Dear Igor Volsky:

I would hope that you recognize that the real problem in all of this is that our government has too many healthcare programs. All Americans should already be enrolled in Medicare. Period. It is very easy for a regressive politician like King George to take benefits away from poor people, because no one cares about the poor. The democratic wing of the corporate party gave up on poor folks when Jimmy Carter became it's standard bearer. Just think how hard it would have been for King George to cut benefits for EVERYONE instead of just the poor and unemployed. Sadly, that kind of thinking is just a little too unitarian for our wanna-be unitarian (photo-op) politicians. Blaming the regressive republicans is getting very old. There is a solution to the problem, but too many just want small improvements. That is the same old kind of politics.

Sincerely,
pee-wee

An Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama
Dear Sir,

I am writing this brief letter to inform you that you will not be receiving my vote on November fourth of this year. I have duly considered your position on many different issues, and I must admit that I find your plans somewhat frightening. I fear that were you to gain the office of the president at this time, it would spell the end of freedom for our nation. I wish that I had time to explain to you all the various and multitudinous implications of your proposed philosophies, but I do not. I will satisfy myself instead with the abasement of that policy which poses the greatest threat to our nation, namely, your desire to turn our country toward socialism.

You have stated that “the free market has failed us.” You have claimed that it is the government’s responsibility to step in and set up a new economy. You have explained that “the burdens and benefits of this new economy have to be spread evenly across the economy” and that you want to “spread the wealth around.” Such comments are nothing less than pure, unadulterated socialism. They could readily have proceeded from the mouth of Karl Marx himself, and indeed, they are synonymous with his philosophy of, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

You have justified your socialistic position through an unjust condemnation of what has become known as the ownership society. You claim that it “ignores our history” and that “in our past there has been another term for it �" Social Darwinism �" every man or woman for him or herself.” You have here taken two opposites and claimed that they are equal; but in actuality, the ownership society was once known as free enterprise, and it is based on that great protestant work ethic which made America the nation that she is today: “If a man will not work then neither should he eat.” It was this system of private property and individual responsibility that saved our ancestors from starvation and ruin, and those who accept this philosophy have demonstrated that they have indeed learned from our nation’s history. Social Darwinism, on the other hand, has always been against the free market system, and every implementation of Darwinism on a national scale (Germany, Russia, China, etc.) has followed the path of socialism to produce a communistic society. The two systems are total opposites, and interestingly enough, the one which you condemn is, in reality, the very one which you propose. Such gross mischaracterizations are a classic ploy of socialistic regimes. Vladimir Lenin admitted as much when he said that, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience.” This sounds remarkably similar to your own admission that “when you're running for president, you're going to do some sinning.”

You will undoubtedly seek to further justify your position by arguing that the current economy is failing and that change is necessary because “someone working full-time today in a minimum wage job does not earn enough to raise out of poverty.” I can personally testify to the invalidity of such an argument. The so-called poverty line for a family of three is $18,000 per year. If both parents work full-time, making minimum wage after June of 2009, they will gross more than $30,000 per year. With a house payment of $1,000, car payments of $200, plus insurance payments of $200, and utility payments of $200 per month, they will still have $900 per month left over. This is a very livable scenario. For the past three years, I have earned less than $20,000 per year as the sole bread winner for my family, and I was able to bring my family of three out of this so-called poverty. During that time, we never missed a single meal, we were never late in paying a single bill, and we enjoyed a very full and happy life. You, yourself, are a perfect rebuttal of this argument. According to your own testimony, you have gone from being a poor kid living on welfare to one of the wealthiest men in America running for the most influential office in the world. What greater testament could there be to the success of America’s current economic system?

I find it very strange that one who claims to have studied constitutional law could ever bring himself to embrace an economic philosophy which so blatantly contradicts the supreme law of this great land. Do you know nothing of the history of your philosophies? Socialism has already been tried in America. It was attempted in Jamestown in 1607 and failed miserably. Alexis de Tocqueville condemned your theories in the 1800’s stating that “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Less than 100 years later, Winston Churchill, a man well acquainted with the evils of socialism, would agree with him by claiming that “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” And even more recently Margaret Thatcher recognized that “to cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.” Throughout history, those fighting for freedom have always recognized socialism as their enemy, and the enemies of liberty have gladly welcomed socialism as an ally in that fight.

Such enemies include Vladimir Lenin who stated that “the goal of socialism is communism,” and Karl Marx who claimed that “the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” Surely you must realize that your policies have placed you in the same camp as some of the worst government leaders in the history of the world, leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung. Surely you must realize that you are dancing to the tune of men like John Strachey who proposed that “It is impossible to establish Communism as the immediate successor to Capitalism. Accordingly, it is proposed to establish Socialism as something which we can put in the place of our present decaying Capitalism. Hence, Communists work for the establishment of Socialism as the necessary transition stage on the road to Communism.” You cannot possibly be ignorant of the similarity between your policies and those of ACLU founder, Roger Baldwin, who admitted: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

Is communism your goal also? I cannot help but wonder whether you are a willing proponent of this detestable system or just an unwitting pawn being manipulated by those who procured your fortune, but in either case I cannot and will not support your attempts to gain control of this country. Others may be willing to sell you their freedoms in exchange for an empty promise of prosperity, but you will not be receiving my vote this November, for like the patriots of old, my cry is “give me liberty or give me death!” and you, sir, are certainly no proponent of the first.

Your fellow citizen,
Bill Fortenberry

An Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Sir:

In my previous letter, I informed you of my decision to reject your bid for my vote this November. In response to that letter, your campaign assured me that you would welcome an open dialogue regarding your policies. Please accept this letter as my part in this dialogue.

As I stated previously, I do not support your plans to turn our country toward socialism. I have spent several months analyzing your speeches and proposals, and I have found within your rhetoric a three part plan to convert our great nation into a socialist regime. I would like to leave out the rhetoric and present that plan openly and in simple terms for all to see. I wish to show that your policies will destroy our republic by instituting national healthcare, giving unprecedented political power and protection to the labor unions, and removing the right of the people to bear arms. These policies have been criticized before, but seldom have their dangers been analyzed and proven to the extent that I will now attempt.

Let me begin with the longest of my dialogues by discussing your healthcare plan. To support this plan, you have painted the American people a desperate picture. You have described for us a pitiful situation in which hardworking families are not able to obtain vital medical treatment. You have stated that “it is indisputable that if you are poor in this country it is hazardous to your health.” Well, my own supposed poverty has not proven the least bit hazardous to my health or to the health of my family. In fact, although my wife suffered a brain hemorrhage just after giving birth to our son at a time when our total annual income was $15,000, we were still able to get all of her medical expenses paid without missing a single payment for anything else. Furthermore, even though my current employer does not provide medical insurance, I have been able to find very good medical coverage for my family for less than $150 per month. This is far from consistent with your bold statement that “the market has proven incapable of creating large enough insurance pools to keep costs to individuals affordable.” Your painting is flawed. I have lived in the reality that you claim to paint, and it is far different from the picture you are presenting to voters.

Our multi-payer, capitalistic healthcare system is not failing as you have claimed. On the contrary, we have the best medical system in the world. No other nation can boast of so great a percentage of its population living in perfect health. No other country can lay claim to as many medical advances as our great nation can. No other country has a better doctor-patient ratio, or as many hospitals per city, and yet you have threatened to eradicate the key component of our current medical system which makes all of this possible�"our capitalistic insurance companies.

You have stated that you are tired of the insurance companies “dictating our healthcare markets.” Your policies place great emphasis on “making sure they are limited in the ability to extract profits.” You have threatened to force insurance companies to “issue every applicant a policy” that is “at least as generous as the new public plan” with “premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are.” Allow me to point out a few flaws in your claims.

First of all, under our current system, American citizens reap the benefits of a balance of powers between themselves, their doctors, and the insurance companies. You see, if an insurance company were to charge more for its services than its customers want to pay, then those customers are free to change to a different insurance provider. Thus the insurance companies already have an incentive to keep their prices low. They cannot charge more than their customers are willing to pay. Likewise, the doctors must keep their prices to a minimum, for if a doctor begins to charge too much, he runs the risk of the insurance companies dropping him from their list of supported doctors. If the insurance companies become too miserly in their payouts, they also run the risk of doctors removing them from their list of supported insurance companies. This delicate balance of powers allows the doctors to obtain the payment that they need with as little cost to the patient as possible. In fact, a survey performed by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that while healthcare spending in the US reached 2.3 trillion dollars in 2007, the average cost to the individual was only $275 per month. This is just an average of course, but at this very moment, Celtic health insurance is offering individual plans with $30 co-pays and $5,000 deductibles for just $58 per month.

Your plan would force insurance companies to offer packages that are “at least as generous as the new public plan.” By your own campaign’s admission, this would ensure that they “are limited in their ability to extract profits.” Since there are very few insurance companies which are willing to operate without any hope of profit, this measure would effectively eliminate the entire private insurance industry, causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs and committing the government to an annual medical expense of 2.3 trillion dollars. To cover that expense you would be forced to raise taxes in excess of $7,500 per person. This single fact, were it made known to the public, would be enough to change the tide of this election, but it’s just one of the many burdens that your healthcare plan would place upon the citizens of this country.

Under our current healthcare system, doctors and insurance companies are able to bargain with each other to ensure that both are able to make a profit while keeping consumer costs to a minimum. Should you succeed in establishing a government healthcare plan, all such bargaining would cease. One cannot bargain with the government; one can only comply or rebel. If the government decides that the doctors should only be paid so much, then that is all that the doctors will be paid. This will have one or, more likely, both of two possible consequences. First, since a national healthcare system would force doctors to accept a set income, most of our brightest and best students will seek to enter other careers which offer more lucrative futures thus severely handicapping our nation’s medical advancement. Secondly, this could very likely result in a tremendous increase in corruption within the medical field as doctors seek to obtain profits through submitting falsified invoices for government reimbursement. Thus your healthcare plan would produce a decrease in medical efficiency while at the same time providing ample incentive for an increase in corruption.

The aforementioned flaws are indeed disheartening, but by far the most frightening aspect of your healthcare plan is that it provides the government with a very powerful tool of coercion. By necessity, every healthcare system must have limitations. For instance, a national healthcare system would obviously not provide coverage for a wanted criminal desiring to have his face surgically altered. This necessity of limited coverage would give the government the power to deny medical coverage to anyone at any time. At first, this power would likely be wielded only in cases similar to the one just mentioned, but how long would it take for the government to begin denying coverage to domestic terrorists? And how difficult would it be to include in the definition of domestic terrorists those fundamentalist preachers that supposedly incite their congregations into taking actions contrary to the goals of the state? No doubt you would like to offer us several promises that your system would never degenerate to such a state, but even if we could accept your word, we cannot accept any promise that this system will not be thus abused by any future leader of our country. The only way to prevent such abuse is to not allow this system to be initiated in the first place.

The next phase of your plan involves your desire to give an unprecedented amount of power and protection to the labor unions. You have stated that “the leaders of service workers unions broke ranks and chose to endorse me…I owe those unions.” You then proceeded to admit that you “got into politics for those folks.” Your campaign website makes such bold statements as, “Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers.” These seemingly innocuous statements carry some rather ominous implications.

Our current industrial system is subject to a similar balance of powers as that which exists in the medical industry. The consumer, of course, wants a cheaper product so he purchases more goods from those companies with the best values. The employee desires to earn as much as possible and, consequently, decides to work for that company which provides the best wages and benefits. If an employer is to be successful in business, he must find a fair balance between the demands of his employees and the desires of his customers. This balance is his source of profit for if he satisfies the wishes of his employees, then they are much more likely to work to their fullest potential and increase production, thus lowering the cost of his merchandise and meeting the desires of his customers.

Your plan would upset that balance by placing unprecedented power in the hands of the labor unions. The assurance that they can strike without fear of retaliation will encourage a great increase in union membership, and history has proven that the unions thus enlarged and emboldened will most certainly exercise their new found privilege by launching a series of strikes to demand ever increasing wages and power. The employers will attempt to offset this expense by continually raising prices, and many will succumb to union pressure and relinquish control of their industries allowing the unions to establish social ownership. Eventually, a crisis will be reached. Consumers will not be able to afford the rising prices and will simply stop buying, businesses will go bankrupt, and the economy will fail. This process has been observed numerous times in socialist uprisings all around the world. Providing such absolute power and protection to the unions always precipitates an economic collapse.

Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that the longest any such system could hope to survive is 200 years, but I do not know of a single one which has celebrated even its first centennial. I am sure that you must remember the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. This grand socialist experiment began with the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 which gave control of the nation’s businesses to the worker’s councils or unions known as the soviets. Within a single generation of this change, the country suffered a complete economic collapse. Czechoslovakia, which had a thriving industrial economy prior to its socialist takeover, followed the same path, as did Cuba, Hungary, and numerous others. There is no reason to assume that the socialization of American industries would not follow their example, and indeed our forefathers found that to be the case when they first attempted socialism on these shores.

Jamestown and Plymouth both experimented with socialism in the early 1600s through the use of the common store system. Both settlements suffered great economic failures and much loss of life as a result of this system, and both of them rejected socialism in favor of a system based on private property. In the words of William Bradford, the governor of Plymouth, “This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted, than otherwise would have been.” The success of capitalism in America’s earliest settlements established it firmly as a fundamental component of the American economic system. Why should we abandon a system which has proven successful over the course of nearly 400 years for one that has often failed within 100 years of each implementation? To do so would be unwise at best and economic suicide at worst.

Let me now move on to the third part of your socialist plan, namely, the disarmament of the American citizenry. The second amendment to our Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Many people seem to be under the misconception that this amendment was included in our Bill of Rights to ensure that the citizens would be able to hunt for food and protect themselves from savages. With these two uses of firearms being no longer necessary in most of the United States, many noble, well-intentioned people have begun to argue that the right to bear arms is no longer necessary either. They are greatly mistaken in this conclusion, for the purpose of the second amendment is just as prevalent today as it was in 1791. The right to keep and bear arms was not granted to allow men to hunt; it was granted to ensure their continued freedom from an oppressive government. To better explain its grammar, the second amendment could also be read, “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

In reference to the second amendment, you have stated that “just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.” You have further stated that you “think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” You said that you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of hand guns, and to ban assault weapons. Should you accomplish these goals, you will be in direct violation of our Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The second amendment is not open to interpretation; it leaves no room for political maneuvering. It simply states, in no uncertain terms, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Now it does not just say that the right to keep arms is protected but that the right to bear arms is also protected, and it does not demand that this right simply be preserved but that this right should not even be limited, nor is this law limited to the federal government alone as is the case with the first amendment, but it is stated as a universal law for the entire nation.

Without this right to keep and bear arms, the citizens of this country would have no recourse of action should our government overstep its bounds. They would have no means of forcing a corrupt bureaucracy to step down. It is this right which protects our nation from the threat of a military coup, and it is this right which best guarantees the continuance of all other rights granted to the citizens of this nation. Your insistence on infringing upon this fundamental right should be a matter of great concern to every American citizen.

I have here presented three of your policies which pose a dire threat to the freedoms which we enjoy as Americans. I could have mentioned many others as well, such as your plans for the complete socialization of education or your desire to force compliance with the Kyoto Accord, but I will limit myself to just these three for now. Your campaign has assured me that you would welcome an open dialogue, and it is my hope that you will honor their assurances and provide an answer to the arguments that I have here noted. I have taken the liberty to send copies of this letter to every major news network, the top twenty newspapers in the country, the national committees of both parties, numerous senators and representatives, and, of course, to Senator McCain. May your reply be equally as public.

Your fellow citizen,
Bill Fortenberry

QUEEN’S COMMENTS:  Isn’t it just about time that we ran ALL the foxes out of our Henhouse?    You tell me why the American people should not at least be offered the choice of a nonprofit healthcare insurer? 

And no, the answer that some multinational corporation won’t be able to make money off the backs of ordinary Americans is no longer an acceptable answer. 

As Paul Krugman pointed out in an article titled “The Health Care Racket” that he wrote in 2007:  “.  .   .  But it’s a fact that insurers spend a lot of money looking for ways to reject insurance claims. And health care providers, in turn, spend billions on “denial management,” employing specialist firms — including Ingenix, a subsidiary of, yes, UnitedHealth — to fight the insurers. . . The best way for an insurer to avoid paying medical bills is to avoid selling insurance to people who really need it. An insurance company can accomplish this in two ways, through marketing that targets the healthy, and through underwriting: rejecting the sick or charging them higher premiums.

   Read More »

Healing American healthcare Agenda Reply
By Democrat in Euclid, OH 1 minute ago (Updated 1 minute ago)
Objective: To provide healthcare for 45 million uninsured Americans.
The Plan: Forming a health insurance buying cooperative. 1. Solicit the public for memebers or now that the Federal government may have to bail out AIG or other insurers; it may be possible to get great group rates for the uninsured who are primarily the working poor.
2. Cost for membership could be as low as $1.00 per subscriber, with premiums subsidized by: Worker's compensation or Anniuty or Treasury bonds or notes. Recruitment open enrollment period 30-45 days to assess the group size and demographics, and obatain quotes.
3. HMO's, PPO's, and private insurers may be interested in the opportunity to insure the group especially when they are regionally provided for.
4. self insurance options may include EE or H bonds in $1,000,000.00 increments per subscriber with the cost divided as a premium per $1 million.
5.Small businesses could encourage their uninsured employees to join the group because they are uninvolved in the administration of it, since it is totally through privatization.
6.The members would choose the provider like proxy or stock votes from the 3 best quotes. The smaller the group; the higher the premium, deductible and or co-pay. Therefore, it is advisable to advertise, or form by affiliation, ie, religious, occupational, or county, city or state.
I believe this plan is feasible, sensible and timely. We need a strong and relevant platform to win this election, not empty promises, fluff or "cult of personality."

I can't say I'm a fan of T. Boone Pickens (Swift Boater), but his Energy Independence Plan is certainly a start. Mr. Pickens is asking people to join him and send letters to their members of congress asking them to pledge their support for the Pickens plan. I just want to talk about some of the points in the plan that I think could be slightly misleading. I would like to clarify them and offer a counter letter for people to send to their congressional representative.   Read More »

A lot more impressive than John McCain's!

Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama has a plan to expand coverage, lower costs, improve care and ensure that no one could be denied care because of a pre-existing condition or illness.  Will he?  After reviewing his record, I think the chances are better than good that he will.

                            __________________________________________________

Obama Supported Reauthorizing SCHIP and Providing Insurance for Millions of Uninsured Children. Obama voted to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for five years, providing an additional $35.2 billion for the program. He also voted for the budget resolution that would have authorized $50 billion to expand the program as well as $9.5 billion for increases in programs such as No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and essential funding for veterans health care. (H.R. 976, Vote 307, 8/2/07; S.Con.Res. 21, Vote 172, 5/17/07)

Obama Voted to Allow Importation of Affordable Prescriptions Drugs from Other Countries. Obama voted to allow senior citizens to import less expensive prescription drugs from other countries, specifically Canada. (S.Amdt. 990 to S. 1082, Vote 150, 5/3/07)

Obama Opposed Giving Insurance Companies Authority to Determine Coverage and Costs. Obama voted against giving insurance companies authority to determine health care coverage and costs, including the power to eliminate consumer protections that are now required under existing state laws, such as cancer screenings and well-child visits. The bill would have resulted in higher premiums for people who need health care the most, such as older workers. (S. 1955, Vote 119, 5/11/06)

Obama Voted Against Cutting Medicaid Funding. Obama voted against a $14 billion, five-year funding cut for Medicaid. The cuts would have resulted in more uninsured and uncompensated care, shifting the burden to employer-sponsored health plans. (S.Amdt. 204 to S.Con.Res. 18, Vote 58, 3/17/05)

Obama Expanded Health Care Coverage for Low-Income Families. When he was a state senator in Illinois, Obama’s bill expanded income eligibility for KidCare and FamilyCare, the state health insurance programs for low-income families. (Public Act 93-0063, 6/30/03)

Obama Opposed Steep Increases in Seniors’ Medicare Premiums. Obama voted to protect seniors from steep increases in Medicare Part B premiums. Seniors faced the increase because Congress increased Medicare payments to physicians but failed to enact savings from Medicare payments to private health plans. (S. 1932, Vote 287, 11/3/05)

 Obama Voted to Allow Medicare to Negotiate Lower Drug Prices for Senior Citizens. Obama voted to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug makers for lower prices for senior citizens. Republicans filibustered the bill. (S. 3, Vote 132, 4/18/07)

Senator McCain has a long in undistinguished voting record on veterans issues. In 2006 the Disabled American Veterans awarded his a rating of 20% (versus 80% for Obama). In 2006 the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America awarded him a grade of D (versus B+ for Obama). Consider these specific votes:

Voted against adding $430 million for veterans's health care (Senate Vote 98, HR 4939, 4/26/06).
Voted against converting veterans' health care funding into mandatory spending (Senate Vote 63, S. Con Res, 3/14/06).

Voted against increasing veterans' health care spending by ending certain corporate tax breaks (Senate Vote 41, S. Con Res, 2/14/06).

Voted to kill $19 million for military and veterans' hospitals (Senate vote 7, HR 4297, 2/2/06).

Voted against establishing formula for veterans' health care funding (senate vote 251, HR 2863, 10/5/05).

Voted against protecting veterans, armed service members and spouces of deceased service members from new bankruptcy means test (Senate Vote 13, S.256, 3/1/05).

Voted to kill transfer of Iraqi reconstruction funds to veterans' health care (Senate Vote 379, S. 1689, 10/14/03).

McCain was at his most cynical and hypocritical worst during the debate on the GI Bill for the 21st Century. First he opposed it. Then he offered a bill to kill it. Then he missed the vote. Finally, he took credit for it.   Read More »

Today Governor Steve Beshear announced an ambitious plan to enroll as many children as possible in the Kentucky Children's Health Insurance Program (KCHIP) by 2010.

The Beshear plan, to be implemented November 1, will serve to dramatically cut the number of children without health coverage by removing barriers to enrollment, retaining more children once they are enrolled and significantly increasing education and outreach regarding the program. The plan hopes to enroll over 35,000 by FY2010. KCHIP provides health insurance to children whose family income is below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, about $42,400 a year for a family of four.

Democratic leaders across the Commonwealth came together today to applaud the Governor's leadership on this critical issue:

Ed Worley, Senate Minority Floor Leader

"I applaud the Governor for recognizing the need, and support his actions."

Johnny Ray Turner, Senate Minority Caucus Chair

"I support the Governor's plan and praise his efforts to provide health care for more of Kentucky's children."

Joey Pendleton, Senate Minority Whip

"I applaud the Governor for coming out with a plan for our children who are uninsured because healthy children will grow into healthy adults, which will be a cost savings for all of health care."

Jody Richards, Speaker of the House:

"KCHIP is a vitally important program that is helping many Kentucky children. I strongly support the administration's initiative to expand the program to allow more children to participate."

Larry Clark, Speaker Pro Tem:

"The health and well-being of our children is a fundamental building block in the success of our Commonwealth and I applaud Governor Beshear's efforts to strengthen the KCHIP program and his continued investment in Kentucky's children."

Rocky Adkins, Majority Floor Leader:

"I was honored to be with the governor this morning at Ponderosa Elementary in my district for his announcement to reach out to enroll more children in the KCHIP program through simplifying the application process.

I want to commend the governor on taking these steps. Assuring that Kentucky's children are healthy will pay long term dividends to all Kentuckians."

Charlie Hoffman, House Majority Caucus Chair:

"I'm so delighted that Governor Beshear is keeping his commitment to do the right thing for Kentucky's most vulnerable citizens. With the Governor's actions today, 35,000 children are looking toward a healthier, happier future. It's refreshing to see an administration follow through on this important initiative."

Representative Jeff Greer:

"As an insurance agent, I recognize that a significant number of Kentucky children do not have insurance coverage and the burden that puts on our Commonwealth's health care resources. The parents of these children want to have coverage, but simply cannot afford it.

I applaud the Governor's announcement today because it will ensure that more children will have health care while providing piece of mind to their grateful parents."

Representative Greg Stumbo:

"I commend Governor Beshear for this initiative. Obviously providing more health care for kids is a goal everyone should be supportive of."

Please join me, and our party leaders, in thanking Governor Beshear for taking this action to ensure that all of Kentucky's children will have access to quality, affordable heathcare.

Sincerely,

Jennifer A. Moore

Chair, Kentucky Democratic Party

 

 

 Paid for and authorized by the Kentucky Democratic Party
PO Box 694, Frankfort KY 40602 • (502) 695-4828 • www.kydemocrat.com

Contributions or gifts to the Kentucky Democratic Party are not tax deductible.

Checkout my new video on You Tube "MEDICAID" - a song and video tribute to our healthcare system! Please post a comment or story of your own!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq-hXWhk6dI

One of the sources of the problems with the legislation that is being passed in Congress and most of the legislation that has been passed over the past 30 years is the total lack of connection between Congress and the American people.

What we have in Congress are the "haves".  Surely there is a study on this somewhere, but I'll wager that the overwhelming majority of them fit in to the income bracket of the upper 10% of the wealthy in this nation.

This makes for a SERIOUS gap in their ability to understand the needs of the American people whom they are supposed to represent.  They pass bills that work for them and that they honestly think that work for the American people but they are CLUELESS.

   Read More »

Michelle Obama came to UMKC this morning for a roundtable discussion with a panel of 5 women on Women and Economics. It was such a great experience!   Read More »

Heartland Healthcare for All will be hosting a platform meeting July 26 @2pm at Southwest Family Health Clinic (corner of Southwest blvd. & Rainbow, with the colorful statues)...HEALTHCARE PLATFORM ONLY!!!   Read More »

There was an interesting article in the Chrsitan Today news site about universal healthcare in England. It is working and continues to be a model that deserves real consideration in America. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/nhs.marks.60th.birthday/20150.htm

Depending on which major studies you read, at least 44,000 people, and perhaps as many as 200,000 people, die as inpatients in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors that could have been prevented. In addition to the cost in terms of human lives, medical errors have been estimated to result in total costs between $17 billion and $29 billion per year in hospitals nationwide. It was also estimated in a JAMA article that there were 199,000 deaths from medical errors in outpatient care alone, and there could be upwards of 424,000 annual deaths per year in the American medical system, which would make the existing system itself one of the leading causes of death in the United States.

Thankfully, the Democratic party is not ignoring the problem and is moving towards a national solution. It is the right thing to do, it is the moral thing to do. This is not an issue to be left solely to the marketplace. It's not about maximizing profits for healthcare industry companies. It's about caring for our people and putting them first.

The main reason for Esmin Green’s death, contrary to what some have suggested on this site, has nothing to do with Esmin’s race-- or of the people who did not come to her assistance.

Most likely the main reason for Ms Green’s death on the emergency floor was the corporate policy of the people who own and manage the facility. The Facility, Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn is run by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) operates the public hospitals and clinics in New York City. It was created in 1969 by the New York State Legislature as a “public benefit” corporation.  It is similar to a municipal agency, but has a Board of Directors that are appointed and is run according to the same principles that guide private corporations. 

The problem is that this facility is run according to the same model that most privately owned hospitals and care facilities operate—for a profit.  I’m sure it has many similar rules, some spoken and others unspoken.  The standard rule for most emergency waiting areas is to make patients wait who have no insurance (unless they are gushing blood) so as to discourage them so they will leave.  After waiting several hours, many people will just give up and leave.  This is a plus for the hospital as they don’t have to incur the loss of treatment without payment.

   Read More »

Pre-Rally warm-up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl3JDUwN8Wg&feature=related

Rally at Moscone Center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxFd3GVCbMk

I'm loving this one, Louisville, Kentucky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzsmp7XJNH4&feature=related

Pennsylvania: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiv-pcChWD4

Please check them out and forward them on!