Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Huffington Post: Opinion: Maegan Carberry: A State of The Union Guide For Socialists and Racists

Huffington Post: Opinion: Maegan Carberry: A State of The Union Guide For Socialists and Racists

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

Maegan Carberry is right, being a Liberal doesn’t make someone a Socialist. And being a Conservati­ve doesn’t make someone a racist. But that should go without saying, but the question is why being a Liberal or Conservative, doesn’t make those people Socialists or Racists. Is because both liberalism and conservatism are based on individual liberty and limited government­. Liberals and Conservati­ves both believe, going from Jack Kennedy to Ron Reagan, that people should be judge as individual­s, not members of groups.

And that people should be able to live their own lives and not be overburden by government­. Through high taxes and government telling people how to live their lives. With limited government­, we don’t have a welfare state, with government trying to take care of us. But a safety net to help people who need it get back on their feet. And with limited government­, we don’t have especially the Federal Government­ trying to prevent same-sex Marriage from becoming law. Or being conservative about all aspects of the federal budget, except for the defense budget. That you have to be fiscally responsible all across the federal budget.

What gets stereotype­d today as liberalism and conservatism, aren’t liberalism and conservatism. But in liberalism­’s case, sort of looks like neo-communism or democratic socialism. Wanting government to take care of people with a King Kong sized superstate there to manage our economic and personal lives for us. Managing our education, health care, health insurance, diet and exercise, what we can watch and how we can talk to people. “That individual freedom is dangerous because people are generally too stupid to manage their own economic and personal lives. That freedom is the freedom to make mistakes at the costs of Big Government. Mr. Uncle Sam, the national parent of America.

In conservatism’s case, it’s really neoconservatism. A mixture of a warped interpretation of Christianity, that you would think would’ve been made up in some Hollywood script, but that there are Americans who take this theocratic ideology seriously and treat it as its real. Mixed in with Martial Law, where personal freedom, things like to the right to privacy, Freedom of Speech that Neoconservatives, disagree with, property rights are essentially outlawed. In the name of protecting the moral fiber, character and security of the superstate. Big government authoritarian nanny statist ideology when it comes personal issues and freedom.

Liberalism is not socialism or communism. And conservatism is not neoconservatism, a theocratic and military authoritarian ideology. Liberalism and conservatism are both anti-statism. Not anti-state, but that the state needs to be limited to doing the things that the only the state can do. Which doesn’t include managing the lives of the people.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

AlterNet: Opinion: Melissa Gira Grant: Confiscating Condoms? The Dumbfounding Ways Police Deal With Prostitution

AlterNet: Opinion: Melissa Gira Grant: Confiscating Condoms? The Dumbfounding Ways Police Deal With Prostitution 

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

I know I wrote a blog about our over expensive criminal justice and corrections system last night. But I found another example of why its so expensive. “Confiscating condoms”, as if we don’t have enough unwanted pregnancies in America. People raising kids before they are ready to and raising them in poverty. Or we don’t have enough people with sexually transmitted diseases in America. Or we don’t have enough people in our corrections system. Or we don’t have again what Milton Friedman called “Bad Laws”.

Laws designed to protect people from themselves. Rather than protecting innocent people from the harm of dangerous criminals. Laws that Uncle Sam passes that says, "Your Uncle Sam knows what is best for you. Even though I never met you or don't even know you exist. I'm Uncle Sam which is another way of saying God and I know what is best for you". Laws are supposed to be for to protect the innocent, especially children from the harm of predators. Especially in a liberal democracy like America. And another big government presidential Candidate Rick Santorum, the Big Government King, at least as far as I'm concern, sounds like a burger restaurant or something. Now coming out for banning condoms, which would make these issues even worse. 

There’s piles and piles of evidence in America that if you try to force people to stop doing something that they want to do, marijuana, gambling and yes prostitution are all perfect examples of this, that if they want to do something bad enough, they’ll find a way to do it. And screw the consequences if they want to do it bad enough. And if you don't believe me about the piles of evidence, just ask a parent, especially a parent with more than one kid and especially with at least one teenager. And ask them about what it is like for them to try to get their kids to do something that they don't want to do, or stop doing something that like doing for their own good. 

Prostitution being of course the oldest profession in the world, enough said is a perfect example of that. Crimes should be things that hurt other people. Not what people do with their own lives. And that's exactly what “Bad Laws” are, or the Uncle Sam Big Brother Nanny State micromanager is about. Trying to manage other people's lives for them, because you think they are too stupid to do that for themselves. Trying to control what people do with their own lives, even if they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing. 

I’m not going to pay for sex and would never by choice work as a prostitute. But there are a lot of other things that I wouldn’t do. Doesn't mean I want to outlaw them for everyone else. Because I don’t want to do them and believe they would be bad choices for me. Doesn’t mean I believe these activities should be illegal. Just means I believe people should have the freedom of choice to make these decisions for themselves. And the way to make these activities as safe as possible, is not by outlawing where they go underground and are still done anyway. But through regulation and taxation to make them as safe as possible.

Friday, January 13, 2012

AlterNet: Blog: Michael Hayne: In Onion Worthy News, Major GOP Candidates All Pledge to Be Hard on Porn: Escaped Mental Patients Running For POTUS, What a Country

AlterNet: Blog: Michael Hayne: In Onion Worthy News, Major GOP Candidates All Pledge to Be Hard on Porn

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

In other Onion worthy news, I actually agree with the AlterNet on something. Which tells me, its time for another head examination. I generally only read the AlterNet to see what Far-Left conspiracy theorists are up to. And if there’s anything I can do to help them. Suggest certain medicine, a good shrink, perhaps a Mental Institution. 

But from time to time, about as often as oceans are dry and Lindsay Lohan is sober, the AlterNet produces a good story that's actually worth reading and should be taken seriously. Like with their reporting on crime and punishment. And homelessness and the broader War on Poverty. Back in July when Michelle Bachmann, perhaps better known as the “Iron Lady” at her Mental Hospital being off her medicine decided to run for president and make pornography and same-sex marriage her key issues. That is what happens when she is off her medicine. 

Hopefully Michelle is back now getting the help she badly needs at her institution. And perhaps she is now running for President and away inside her mental hospital. Where she’s a resident, but during her time as an escaped patient, she and Rick Santorum took the same pledge, to outlaw pornography. If the Pope were to convert to Islam and Ron Paul were to declare himself now as a Socialist and only then would Michelle or Rick might have an ice balls chance in hell of winning the presidency. 

Michelle and Rick both argued over who singed the pledge first to outlaw pornography and same-sex marriage and return America to the 1950s. Michelle Bachmann finally won the debate, by saying "ha! I Singed it first" Nanny nanny boo boo stick your head in dog do". How you come back from that. This is the state of the Republican Party right now. This is what you have to do to be nominated for president there. 

These are the issues that drive the GOP right now. Like cabbies drive cars, yeah we might have 8.5% Unemployment, a 15T$ national debt and budget deficit approaching 2T$ and rising costs of living. But it's your positions on these that are the issues that only 10% of the country cares about, that the Far-Right of the Republican Party cares about. 

Small percentage of the country at large, but big enough that the GOP still needs them to win. Because of their inability to bring voters from outside of this small community into the party. These issues won’t put anyone back to work, except for people who fight against these things like on the Christian Right, but lay off more people or put more people in Prison that currently work in the adult entertainment industry.  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

"Prison Industrial Complex": What a Corrections System should be for

If you look at the term "Prison Industrial Complex", a term I've never used in by blogs. You should know what that means, people and company's make money off of our Corrections System. And lobby for new laws so more people can get arrested and then be rewarded with new Private Contracts. To build new Prisons, which is one reason why we have so many laws in America. A lot of them I would call "Bad Laws" but another reason why we have so many "Bad Laws". Is because there's this in attitude in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. That one purpose of government is to protect People, even Free People meaning Free Adults from themselves. And when Free Adults breaks laws that the People behind these laws. Support, they get arrested and ultimately sent to jail or Prison. So you eliminate a lot of the "Bad Laws" in America. Which is what the "Prison Industrial Complex" and their allies in Congress and in State and Local Governments. Would fight very hard to the point of huge Campaign Contributions that aren't reported. As well as challenging politicians for their jobs who don't support them. We wouldn't have as nearly as many people in Prison that we have today which is around 2M. And the PIC would lose a lot of money and perhaps even take their business elsewhere. Which would be good for America but bad for wherever they were to relocate to.

The way to cut back on our Prison Population, is to eliminate a lot of our "Bad Laws". Legalize but Regulate and Tax Marijuana, Prostitution and Gambling for starters. Transfer the people who are currently in Prison for those crimes, that have solid Prison Records. That haven't committed any further felony's. To Halfway House and Drug Rehab so they can transition to life on the outside. But also do away with a big problem and one reason why we have so many Prison Inmates. Which is the Private Prison Industry, we could at least get it banned at the Federal Level. But they couldn't force States do to it, for that to happen we would need a Grassroots Campaign all across the country to do that. The Private Prison Industry is simply in the business to lock people up and keep them there. And lobby for longer Prison Sentences and for more new "Bad Laws". They have the Financial Incentive thats paid for by Tax Payers, to lock up as many Prison Inmates as possible for as long as possible. The Corrections System is there to house people who represent a threat to society and keep them. Until their Prison Sentences are completed.

You eliminate "Bad Laws" and the Private Prison Industry and send Non Violent Offenders. Who don't represent a major threat to the economy and society. I'm not talking about White Collar Con Artists or Narcotics Dealers but thieves, shoplifters. Those type of Offenders and then we work to rehabilitate. The Offenders who need to be in prison to prepare them for life on the outside. We can cut back on our Prison Population and have an affordable Corrections System.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

"1 in 4 Americans Have Criminal Record": Why Bad Laws are Harmful

I don't know for a fact that 25% of the people in the United States have a Criminal Record. But I do know that according to the US Justice Department, we have roughly 2M people in Prison in America. Which is too may if you consider the fact that we are a Liberal Democracy and we have what Libertarian Economist Milton Friedman called "Bad laws". Laws like in the failed War on Drugs now forty years old, that try to protect people from themselves. We have laws that make gambling illegal, people can actually get arrested and go to Prison. If they are convicted of gambling, even gambling their own money. Which is starting to change in my State of Maryland at least to some extent. As we now have some casinos and have Legalized Gambling at least to some extent. Hopefully Same Sex Marriage will be next and perhaps one day even marijuana. One can only hope, I mean we are called the Free State, so we should be trying to live up to that. We are also called a Liberal State, I'm doing my part to see that we are a Liberal State. Hopefully we'll do a better job of living up to that as well. We simply arrest too many people for things that aren't harmful to anyone. Except for maybe the person thats doing them and then we wonder why we have so many people in Prison in America.

Well you want some ideas in how we can reduce our Prison Population, well I;m going to give them to you anyway. Legalize Marijuana and transfer all of our Prison Inmates who are in Prison for marijuana use, selling or making. Who have solid Prison Records and haven't committed other felony's while in Prison. To Halfway Houses where they can get help transitioning back into society. Transfer our other Prison Inmates who are in Prison for other narcotics use. Who also have solid Prison Records and haven't committed felony's while in Prison. To Drug Rehab where they can get help with their addiction, if they aren't addicted, transfer them to Halfway Houses instead. Where they can get help transitioning back into society. Stop sending Narcotics Addicts to Prison and send them to Drug Rehab instead, put their Narcotics Usage on their Medical Records. Not Criminal Records and give them an opportunity to get past their addiction and move on with their lives. We could drop our Prison Population by the hundreds of thousands with a program like this, perhaps 500K from 2M. Legalize Gambling and Prostitution at least at the Federal Level. Get those people again with solid Prison Records and no new felony's out of Prison and into Halfway Houses. And regulate and tax those enterprises instead.

We have so many people in Prison in America, because we have too many laws, get rid of the "Bad Laws". And we can bring those numbers down instead. And also do things like rehabilitating our Prison Inmates that need to be in Prison. Get them in school, get them a real job in Prison, producing things. Pay them for it and have them pay for their Living Expenses and not only could we bring down our Prison Population. But we could make our Corrections System more affordable as well.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Huffington Post: Blog: Sam Stein: John McCain 200-Page Mitt Romney Opposition Research Book From 2008 Found: John and Mitt Now Friends?

Huffington Post: Blog: Sam Stein: John McCain 200-Page Opposition Research Book From 2008 Found

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

John McCain to Mitt Romney-
"I’m sorry Mitt I didn’t mean it, I thought you were an oil slick schmuck five years ago. Well I still do, but hell, at least your better than President Obama. Well I’m 75 years old and I”m not always sure what I believe. I was Captain of the Straight Talk Express back in 2000. But that train ran out of gas in 2007, because there was this other job that I wanted as well and besides I’m a Republican­. So it was my turn to run for it. Thats how we roll in the GOP, a party I’m sure your familiar with. 

The Grand Old Party and its a job you’ve run for twice yourself and who knows maybe after you crash and burn in 2012, we’ll be dumb enough to nominate you again. I’m sorry I had this, is this guy the best we can do expression on my face? When I endorse you after I waited till it was clear you’ll be our nominee. You know so I wasn’t taking a risk or anything, I am a politician after all. 

When you're talking about Washington insiders, I’m still a member of that club. Been in Congress for now 29 years. As much as I they try to kick me out, because I’m a maverick insider. Huh slick name, almost as slick as one of your speeches. But again I wish you the best of luck and hope you beat the other guy". Not exactly a ringing endorsement from Senator John McCain of Mitt Romney. But that is what Mitt I guess can expect, considering he's Mitt Romney and running for president in the Republican Party. 

Saturday, January 7, 2012

"Legalization Of Marijuana Now Mainstream In America!": No Longer Extreme

When you look at the War on Drugs which the Federal Government in the United States. Officially declared in 1971 under President Nixon, I was born in 1975. So unfortunately I've had to live through most of that war, just not a victim of. Because I and the rest of the family doesn't do narcotics, other then alcohol and tobacco which are both legal by the way. When you see the victims of this war, when you look at the increases in our Prison Population. Under President Nixon which exploded under President Reagan, also when up under President HW Bush and President Clinton as well. Three basically Conservative Republicans and a Liberal Democrat all playing a major role in the War on Drugs. I would argue the Failed War on Drugs, you see a lot of victims in this war. People who are facing long Prison Sentences, even though they haven't hurt anybody. America is suppose to be a Liberal Democracy a Free Society, how contradictory is that. Yet we have 2M people in Prison in America, I would argue most of those people. That are in Prison, are there for good reason, for harming society and are guilty. There exceptions for everything of course but generally most of our Prison Inmates are where they should be. Until they complete their Prison Sentences, I'm not "Soft on Crime" or an anarchist. But how about the hundreds of thousands of Prison Inmates that are there for using narcotics, especially pot. These people aren't criminals but Narcotics Users and Addicts, they should be treated like patients.

As America gets younger we get more Liberal and Libertarian as a society, I'm a perfect example of that. I'm 36 and I'm a Liberal Democrat, the Ron Paul Libertarian Movement. Is another perfect example of that and we tend to have less faith in government and the establishment. Especially when they try to tell us how to live our lives, try to choose our Healthcare and Healthcare Provider. What we can do with our own money, what Medical Procedures we can have. Who we can marry and sleep with etc and the new Poll Numbers about Legalization of Marijuana suggest that as well. Liberals and Libertarians like the idea because it would give us more freedom. Progressives and Socialists like the idea, because they see it as more Tax Revenue for Government. Classical Conservatives are starting to get behind the idea as well. Again because they see it as a Freedom of Choice Issue. People lets say fifty and under tend to like the idea of Marijuana Legalization, President Obama would be an exception to that. Because younger people tend to be again Liberal to Libertarian and have lived through the War on Drugs. And perhaps have suffered from it or have friends and relatives that have suffered through it.

We right now have to Legal Narcotics that have been linked to Diabetes, Heart Disease, Colon Cancer, Lung Cancer. Yet they are both legal, being alcohol and tobacco. If you drink alcohol moderately and otherwise live healthy, you'll be all right. But we don't see a lot of old Lifetime Smokers, they tend to give up tobacco as their health goes south. Or they die, I'm not calling for Prohibition of Alcohol and Tobacco, all I'm saying is that we should Legalize, Regulate and Tax Marijuana, treat it the same way. A narcotic that presents similar Side Effects.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Spectator: President John F. Kennedy's- 'Speech on Tax Cuts'

Source:Spectator 1828- Classical Liberal  President John F. Kennedy
"An excerpt from John F Kennedy's address to the Economic Club of New York on 14 December 1962. Text & audio of the full speech here: American Rhetoric"

From Spectator

First of all, I want to thank my friend and one of my subscribers Brendan Owens from Facebook for giving me the inspiration to write this blog post about tax cuts. Parts of the last two nights we've been debating tax cuts on Facebook as good friends can do in a respectful way. He's a self-described Democratic Socialist. I don't say that to be insulting, but thats how he describes his politics. I'm a self-described Liberal Democrat, so we have plenty to debate about outside of social issues, where we tend to agree. At least so far, we haven't discussed gun rights yet, but maybe in the future.

Jack Kennedy, a political hero of mine and I know I've said this many times, but it's definitely true. Inherited a recession, or a weak economy when he became President in 1961. The economy boomed for the most part in the 1950s under the Eisenhower Administration. But went into recession in I believe in 1958. It cost the Republican Party a bunch of seats in Congress that year. As Congressional Democrats added to their majorities, thanks to the Southern Conservative Caucus and others. And proposed an Economic Recovery Act that had I believe at the time the largest tax cut in American history.

Back then, we had tax rates ranging from 25-90%. Thank God for all of the tax deductions! Or our economy would be like Russia, with basically no property rights. Basically the Federal Government would take most of your money from you in income and payroll taxes and then let you decide how much of it you could get back in order to pay your bills. It was redistribution of your own wealth through high tax rates.

President Kennedy, recognized that those high tax rates were slowing down economic growth and economic incentive for people to work hard and make a good living. Because the Federal Government would collect so much of the money. Those high tax rates didn't make much sense even from a socialist point of view other than to hold down the rich or something. Because America still didn't have much of a safety net. This was right before the Great Society.

The 1960s, was one of the best decades we've ever had economically at least in the 20th Century. With high economic and job growth for most of that decade and low unemployment. One of the reasons why President Johnson was elected in a landslide in 1964 and if it wasn't for the Vietnam War, he probably would've been reelected in a landslide as well. The Kennedy tax cuts by the way: we ain't talking about Goldwater-Reagan or Kemp-Roth, but Jack Kennedy a Liberal Democrat, was a big part for the 1960s economic expansion. And it wasn't a supply side tax cut, but they paid for it by eliminating tax loopholes.

The Kennedy tax cuts, had tax reform in it. Lower tax rates while eliminating tax loopholes. Letting people keep more of their money for them to decide how to spend it. Encouraging people to be more productive, because they would get to keep more of their money as a result. Instead of the Federal Government taking most of it from them. The Kennedy tax cuts plus the Vietnam War with the boom in the military industry as well as people being sent to Vietnam opening up more jobs at home, are reasons for the economic expansion of the 1960s.

In 1978 Representative Jack Kemp and Senator Bill Roth, two Conservative Republican members of Congress, proposed their own tax cuts that later became the 1981 Economic Recovery Act that President Reagan singed into law. It did help jump start the economy and lead to the economic boom of the 1980s. But the difference being President Reagan didn't pay for his tax cuts, or even propose to do so. He didn't propose on balanced budget plan to Congress his entire eight years. He had a Republican Senate for six years. His theory was that supply side tax cuts pay for themselves. He was wrong if you look at the mountain of debt as a result in his government expansion and tax cuts. But President Kennedy was an inspiration for their tax cuts.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

FORA-TV: Michael Moore- 'America is a Liberal Nation'

Source: FORA-TV-
Source: FORA-TV: Michael Moore- America is a Liberal Nation

If you look at most or at least a lot of the important issues in America and I would now add marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage to that list, as well as legalize gambling to that as well and nondiscrimination of homosexuals and immigration reform to go with abortion and other issues, Americans and I'm one of them tend to be liberal. But we are not a liberal nation in Michael Moore's world of liberalism.

Michael Moore's world of liberalism has to do with the word, well more. Meaning I want a liberal amount of food, water, clothing, coffee whatever the case is. And in a political sense, Moore uses the word liberal to describe his politics as he wants a liberal amount of government. Especially a liberal amount of the Federal Government. Perhaps the Michael Moore's of the world if they don't have the political balls to be called Socialists or even Democratic Socialists, they should call themselves Morists or Morites. People who want more from government. But in a political sense, the word liberal has to do with liberty, individual liberty.

Not more except for more liberty,  not more government. Liberal comes from the word liberty. And in politics that means individual liberty not big government but limited government. I'll grant that Michael Moore is a Social Liberal in the sense that he believes in personal freedom. And I respect him for that. But he's a Socialist on economic policy and perhaps a Libertarian on foreign policy. So at best Michael Moore is I guess a Socialist Liberal. Kinda like author Noam Chomsky is a Socialist Libertarian. And if you consider yourself Progressive or Libertarian, you probably know who Noam Chomsky is.

When I think of Liberals like myself or liberalism my political ideology, I don't think of Mike Moore or the so-callrd Progressive Caucus. Quite frankly, I think of people like Jack Kennedy and Tom Jefferson. Governor Martin O'Malley the current Governor of my State of Maryland, the Free State of Maryland that is. I think of people who believe in individual liberty and limited government.

Like in Dick Durbin's case the Deputy Leader of the Senate, someone who openly criticizes the Patriot Act and indefinite detention. Someone who is more in line on these individual liberty issues with Representative Ron Paul a Libertarian, then he's line with President Obama who is a Progressive. Who has taken more a neoconservative view on these issues. Thats what Liberalism is about individual liberty and standing up for it even when the leader of your party doesn't. It's not about big government and creating a new social insurance program to solve all of our problems and build a Socialist Utopia for America, but empowering people to solve their own problems.

Mike Moore doesn't understand what liberalism is at least not at it;s full scale. He's got the social issues down and I respect him for that but he doesn't understand personal freedom isn't worth much without economic freedom. And he believes you can be a big believer in personal liberalism. But then also a big believer in big government on economic policy and still be a Liberal. It doesn't work like that.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Uncommon Knowledge: The Great Depression with Amity Shlaes: How we got out of it

The "Great Depression" of the 1930s is a classical argument between Progressives and Socialists or Progressive Socialists. As I would call them vs Conservatives and Libertarians or perhaps even Liberals. On what caused the "Great Depression" and how we got out of it and why it lasted so long. The classic progressive argument is that the FDR New Deal of the 1930s is what got us out of the "Great Depression". The problem with that argument and I'm making this as a Liberal Democrat just to put my cards on the table. Is that as late of 1940 basically the start or very close to the start of one of the largest Baby Booms in America. depending on how you define the Baby Boom Generation, we were still dealing with the "Great Depression". We still had 14-15% Official Unemployment, we officially started growing the economy again in around 1934-35 and then went back into recession in 1936. We get into World War II in 1941-42 and we put a lot of people back to work for the military, at home and abroad. By sending so many people abroad to fight in World War II, we created more jobs at home. Because more jobs opened up at home, because we had less workers at home to fill those jobs. I'm not saying that the New Deal was inconsequential, because it did create some brand new Entitlement Programs. That 75 plus years later we have to figure how to reform and pay for in the future. And on the positive side it did create a floor for people to count on when they were out of work.

The Legacy of the New Deal is not that it ended the "Great Depression", no government on its own is capable of doing that on its own. The "Great Depression" is exactly that, our economy collapsed so great to the point. That it took us about ten years to get passed it. But it did give people who needed it a floor of income that they can count on. When they were out of work, pre 1933 we basically had no Public Safety Net in America. People in need were almost completely dependent on getting themselves back on their feet. Their families and friends helping them out or Private Charity. With Social Security, Unemployment and Welfare Insurance we no longer have that. Thats the benefit of the New Deal and it did some people back to work. With substantial Infrastructure Investment just not to the point that it got us out of the "Great Depression". World War II where we spent a hell of a lot more money as a country then we spent on the New Deal. And went into debt to pay for it, did a lot of the work to get us out of the "Great Depression".

The New Deal helped in the short term but 75 plus years later we are still trying to figure out how to pay for them. And even if we want the Federal Government running all of these Social Insurance Programs. Or do we want some decentralization of them and even Private Competition for them. Progressive Socialists still haven't accomplished what they've always wanted, which was to transform. America into a Socialist Democracy and make us like Europe.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Health Care Reform Rep. Anthony Weiner from 2009: Public Option vs Mandate

What then Rep. Anthony Weiner, great name by the way except when you hold Public Office. And his allies were arguing for in the 2009-10 Healthcare Reform Debate. Compared with what President Obama, myself and his allies were arguing for Healthcare Reform. The Public Option vs Medicare For All Single Payer, may sound similar but its actually very different. A Public Option would be a new Independent Public Non Profit Self Financed Health Insurer. Vs Medicare For All a Public Mandate, what's the difference you may ask. In case its not obvious enough, Option vs Mandate. With the Public Option people would be able to keep their current Health Insurance or Health Savings Account. Or dump that for the Public Option and people who currently can't afford to pay for their Healthcare. Would get a Tax Credit to help pay for their Health Insurance, which is in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Vs a Public Mandate, outlawing Private Health Insurers, forcing people to get on Medicare. Whether they want it or need it or not, its that simple, its about Freedom of Choice in Healthcare and Health Insurance. Vs taking some of our Freedom of Choice away from us in Healthcare and forcing to take and pay for Medicare. Whether we want it or not and anytime the debate is centered around those terms. Freedom of Choice always wins in America because Americans generally don't want Big Government. Telling them how to live their lives especially as it gets to Healthcare.

Actually to one extent Freedom of Choice lost in this debate. Because the Public Option wasn't part of the final Affordable Care Act. And thats why a Public Option again an Independent Public Self Financed Health Insurer. It wouldn't be run by the Federal Government or any Government and we wouldn't just has to have one Public Option. You could have fifty Public Options in America added on to Medicare and Medicaid. For each State and if the debate was framed in these terms and early on and President Obama. Was more forceful in the debate instead of waiting for the Democratic Congress. To screw up the debate and let the Tea Party and Congressional Republicans put the debate on their terms. Before he made a forceful presence in the debate, which came in like February 2010 when. He had that Public Meeting between the Democratic and Republican Congressional Leaderships. Maybe the Public Option would've been part of the final 2010 ACA. But of course we'll never know that but if President Obama is reelected in 2012, he could get another opportunity. To make a strong play for a Public Option, depending on how strong is mandate is after the 2012 Presidential Election.

There way to many abuses in the Private Health Insurance Market, even conservatives will acknowledge that. Which is another reason why a Public Option and Patient Bill of Rights are so important. A PBR was is in the 2010 ACA, Public Option was dropped and had the debate been framed and argued better. And not wait so long for the Final Agreement, they would probably both be in the ACA today.