by a Democracy ought to, in my view, be acceptable by the public. That is to say, all cases of detainee mistreatment, like that of torture, should be video-recorded and documented for the public to later have access to. Lest we error on the wrong side in our treatment, it should also follow that the president him/herself must be present either by video or in person therefore holding direct accountability in the rare and next to non-existent situation of a ‘ticking-bomb’ scenario. I will not here adventure further down this grey area, since for the purpose of this article in will be clear that the Bush administration included torture and mistreatments on mere suspects, suspects who never obtained proper legal consideration. The detainees’ own ends were disregarded and they were treated as mere means for another end (read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer).In addition to this, it is also important to note that degradation of humanity often increases the tendency for radicalization within any given society. For example, if we want to start race riots merely degrading and lynching a black citizen would likely spark the radicalization required for such riots. To occupy a country and to conduct mistreatment of detainees would most definitely have a similar effect; if terrorists are created by hatred and by radicalization then indeed such steps as torture or any general mistreatment of humanity would drastically increase the number of terrorists; the supposed purpose of torturing, for national security, would in fact worsen national security.The policies of the Bush administration undertook torture and mistreatment upon suspects as explained in ‘The Dark Side’ by Jane Mayer. We have herein shown how mistreatment/torture of suspects is clearly unethical. Ethics would demand an investigation of their actions; the Bush administration are suspects themselves and should be treated properly as ends, however to deny a full and proper investigation would be to put our political system above our ethics and laws.The good news? Obama: "My view is also that nobody’s above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen. But that, generally speaking, I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards." (News conference, feb. 9 2009)NOTE 1: ‘Preferred’ may or may not be a rational or known preference; in most cases it is a conceivable preference that one would only truly know if one was all-wise and all-knowing. For example: Jane ‘prefers’ to marry John. John later repeatedly abuses Jane. Jane would not have preferred to marry John had she been all-wise. Ultimate preference here would be defined as what one’s state of mind would ultimately prefer from an idealized all-wise and all-knowing point of view.NOTE 2: Example - John wants to satisfy his sexual urges with Jane but is not interested in a commited relationship. Jane wants a committed relationship. It would be wrong to give Jane the impression of marriage merely to satisfy those urges because that would mean that John is seeking to maximize his own value at the sacrifice of Jane’s right to her value which is wrong, no matter the over-all maximium level of happiness or unhappiness produced.NOTE 3: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant for more info on Kant’s ends and means principle.Read ‘The Dark Side’ by Jane Mayer
President Obama, in my view, needs to stop being so centralist and start to fully embrace an FDR policy of job creations. I love Obama, but he is too Centralist. Of course, Obama is A MILLION times better than ANY Republican view I have ever heard; and I will still eagerly campaign for President Obama even if his views are a bit more centralistic than mine:
President Obama's grades, in my book:
Foreign Policy: A+
Torture: A
economy: B- (he talks the right talk but doesn't do enough walk)
Health care reform: B (the right track; but more needs to be done. Equal access for all and throw out the greedy and leech like health insurance companies that have no purpose outside of exploitation; get rid of the greed and start to heal the sick; Public education, which is VERY socialistic, was rejected by many as 'wasteful' spending; However, the advantages of a literate society with innovation and business/math skills has proven very beneficial to society; Public Health Care ought to be equally accessable. Education and Health Care are socially advantagous in a socialisitic form, giving Americans the OPPORTUNITY for the American Dream. If we listened to Republicans, the only American Dream would be for those who are born healthy and wealthy).
The only people who complain in a public health system are those who are beyond filthy rich who believe that health care, like everything else in life, should be handed to them on a silver plater; people who believe that just because they were born into wealth they are somehow magically more deserving of a heart transplant than someone who is 'beneath' them. The middle class and the moderately wealthy (early millionaires) would see no major differences in treatment between a public and a completely private system if it could be run properly and ethically.
The economy is like blood circulation. It needs to be circulated effectively through all parts of the body (society) in order for it to be healthy. In a society where it takes over 1.5 BILLION dollars to be in the wealthiest 400, while wages remain relatively low and jobs outsource to exploit cheap labor elsewhere, and there are NO jobs left while the rich become richer than ever before - the blood circulation ends. Causing wealth to effectively circulate in society is NOT socialism.
Capitalism itself is created through regulation - capitalism cannot exist without some form or shape which it was regulated into. The only form of 'free market/trade' is a system of barter. The creation and establishment of our economic structure necessarily entails shape/form/regulation on some level. We created/shaped the rules in a previous epoch, and we can change the rules to address a new more globalized epoch.
After all, I firmly believe people ought to get the wealth they DESERVE. But lets face it, how many billionaires or millionaires do activities worth that kind of money? How many merely exploit the economic structure for personal greed?
Sorry, Republicans, trickle down theory is false: The wealth needs to be circulating effectively in all parts of society; not merely 'trickling down' but rather 'flowing' up and down.
PS Change is not going to happen unless we the people step to the plate and make the changes. President Obama cannot make the changes alone. Even if we have some disagreements, we have a similiar goal. If we do not act in unity to bring about change, nothing will happen. And before we know it we will have another disasterous Republican/neocon like Bush in office.
Now is the time. This is the place. Together, change can happen. The only thing which could stop it is our own lack of motivation.
You can't win a debate or bring about a discussion if nobody takes the discussion seriously. Too many people simply ignore alternative views, and often merely bad mouth, name-call, and mock people with other political stances. Also, How can we reach people who are just getting interested in politics, who have only been influenced by negative propaganda but not by rationality? I have created a group for this very purpose.
With the proper discussions, I have faith that we would choose the best Candidate; I have faith that our Candidate is right, and therefore with proper discourse on the actual issues we could bring others to the same conclusions. I have created a group for opening up that middle ground. Please, join up and share your views with the members (must have/create a myspace account to be able to join).
Group URL: http://groups.myspace.com/stophatej
Profile URL: http://myspace.com/barbarosj
Two sub-groups are developing, in order to make the discussion experience more enjoyable for different audiences. A website is also being developed, where in the future the most significant work will be done. This project will not end after the 2008 elections, but will continue as long as there is a team of group leaders to support it. The idea is: Discuss the issues, get rid of the negative propaganda; stop the hating, starting the debating.
Best regards, Stop Hate
You can't win a debate or bring about a discussion if nobody takes the discussion seriously. Too many people simply ignore alternative views, and often merely bad mouth, name-call, and mock people with other political stances. Also, How can we reach people who are just getting interested in politics, who have only been influenced by negative propaganda but not by rationality? I have created a group for this very purpose. With the proper discussions, I have faith that we would choose the best Candidate; I have faith that our Candidate is right, and therefore with proper discourse on the actual issues we could bring others to the same conclusions. I have created a group for opening up that middle ground. Please, join up and share your views with the members (must have/create a myspace account to be able to join).
"McCain has been perceived to be relatively hawkish on foreign policy . . . In February 2000, during a Republican debate, McCain and others candidates were asked what foreign policy they would change immediately if they became president. "I’d institute a policy that I call ’rogue state rollback,’" McCain said. "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments."[2]
McCain’s 2006 foreign policy rating, compiled by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) , was 58% conservative, 40% liberal. 2005 figures were similar: 54% conservative, 45% liberal.[3] In March 2008, McCain said that the United States should "strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests." He said that the United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War, but that rather that the NATO alliance did so, "in concert with partners around the world." [4] Among McCain’s advisors is Robert Kagan, commonly considered to be a member of the group of neo-conservatives who were influencial in implementing the Iraq War.[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain
