ThePoliticalCat

A Blog devoted to progressive politics, environmental issues, LGBT issues, social justice, workers' rights, womens' rights, and, most importantly, Cats.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

2008 Elections: HRC and Health Care


Who do you support? Will you vote for the Democratic Nominee no matter what?

We here at Casa de Los Gatos wanted Kucinich to win, but there's just too many people committed to the capitalist system (despite the brutality with which it treats them) in this country for that to be realistic. So we pinned our hopes on John Edwards. We would have been happy with Chris Dodd, too. Or Mike Gravel (no, really. According to the political quiz we took, his positions weren't all that far from ours). Then Dodd bowed out, Gravel bowed out, and finally, Edwards bowed out.

Now we have Clinton and Obama. Over at Alternate Brain, Fixer has his say and spells out his position. Although we secretly believe Fixer is our twin, separated at birth, we're notorious for rarely agreeing with any two people on any one issue. Still, we gotta link to Fixer because he makes a good case.

And now for the caveat: Raw Story is reporting that Hillary Clinton's health plan requires everyone to buy health insurance, and she is willing to garnish the wages of workers to ensure that they have insurance. Not health care, mind you. Insurance.

If you've been following the story of Nataline Sarkisyan and CIGNA, you know exactly how much health insurance is worth: Not a good goddamn, in our book. Why would Clinton want to put more money into the pockets of an already grotesquely overpaid and bloated industry? Why?

We have lots of guesses, and most of them require much colourful profanity for emphasis, so in the interest of the newfound comity engendered by Blogroll Amnesty Day, we're going to refuse comment.

We also want to know, given the large and growing pool of unemployed, especially long-term unemployed, exactly how will Mrs. Clinton ensure that over 40 million Americans receive anything approximating adequate health care? Because, given the population explosion that is enabling the spread of epidemics, and the failure of medical treatment for many new diseases each day, we're looking at what we politely wish to label "Poop Creek," and with nary a paddle to hand.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Stumble It!

3 Comments:

At 1:01 PM, Blogger Fixer said...

Obama can't do much better. The thing is, we have to get companies like CIGNA out of the process. Single-payer health insurance is the answer, getting the insurance companies out of it. Neither Hillary or Obama have put forth a way to do that. Unless the 'for-profit' aspect is taken out of the health insurance business, nothing will change.

 
At 9:41 PM, Blogger ThePoliticalCat said...

You're right, of course, about Obama not necessarily doing better. Which is why I had my heart set on Edwards. I don't think I've heard a health plan from Obama that I could support.

It's simply self-defeating to make health care a for-profit enterprise when the survival of the entire human race is the crucial issue. Failure to provide immediate and adequate health care is what spreads an epidemic; and in this overpopulated world, an epidemic that spreads threatens our very survival. Epidemics don't check your W-2s before infecting you, either.

Thanks for dropping by, I always appreciate your comments.

 
At 10:01 PM, Blogger Chuck Butcher said...

In a year like this I'm stuck with these two? I'll now vote against Hillary with an Obama vote and in the fall I'll vote against the Republicans with a Dem vote, but I'll be plenty pissed.

One look at these two's record on the 2nd should tell you just how safe your civil liberties are, same agenda GWB has, percieved security trumps BOR and Constitution.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home