We the People are the government. This is a major concept vital to getting our Republican brothers and sisters to see reason and in their own best interest.

Good one Thom! I figured this caller was an opponent.

WHY SHOULD HEALTH CARE INSURERS EXIST

WHY DO I NEED TO CALL YOUR FRICKEN CEO FOR PERMISSION TO SEE MY DOCTOR?

From George Washington's Blog

Could a Third-Party Candidate Actually Win in 2012?
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/

Famed trend forecaster Gerald Calente is predicting that a third party candidate will be elected President in 2012. (If you don't know who Calente is, read the postscript below.)

Is he right?

Well, some of the most widely-read liberal writers are saying that progressives are fed up with the Democratic party, and feel that they have been tricked and ripped off by the Democratic leaders.

As Glenn Greenwald writes:

In a superb post the other day, Digby recounted what fueled the Naderite movement in 2000 and warns, presciently I think, that the willingness of Obama/Emanuel so blatantly to disappoint those to whom they promised so much (especially young and first-time voters who were most vulnerable to Obama's transformative fairy dust) will lead them either to support a third party or turn off from politics altogether:

Rahm Emanuel believes that the key to Democratic success is a coalition in which Blue Dogs and corporate lackeys mitigate progressive change on behalf of the moneyed interests which he believes the political system must serve. Regardless of his malevolent view of how the political system should work, on a political level, I think he's living in the past. . . .

But on a political level, the left has been betrayed over and over again on the things that matter to us the most. The village is pleased, I'm sure. But the Democratic party only needs to look back eight short years to see just how destructive it is to constantly tell their left flank to go fuck themselves. . . .

At the time [in 2000] nobody believed that an incumbent Vice President in a roaring economy would have a race so close that the Republicans could steal it. But we know differently now don't we? And you would think that the Democratic establishment would also know that because of that, it may not be a good idea to alienate the left to the point where they become apathetic or even well... you know. It can happen. It did happen. Why the Democrats persist in believing that it can't happen again is beyond me. . . .

Obama mobilized a whole lot of young people who have great expectations and disappointing them could lead to all sorts of unpleasant results. Success is about more than simply buying off some congressional liberals or pleasing the village. It's worth remembering that a third party run from the left is what created the conditions for eight long years of Republican governance ...

After 2000, what is it going to take for the Democrats to realize that constantly using their base as a doormat is not a good idea? It only takes a few defections or enough people staying home to make a difference. And there are people on the left who have proven they're willing to do it. The Democrats are playing with fire if they think they don't have to deliver anything at all to their liberal base --- and abandoning the public option, particularly in light of what we already know about the bailouts and the side deals, may be what breaks the bond.

It's really not too much to ask that they deliver at least one thing the left demands, it really isn't. And it's not going to take much more of this before their young base starts looking around for someone to deliver the hope and change they were promised.

On most fronts that matter -- civil liberties, national security, economic policy, servitude to corporate interests, even rising opposition to Obama's long-promised escalation of the war in Afghanistan -- that defines rather clearly what the Obama/Emanuel approach has been thus far.
What About the Right?

The Washington Examiner writes:
The fact that just doesn't register with Washington GOP establishmentarians is that the Tea Party Protests seen around the country in April were aimed as much against them as they were against the tax and spending policies of Obama and the Democratic Congress.
There are millions of libertarians and traditional conservatives (or "paleo-conservatives", in contrast to Neo-conservatives) in the U.S. who are very unhappy with the direction the Republican party has taken in recent years.

Post-Partisan Coalitions

There are many millions of liberals and conservatives who have become disgusted by their parties and have started judging candidates based upon what they are actually doing.

As just one example, there are millions of Americans who would support either Ron Paul as president and Dennis Kucinich as vice president or the other away around. Why? Both challenge the status quo, and have proposed legislation which will actually help the American people.

Conclusion
Based on the above trends, I believe that Calente could be right. A third-party candidate could win in 2012.

Say there- me and multi tasking again Does anyone have a link to that Democratic Underground Cartoon Thom was discussing after [thankfully, he explaned why I was throwing up as Rush Limbaugh was on my beloved am1090.seatttle.com! lol]

I have been screaming for the lefties to get out pictures. Per Thom's cracking the code and the instruction we get at our college, learning modalities are critical to getting Americans reading at the 5th grade level to understand.

Also, in Facebook this morning we now have a group of folks trying to boycott ABC for running a health care 'infomercial' http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=90389774460&ref=ts follow the link or put in search engine at Facebook 'health care Obama' and find some of these against their own self interest and tell them to join Thom's show!

President Obama is not Progressive. President Obama has NEVER been Progressive. President Obama is a wishy-washy, mediocre, just-right-of-the-middle-of-the-road, pro-corporatist centrist.

oooops... It was DRichards, not DDAy who mentioned Obama losing support among progressives.

Has Obama Lost the Trust of Progressives, as Krugman Says?
Paul Krugman has an excellent column today arguing that progressives have backlashed so intensely over the prospect of Obama's dropping the public option because -- for reasons extending far beyond specific health care issues -- they no longer trust the President. Citing Obama's steadfast continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, the administration's extreme coziness with crisis-causing banks, and the endless retreats on health care, Krugman says that "a backlash in the progressive base . . .
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/21-14

To quote a friend on mine regarding the article;
"He nailed it for me. I've been greatly disillusioned by Mr. Obama. What party can I join as a lifelong Democrat when my party has left me behind?"

I just began contributing to this blog last week. I hope that my few posts didn't contribute to Loretta's decision to flee. It wouldn't be the first time I was judged as being arrogant, belittling, or egotistical. It does seem from my narrow perch that some contributors to this conversation seem to have an agenda which they keep returning to. Personally I'm never that consistent in beating a single drum.

I have to confess that I am much less impressed with these “passionate” pro-Palestinian advocates than some other people seem to be; too bad the Palestinians and their advocates are not as passionate about peace. "Idealism" and realism are rarely compatible. A dispassionate knowledge of history would cure the disease that afflicts one or two of the commentators on this page, but do we really need to rehash old stories? Or would it simply be a waste of time?

It is a waste of time pointing out that Palestine is a geographical construct, occupied by different peoples at different times through-out most of its history, ruled by one empire or another—with the exception of the periods that the Israelites/Jews maintained an independent state there. The word “Palestinian” simply denotes the Arabs who live there, and who share a common religion (Islam) and language (or at least the "literary" Arabic that is taught in schools) with the rest of the Arab world, with some small differences in regional culture. Thus the “Arab World” is unique in history in that it comprises of many separate “states” across a broad, interlocked geographic area that seem almost interchangeable (Egypt’s Nasser dreamed of becoming the ruler of a “Pan-Arab” empire). The modern Arab states (Egypt might be an exception) are for the most part chunks cut-up by the British and French mandates after the break-up of the Ottoman empire.

It’s also a waste of time pointing out that the current demands by the pro-Palestinian advocates were already in place by the partition of 1948 (anticipated by the Balfour declaration in 1917). The Palestinians had no factual historical claim to their own state, but they refused to co-exist with an “infidel,” Jewish or Christian, even when it meant a state of their own. Although it is true that hard-line Zionists wanted all of Palestine, there wasn’t any way the international community was going to allow that—until the Palestinians essentially gave-away their state by conducting a mass exodus, becoming refugees not by necessity but by abiding by the commands of their decidedly unvisionary leaders.

It is seems a waste of time pointing out that even after having been beset by enemies on all sides bent on its destruction, the Israelis were still willing to barter all the land they occupied in the 1967 war for peace, but the Arab world allow that chance to slip away. In the more recent past, the lack of true Palestinian statesmen allowed chances at a legitimate peace slip away; Arafat, who at best was a capricious opportunist, did not deal in a honest way with serious peacemakers like Rabin, and after his assassination, Peres. Hamas suicide attacks in Israel derailed that first real chance for a lasting peace, but the Palestinians were given a second chance with Barak. Barak went against the wishes of even his own party by offering to “share” Jerusalem, but Arafat refused to compromise on this and the issue of the refugees returning to Israel—a right they had vacated 50 years earlier. Arafat’s all or nothing gambit failed. The Israelis tired of his game and voted Barak and the last best peace plan for the Palestinians out. That peace plan was taken off the table for good when the next round of Palestinian uprisings began.

And it is also useless to point out that the Palestinians are still unable to get their act together and speak as one coherent voice in favor of peace with Israel. If impoverished peasants in Mexico decided to lob mortars and missiles into Texas, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine the reaction of Americans, regardless of the grievances of Mexican peasants who have been harmed by price restrictions that benefit American farmers under NAFTA. Yet Palestinians in Gaza have chosen as their representative an organization, Hamas, that is bent on the destruction of Israel, and has repeatedly tested the patience and willingness of the Israeli people to deal with the Palestinians, who lobbed for months mortars and missiles into Israel without provocation before the Israeli army retaliated. All Hamas ever needed to do was recognize the right of Israel to exist. They will not do so. The Israelis want peace. The Palestinians, at least in Gaza, have chosen “leaders” who apparently do not. They had their opportunities, but the hand they played was violence and murder, and outside the Muslim world, events like Munich were far from public relations victories for the Palestinians and their cause. Now they must deal with the bad hand they left themselves with.

Israel can be justly criticized for continuing to build settlements on the West Bank, which calls into question their sincerity. But the lack of reciprocity to the concessions the Israelis have made in the past have with some justification produced distrust on the part of the Israelis in the Palestinians commitment to peace, which has always been a questionable commodity. All that Israel has asked for is recognition of its right to exist, but for Iran and the Arab world this has proved too difficult a pill to swallow, particularly since anti-Jewish propaganda has proved such a useful tool to focus the population’s attention away from domestic problems.

Those who forget the past, as they say, are bound to repeat it. Is this what you “passionate” pro-Palestinian advocates are suggesting—that we continue the several millennia-long pogrom against the Jews? It sure sounds like it to me.

I believe that the repubs are opposing any public option because they know it will shift the balance of power between workers and employers. In an employer based health insurance system the employers have power over the workers because workers will do anything to keep their jobs. What happens when workers don't have to stay at a job to get health care? Think about it. The base will become stronger and empowered. And as Thom has said many times, you have to build the economy from the base up. I believe the ripple effect from health care reform will change the country in a very positive way.

Thom, I like the ides of Medicare for everyone but I would change how we each pay for it. It should be a percentage of income rather than a fixed premium. If you get a paycheck and want Medicare, you pay a percentage. If your income varies from week to week as mine does you pay an amount based on that week. Poorer people would still be able to pay a small amount and not be required to go through the demeaning process of applying for assistance. People close to the threshold limits would not have to choose between working fewer hours and having health care, or working more hours and going over the threshold and not being able to afford the premium. Anything else is regressive.