The following article is meant to re-assure us that Pelosi is not going to back down on advancing real health care reform.  Evidently a number of “progressive media” were included in a phone call from her, resulting in the story.

http://mcjoan.dailykos.com/

What Pelosi says on the phone with “progressive media” is not as revealing as what she says on the phone (or in the closed room with no transcript to circulate) with the insurance industry.  Her job is to make sure that the industry continues to contribute more to Democrats than to Republicans.  Those conversations are most certainly not recorded and available for download.

And why do the progressive media place a definite article before the words “public option?”  What exactly is “the” public option?  It seems there are many versions of it, none of which would removely resemble anything that a Canadian would recognize, and most of which don’t seem to be publicly available at all.

I’m tired of the giddiness that results from these bones being thrown to people who say they want single payer health care.

I hope no one is going to ask me to “thank” Pelosi (no, I’ll support her opponents who don’t accept funds from corporate influencers) or to tell me (as another single payer advocacy group did) that as a “bold progressive” I should thank Olver for requesting a public option when there are no specifics.  Politicians need to do much more than that to get my thanks, let alone my vote.  They need to vote FOR things that advance single payer, vote AGAINST things that don’t, and REJECT the influence of health insurance industry interests.

Obama states that he doesn’t want to put health insurance companies out of business.  I do; the rest of the world has shown that private insurance policies are not necessary for 95% of the public in other societies.  Let’s make private policies the “option” that 5% buy to supplement the public plan that delivers quality to all.

The same arguments that Scott Brown used against “Obamacare” in his successful bid for US Senate should be used to repeal Chapter 58 here in Massachusetts. Is it a surprise that the people who have been living and breathing the trial run for “Obamacare” don’t like it? In what other industrialized democracy would voters accept the system that we have?

There’s some hyprocisy in Brown’s being FOR the chapter 58 at the state level and AGAINST “Obamacare” at the national level.

If one is to believe the pundits on the radio in my area this morning, Coakley supporters are hoping for a LOW voter turnout.

Hmmmmm.

I can’t help but observe that the health care “reforms” that the Democratic Party is trying so hard to preserve in Ted Kennedy’s name would be summarily rejected by the voting public in countries that have single payer health care.  If any European, Canadian, Australian, South African, South American, or Japanese leader tried to introduce in his/her country what Obama is peddling to us, he/she’d be out of office quickly.

Democrats in Massachusetts like to say that they have single payer health care on their platform, but that hasn’t advanced anything.  In fact, we go backwards.  Any real step towards single payer would require the immediate repeal of Chapter 58 and legislation known as Obama-care that is closely modeled after Chapter 58.

So why should we support the national “reform” that is modeled after Chapter 58?

I wish there were a Green-Rainbow candidate for whom to cast a vote in the special election.  Without one, and without a candidate who is with me on health care, peace, re-localization, and controlling corporate influence in politics, I’m left with casting a vote for none of the above.

If the Obama’s health care reform was such a good thing for ordinary people, ordinary people in Massachusetts who support Chapter 58 should be easy to find.  Funny how one doesn’t see these ordinary people promoting it.

I know some Republicans who are planning to vote for Scott Brown primarily to stop the national insurance company welfare plan (aka health reform).  Many of these people have been or can be persuaded to support single payer health care after hearing a Green perspective.  After all, in countries where single payer exists it is supported by conservatives and progressives, for very good reason (this reality is kept out of the domestive red vs blue debate here).  The program that the Democratic Party is pushing is not a step towards single payer.

I admire Ted Kennedy for many things, but he made a wrong turn on the road to bringing world-class universal health care into this country.

Let’s stop being the example to the world of what NOT to do in public policy.

EDITORIAL: Time for a third party uprising

By LISA CHALIAN-ROCK

Published: January 13, 2010

http://www2.scnow.com/scp/news…

“I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.” – Ralph Nader

Since the health care debate began, people on both sides of the political spectrum envisioned their perfect outcome. Now, we are faced with two bills that have to be merged in the coming months before the president can sign either one. Despite pledges of transparency, we won’t get to see the negotiations that make it happen.

Neither side is happy with the compromises. Republicans say the bills are too socialist and don’t cut costs enough while Democrats say the plans give too much power to the insurance companies and don’t symbolize real change.

The problem stems from the lack of transparency, the way the government works and the confusion built into the two-party, two-sided debate.

We may feel Republicans and Democrats are oceans apart, but the line between them is actually quite thin. Both parties bend to corporate will long before any public outcry because the corporations fund their campaigns.

That’s why the public option was given fewer hearings for Congress to investigate it and why it was discarded so easily. The big insurance companies stood to lose too much if a public option was understood or enacted.

Money drives Washington, and it’s driving this country off a cliff of no return.

Both parties agree campaign finance reform needs to be done, according to their campaign speeches, but it never happens. The public approves of it. The big money doesn’t.

Something we agree upon should be easier to implement than thornier issues like health care, but Congress doesn’t tackle it.

“Throwing the bums out” only works if the replacement doesn’t play for the same team.

Every now and then, you’ll see someone like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) or Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) attempt to put the people’s issues on the forefront, but they are either lambasted as fringe wackos or disregarded with minimal coverage if any.

Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party’s 2008 presidential candidate, couldn’t get an ounce of airtime until she risked her own life to demonstrate the plight of the people in Gaza. That airtime flashed momentarily alongside commentary that she was just doing something crazy.

When our calls and letters are dismissed or denied so continuously, our only true option for change is a third party to challenge the two-party duopoly over our current system.

Third party and independent candidates speak out where others often don’t.

As citizens, we are responsible in part for the way our country has drifted. Most people don’t vote, don’t call, don’t write and don’t pay attention to politics.

We have a responsibility to stay as informed as possible.

Then, we must tell our delegations in D.C. what we want. They aren’t mind readers. They read polls and campaign contributions mostly.

We have to demand specific and achievable change especially in the campaign finance arena.

To do so, Congress needs to define corporations differently or reinstate old laws that corporations had to produce some public good to retain their charters.

An activist Supreme Court changed the relationship we have with corporations by defining them as “people” in terms of free speech. Now corporations are leveraging that decision to potentially derail the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Rules that limit the amount they can contribute by claiming that donating money is a form of free speech. The Supreme Court has heard arguments and should come to a decision by the end of its session.

Free speech is not money. Some people start with more; some are given more by parents or family; some start with nothing. How can free speech, an unalienable right, be equated with something that is not so equitable? It can’t, and it shouldn’t be.

Neither party is doing what we want. We need to fund and support candidates who will or find fresh faces to compete or run for office ourselves.