I think Marcy Wheeler makes the single most compelling argument here about the precedent of a private health insurance mandate:

And for those who promise we’ll go back and fix this later, once we achieve universal health care, understand what will have happened in the meantime. The idea, of course, is to establish some means to get people single payer coverage (before Lieberman, this would have been through a public option or Medicare buy-in) and, over time, expand it.

In fact, this bill will move toward single payer, too–though not the kind we want. For the large number of people who live in a place where there is limited competition, this bill will require them to get health care through the oligopoly or monopoly provider. It’ll work great for the provider: they will be able to dictate rates. But the Senate bill allows these blossoming single payer providers to keep up to 25% of the benefit in profits and marketing costs, and pass little of that benefit onto citizens. If we make private corporations our single payer, how are we going to convince them to cede control when we ask them to let the government be the single payer?

The reason this matters, though, is the power it gives the health care corporations. We can’t ditch Halliburton or Blackwater because they have become the sole primary contractor providing precisely the services they do. And so, like it or not, we’re dependent on them. And if we were to try to exercise oversight over them, we’d ultimately face the reality that we have no leverage over them, so we’d have to accept whatever they chose to provide. This bill gives the health care industry the leverage we’ve already given Halliburton and Blackwater.

It’s the 9.8% tithe that bothers me the most. But for those who think we can fix it, consider this, too. If the Senate bill passes, in its current form, it will mean that the health care industry was able to dictate–through their Senators Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson–what they wanted the US Congress to do. They will have succeeded in dictating the precise terms of legislation.

Now, that’s not the first time that has happened. It certainly happened on telecom immunity. It certainly has happened, repeatedly, on Defense contracting (see also Randy Cunningham). But none of these egregious instances of corporations dictating legislation included a tithe–the requirement that citizens pay corporations to provide their service, rather than allowing the government to contract the service.

This is a fundamentally different relationship we’re talking about–one that gives corporations vast new powers. And the fact that–with one temper tantrum from Joe Lieberman–the corporations were able to dictate the terms of this new relationship deeply troubles me.

When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws will be.

I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What I don’t understand is the nonchalance with which we’re about to fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.

We’ve seen our Constitution and means of government under attack in the last 8 years. This does so in a different–but every bit as significant way. We don’t mandate tithing corporations in this country–at least not yet. And it troubles me that so many Democrats are rushing to do so, without considering the logical consequences.

Wednesday, Senator Bernie Sanders became the first to introduce a universal health care bill on the floor of the Senate. (see above video) While he eventually withdrew the bill after Republican delaying tactics, my hat is off to the Independent Senator from Vermont. He has always stood up for the people of his state and the country and he has big brass ones!

Now, Bernie has said that he will not vote for the current bill. More from The Hill:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said late Wednesday that he cannot support the Democrats' healthcare reform legislation in its current form.

Asked by Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto asked Sanders if he could support the compromise bill. The senator replied "I’m struggling with this. As of this point I am not voting for the bill. And here’s why."

Sanders, who favors a single-payer healthcare system, said that he has informed the White House and Democratic leadership of his position.

"As of this moment. I am going to do my best to make this bill a better bill, a bill that I can vote for but I’ve indicated both to the White House and the Democratic leadership that my vote is not secure at this point," he said.

Sanders words come as Democratic leaders are now facing heat from the left over several compromises made in order to attract centrist votes. Read on...

Hooray for Bernie! Any notion that killing the public option or the Medicare buy in provision is a "centrist" idea is ridiculous -- it is a far right position, and one that lies well outside the mainstream of America and the Democratic Party platform. Holy Joe Lieberman has been shoving his mug in front of every camera he can find to gloat about how much power he wields in this debate, so I am thrilled to see Sanders step up to the plate and make it known that not everybody on Capitol Hill is going to roll over for the insurance lobby.

Just when you think he can't get any more insane and stupid, Glenn Beck manages to pluck yet another feather from the plumage:

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1297)

PLAYS: (2411)

Oy.

Besides the conundrum of how it is that someone this clearly insane is given multiple national platforms to rant and rave as lucidly as the crazy homeless guy downtown, I really can't believe that we're now getting to the point that we're likening health care reform (something the majority of the country wants, mind you) to forced rape of a minor.

We had visitors from Denmark staying with us just recently, and they were just dumbfounded by the asinine and completely fact-free crap that passes for news coverage here, especially when it comes to health reform. From a country where universal health care is a given, listening to the fear-mongering on Fox News and other news channels I'm forced to watch for C&L made them wonder about the collective IQ of American citizens. Sadly, I was hard-pressed to defend us in the face of such loonies like Beck.

I take solace in the thought that when my children are my age, we will likely have fought mightily and won universal single payer health care for all Americans (because it really is the only thing that makes sense) and they'll look back at old tape of Glenn Beck and say, "Sheesh, no wonder it was such a battle, look at this idiocy," and shake their heads ruefully at the frightened, non-thinking people that watched him.

Good for Joe Sestak for recognizing the problem. Let your congress person know you support the bill, even if you can't afford COBRA yourself. Keeping health coverage on the political radar is an important step towards affordable universal health care:

Laura C. Trueman has spent much of her career promoting affordable health care. Now, she wishes she could find some herself.

Laid off from her marketing job at a managed-care company late last year, Trueman was able to keep her health insurance thanks to a provision in the federal stimulus bill that gave furloughed workers the right to purchase their old employer-based coverage at a 65% discount. The subsidies, which last up to nine months, were designed to give workers like Trueman time to get back on their feet.

Today, with the job market weak, Trueman is still without a job, and her family is bracing for an uncertain future. With the subsidies, she and her husband, a self-employed attorney were paying a manageable $460 a month for their health insurance; starting Dec. 1, the cost jumps to $1,313. They can ill afford the increase. They're already having trouble making their mortgage payment, and fear they might lose their Northern Virginia home.

“It has really made a huge difference for us,” she says of the insurance assistance, adding that the higher payment “would be a real stretch.”

Since 1985, a law known as COBRA has given laid off-workers the right to hold onto their employer-based health insurance for up to 18 months so long as they continue to pay the premiums, including payments that their employers used to make on their behalf.

In the past very few people could afford this option, but the government subsidies have changed that, and now enrollments appear to be growing sharply. Hewitt Associates, a Lincolnshire, Ill., consulting firm, recently estimated that the rate at which workers were opting for coverage under COBRA had doubled compared with pre-subsidy levels.

Although federal officials do not have figures on the number of people participating in the program, millions have been eligible. The law covers anyone laid off between Sept. 1 of last year and Dec. 31 of this year.

But with the first discounts having gone into effect March 1, many people are about to see the benefit expire, including many who remain unemployed. The Obama administration and some members of Congress are talking about whether to extend the subsidy. Some lawmakers aren't enthused because of budget concerns, but backers say the subsidy is a crucial lifeline for people still hunting for jobs.

Just this week, Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Penn., introduced legislation that would extend from 9 to 15 months the total allowable time an unemployed worker and her family could receive the subsidized COBRA assistance. The legislation would also extend the subsidies to people laid off through June 30, 2010, widening the window of eligibility by six months. A third provision would give an extra six months of undiscounted COBRA coverage to people who were laid off early in 2008 before the subsidy law took effect.

I was laid off in July 2007, just before the subsidies kicked in. But at this point, I'd be happy just to be eligible for another six months.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (77)

PLAYS: (419)

Rachel Maddow talks to former Lieberman political rival Ned Lamont about what is driving Sen. Lieberman to obstruct health reform and threaten to filibuster his own caucus. As Ned notes, it was Republican money that got him elected and he's showing that political allegiance now. I think he doesn't care what party it is as long as his pockets are being lined.

Maddow: I have a feeling you're going to say "I told you so" but I have to ask. Does it surprise you that Sen. Lieberman would join Republicans to filibuster health reform?

Lamont: It surprises me in this sense, that everybody thought that our race three years ago was just about the war in Iraq, whether it was a good idea to invade or not, but we spent an awful lot of time talking about health care reform and during that race I accused Sen. Lieberman of dithering and after twenty years in the Senate not doing anything on fundamental health care reform, and he was the one that came back and said unilaterally "I support universal health insurance for all Americans and I'm going to fight for it". So I'm surprised that a few years later he is dithering again.

Maddow: I know...I went back and looked at some of the contemporaneous coverage from your race and I know back in September of 2006, during that fight Sen. Lieberman told reporters on a conference call “I have long supported the goal of universal health care. Ned Lamont can talk about it. I’ve been doing something about it all the time I’ve been here.” If he does end up being the one guy who stops it, if it is his filibuster, what do you think the political costs will be of that?

Lamont: Look the people of Connecticut are ready to have a vote. They want to have a vote on fundamental health care reform and they want the choice of a public option. Sen. Chris Dodd and all of our Congressionals are on board with that and it’s Sen. Lieberman who’s the outlier, so I think there will be political consequences if a Sen. Lieberman is the one person who stands in the way, who obstructs our opportunity to have a fundamental vote on health care reform.

Maddow: What do you think those consequences will be though? One of the things that we have to think about is what happens in Washington, whether or not the Democrats and the Senate allow him to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee—there’s also the question of whether he faces political consequences at home. He seems to be planning to run again.

Lamont: I believe—I probably wouldn’t know—I’d be the last person in Connecticut to know whether he’s going to run again but I can tell you this; there’s an awful lot of folks here who are looking forward to the opportunity of challenging Sen. Lieberman. You know during our race a few years ago he said nobody wants to have a Democrat elected president as much as I do. He supported health care reform. Nobody wanted to get the troops home more than he did. Three years is a long time. I think there are a number of folks, independent, moderates, Republicans and Democrats who are disappointed where the words aren’t matching the action and are looking for a change.

Maddow: Why do you think he doesn’t just become a Republican?

Lamont: I think he’s been a Democrat for an awful long time, but I think tactically he’s probably looking at his options right now. I’ve got to believe when you walk away from health care reform, when you deny your fellow Senators the right to vote on health care reform, that seems to be somebody that knows he was elected in 2006 with overwhelming Republican support. I think that’s his base.

I've been a little down lately, because it seems too many people are in a state of learned helplessness and don't want to participate in our democracy if it involves stepping away from the computer.

But then I saw this letter from Michael Moore and I felt a lot better. Because it's still our country, and we can still make a difference:

Friends,

It's the #1 question I'm constantly asked after people see my movie: "OK -- so NOW what can I DO?!"

You want something to do? Well, you've come to the right place! 'Cause I got 15 things you and I can do right now to fight back and try to fix this very broken system.

Here they are:

FIVE THINGS WE DEMAND THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS DO IMMEDIATELY:

1. Declare a moratorium on all home evictions. Not one more family should be thrown out of their home. The banks must adjust their monthly mortgage payments to be in line with what people's homes are now truly worth -- and what they can afford. Also, it must be stated by law: If you lose your job, you cannot be tossed out of your home.

2. Congress must join the civilized world and expand Medicare For All Americans. A single, nonprofit source must run a universal health care system that covers everyone. Medical bills are now the #1 cause of bankruptcies and evictions in this country. Medicare For All will end this misery. The bill to make this happen is called H.R. 3200. You must call AND write your members of Congress and demand its passage, no compromises allowed.

3. Demand publicly-funded elections and a prohibition on elected officials leaving office and becoming lobbyists. Yes, those very members of Congress who solicit and receive millions of dollars from wealthy interests must vote to remove ALL money from our electoral and legislative process. Tell your members of Congress they must support campaign finance bill H.R.1826.

4. Each of the 50 states must create a state-owned public bank like they have in North Dakota. Then congress MUST reinstate all the strict pre-Reagan regulations on all commercial banks, investment firms, insurance companies -- and all the other industries that have been savaged by deregulation: Airlines, the food industry, pharmaceutical companies -- you name it. If a company's primary motive to exist is to make a profit, then it needs a set of stringent rules to live by -- and the first rule is "Do no harm." The second rule: The question must always be asked -- "Is this for the common good?" (Click here for some info about the state-owned Bank of North Dakota.)

5. Save this fragile planet and declare that all the energy resources above and beneath the ground are owned collectively by all of us. Just like they do it in Sarah Palin's socialist Alaska. We only have a few decades of oil left. The public must be the owners and landlords of the natural resources and energy that exists within our borders or we will descend further into corporate anarchy. And when it comes to burning fossil fuels to transport ourselves, we must cease using the internal combustion engine and instruct our auto/transportation companies to rehire our skilled workforce and build mass transit (clean buses, light rail, subways, bullet trains, etc.) and new cars that don't contribute to climate change. (For more on this, here's a proposal I wrote in December.) Demand that General Motors' de facto chairman, Barack Obama, issue a JFK man-on-the-moon-style challenge to turn our country into a nation of trains and buses and subways. For Pete's sake, people, we were the ones who invented (or perfected) these damn things in the first place!!

FIVE THINGS WE CAN DO TO MAKE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT LISTEN TO US:

1. Each of us must get into the daily habit of taking 5 minutes to make four brief calls: One to the President (202-456-1414), one to your Congressperson (202-224-3121) and one to each of your two Senators (202-224-3121). To find out who represents you, click here. Take just one minute on each of these calls to let them know how you expect them to vote on a particular issue. Let them know you will have no hesitation voting for a primary opponent -- or even a candidate from another party -- if they don't do our bidding. Trust me, they will listen. If you have another five minutes, click here to send them each an email. And if you really want to drop an anvil on them, send them a snail mail letter!

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 1839

PLAYS: 1056

(Harry Truman - laying it out in plain, understandable English)

Harry Truman never gave up on the idea of Universal Health Care. He brought up the subject in 1945 and he was present when the Medicare Bill was signed into law in 1965.

In 1952 he addressed a convention of the American Hospital Association and, even though his term of office would be up in a few months, he still campaigned for a decent system of health care for all Americans.

Pres. Truman: “This great free enterprise system of ours has made it possible for more Americans to have more things, more of the good things of life, than any people anywhere on earth or anywhere in the history of the world. Can it now also make it possible for every American to protect his health? I would not call such a goal socialism. I would call it a goal of enterprise. American free enterprise. Meeting the health needs of our people is one of the most important ways we can make our American promises come true. It’s also one of the mainstays of national defense. Only the strong can survive and only the healthy can be strong.”

After almost 60 years, it's still sounding like a good idea.

(Technical note: The original recording of this speech is completely trashed, with a thick coat of static going through the entire speech that goes from bad to worse. I have spent several hours with ProTools trying to pull some usable portions of this one hour speech out to make it as legible as possible, but some things were just impossible to do. Therefore, it might require some close listening in order to make out what's being said. Sadly, it's the only known recording of the speech, which was never broadcast - but it's an important document of great historic importance. And for that reason I'm including it in this post. Apologies in advance - G.S.)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (51)

PLAYS: (134)

David Gergen apparently thinks that 30% the insurance companies are taking to move our money around is just a "secondary issue" when it comes to what's in the bill making its way through the Senate right now. He then goes on to say it's not real reform and talks about how expensive Romney-care is in Massachusetts. I don't know how anyone could square those two statements. I don't think it's any big mystery why the public option is needed. To keep costs down. I'll refer back to Howard Dean on this one:

Dean: If you're not going to have a public option, then don't call it health reform. Strip all the money out of the bill and just do something we did here in Vermont about fifteen years ago, guaranteed issue and community rating. Require insurance companies to insure everybody. Stop them from kicking people off and don't let them charge huge amounts of money for sicker patients.

That's not health reform. It's insurance reform. You won't do much for the uninsured but you will make the health insurance market work better for the people it does work for. And you know, that's an incremental step and I wouldn't want to throw that out, but I'd strip the money out of the bill because this is going to be and expensive bill and if you're not going to get reform then you shouldn't bother with the expense.

Gergen thinks we should give the money to the insurance companies, and then come back and try to fix it later. Bad idea.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 104

PLAYS: 23

(Truman and The Congress Of Nope in 1947)

The 80th Congress, dubbed the "Do Nothing Congress" by President Truman was the result of a Republican majority from the 1946 mid-term elections. Pretty much bent on overturning legislation enacted during the FDR Administration, they managed to stifle almost all the bills Truman introduced during the 80th session of Congress from 1947-1949. This meant, of course Universal Health Care which had been on the books in various forms since 1941 as well as a number of economic packages needed to deal with the Recession of 1947.

Pres.Truman: “On several occasions during the past year I have reported to the Congress and to the Nation on our general economic situation. These reports have told of new high levels of production and employment. Farmers are producing 37% more than in 1929. Industry is producing 65% more. In terms of actual purchasing power, the average income of individuals after taxes has risen 39%. The rapid growth of our post-war activity has exceeded expectations, and has revealed anew the potentialities of our economy. In each of my reports however, I have had to warn of dangers that lie ahead. Today, inflation stands as an ominous threat to the prosperity we have achieved. We can no longer treat inflation with spiraling prices and living costs as some vague condition we may encounter in the future. We already have an alarming degree of inflation.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 99

PLAYS: 22

(Blue Cross to America - Don't Get Sick)

Why don't they get it? Why is it, every time the question of Universal Health Care comes up a wave of hysteria breaks over the country like an Indonesian Tsunami? It's been that way in 1941. It's been that way in 1945. It's been that way in 1948. It's been that way in 1949. It's been that way in 1961. Do I have to go on?

You get the picture - everybody reading this blog gets the picture. Everybody with half a brain gets the picture. And we all know who the enemy is. The ones thumbing their noses and laughing and dreaming hysteria up.

I've been running entries regarding the historic aspect of this argument for months now. I am always turning up new items that point out just how old this question is and just how insane the argument against it has become, and just how scared the Insurance industry has become and how well entrenched they are to wage war.

But in case you were curious to hear more - I found an episode from the radio series "America United" which was moderated by a David Brinkley. This show is from November 13, 1949. It features CIO spokesman Harry Reid (no relation), Nathan Robertson of the Labor Press Association, A.L. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and W.R. Williamson, referred to as a "consulting actuary"(in actuality, a spokesman for the Insurance Industry).

Reid kicks it off:

Harry Reed (CIO): “Well, of course we have arrived at this present situation that confronts us for the simple reason that the group that has assumed responsibility for medical care has completely failed to live up to that responsibility. Any group that assumes responsibility, any voluntary group in our country, is required by the people to carry out the responsibility. The American Medical Association, to which you referred, has stifled the overwhelming desire of the medical profession itself throughout the country to give the people health care. So now the people are turning to the only agency that is left to them and that is the Congress to obtain this needed health care. Inasmuch as Free Enterprise has failed in this instance, we turn to our government for assistance. That is the time-honored method of the American people.”

Sixty years ago. The argument and the fears are the same - exactly the same. Only the faces are different and the check books are fatter.

Other than that. The Health Insurance lobby and their warm regard for people boils down to this - "We like your money - it's you we're not crazy about."

Don't get sick.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (91)

PLAYS: (222)

Wow. Imagine that. Someone on Fox News attacking a child, a funeral, Howard Dean, and universal health care in one fell swoop. Bravo Laura.

Transcript:

INGRAHAM: But tell me why you think it's okay for people to be up there on Capitol Hill saying do it for Teddy? Why is that okay?

SKINNER: Well, I'll tell you why. You said are they using this -- Ted Kennedy's death? Ted Kennedy himself called it, health care, the cause of his life. Okay. So it's not using it, Laura.

And here's what really bothered me during this debate over the weekend on the radio. And we were all talking about it is that you had these moving eulogies by Orrin Hatch at obviously the services, but McCain, and Mitch McConnell saying, and even FOX News, the coverage said lion of -- liberal lion crossed party lines. Everybody said how wonderful and how he crossed party lines.

Now that he's gone, they can't see how health care can get passed because he's not there to do it. That's like using him as an excuse to bury health care reform along with him. You're eulogizing him and saying he went to your mother's funeral.

INGRAHAM: Well.

SKINNER: You loved him, but you can't do what it is he's done his whole career.

INGRAHAM: Right.

SKINNER: .not a single one of his dear friends can do what he's done.

INGRAHAM: But that's - right. That's not quite accurate though because over the last several months clearly, the Democrats haven't been saying let's do it for Teddy. Let's do it for Senator Kennedy. He's struggling for his life. And let's fight for it. I didn't hear that a lot over the last several months.

So only after his death, and after the polls show that the public basically doesn't want this whole Obama care thing, do they think okay, the whole rebranding, the first two times around hasn't worked. So now we're going to try this. And let me just play -- we have a sound bite of one of the prayers at the mass on Saturday. This is the funeral mass. And this was one of the Kennedy grand kids during the prayers. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For what my grandpa called the cause of his life, as he said so often, in every part of this land that every American will have decent quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege. We pray to the Lord.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Nancy do you think that that adorable little boy came up with that on his own? It mean, it sounds like it's right out of Howard Dean's speech or something. Come on, this was politicizing the funeral.

SKINNER: But you know what? I've been -- I was there, Laura, at the convention when Ted Kennedy actually gave his last speech. And he was bed- ridden before he even gave that speech. So I'm telling you, he said this is the cause of my life. Everybody - 1960s.

INGRAHAM: Who cares?

SKINNER: .I've been working on this.

INGRAHAM: Nancy, who cares? Who cares that it's the cause of his life? It's a sixth of our economy.

SKINNER: It's not just.

INGRAHAM: It's not a tribute to one man. This is our future.

SKINNER: Right.

INGRAHAM: This is our liberty and our freedom at stake.

SKINNER: That's why he worked on it.

INGRAHAM: It's not about Ted Kennedy.

SKINNER: What the calls are for, Laura, is for bipartisanship. If he crossed the line -- for Nixon, he got Nixon's cancer institute passed. And Nixon didn't want his name on.

INGRAHAM: Right, we're going back to Nixon for the bipartisanship.

SKINNER: He's done no child left behind. He's done lots of things. It's not about ted Kennedy. This is the thing. If we're going to look at a compromise on health care, which that's what everybody is talking about now. The far left wants single pair universal. That's gone. The far right wants the status quo. Well, these people are saying.

INGRAHAM: Far right?

SKINNER: (INAUDIBLE) for the American people.

INGRAHAM: Yeah. How about 55 percent of the country? Far right? I mean, I don't think that's necessarily working now when you look at these polls. It's broad based opposition. But Nancy, we appreciate it very much.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2043)

PLAYS: (16477)

Bill Moyers visited the set of Real Time, and had an honest discussion about why we're going to be lucky to see any real reform on health care with all of the money being thrown at both the Republican and Democratic parties from the insurance industries, big pharma, and Wall Street. Bill is exactly right here, and this needs to be looked at as a moral issue, and not what's in the interest of corporate profits or a good business model.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1008)

PLAYS: (2810)

You gotta love the mentality of Greta Van Susteren, reducing the whole union-hating, Ayn Rand-loving, universal health care-dismissing ravings of Whole Foods founder John Mackey to a question of whether he's a "bad man." She's using the same language I use with my 6 year old when talking about "stranger danger." Sheesh.

Even as a diehard foodie (My husband and I plan our weekends and vacations around meals and restaurants. Seriously.), I actually don't shop that often at Whole Foods. I find it...well, elitist and overpriced. I much prefer Trader Joe's and our local farmers' markets to Whole Foods, though many of my friends are major patrons. But now that I've read Mackey's diatribe in the WSJ in all its Randian glory, I have to wonder if he considered at all who shops in his stores. GastroNomalies.com's Ali Savino writes on Whole Foods' rotten core:

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote a thunderous comment piece in which he derided the public option, Barack Obama's biggest campaign promise to progressives, and put forward a stridently conservative view of healthcare for America.

Does Mackey know who his customer base is? Did he really not foresee the backlash that has ensued – the howls across the blogosphere and Twitter, the Facebook petition to boycott Whole Foods?

Pundits argue that Mackey hasn't gotten a fair shake. He sells food after all, not health insurance. He's a successful businessman who has wisdom to share. But Whole Foods is more than a supermarket. From the cooking classes and wine tastings to the monthly event calendar on the wall, Whole Foods aims to be a way of life.

The brand Mackey created caters to a specific clientele. Customers are greeted with signage boasting of local farmers and grass-fed cattle. Whole Foods touts announcements of Green Prom projects and 100-best-companies-to-work-for accolades. The reusable shopping bags and shelves filled with yoga mats and all-natural beeswax lip balm aim to capture the same folks clicking "donate" on the MoveOn fundraising appeals.

These are the same people who pay large sums for a pint of organic strawberries, laughing off or even defending the "Whole Paycheque" label. They tell themselves: It's OK to pay double what those strawberries would cost elsewhere, because they're chemical-free, healthier, environmentally and ethically sound. Whole Foods customers want to feel good about their purchases and believe they are being better citizens for shopping there.

Now Mackey, the face of the company, is not only at odds with a central tenet of progressivism, but a supporter of free-market evangelism that has no space for the community-based, egalitarian solutions his customers support.

One of the site team wrote to Whole Foods after the op-ed was published and Whole Foods responded quickly with a somewhat disingenuous response, but also one which disavowed Mackey's stance (The exact phrasing was "Whole Foods Market has no official position on the issue"). If you're on Facebook, you can join the "Boycott Whole Foods" group now.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 972

PLAYS: 398

("Those pills are 25 bucks a-PIECE?")

(I originally posted this in February and am reposting it now in its complete form, as opposed to the excerpt which I ran in February. It's a nice companion piece to the post I did earlier this week, and further evidence our friends at the AMA have been doing this a long-long time.)

In case anyone thought the whole concept of Universal Health Care was something cooked up in the 1990's, I'm here to tell you it just ain't so.

Nope, it's been with us forever and attempts to introduce a Universal Health Care program go back to the days just post World War 2. Over sixty years of wrangling, cajoling, hand-wringing and warnings of dire consequences. And strangely, nothing has changed.

In 1945 a proposal known as the Wagner/Murray/Dingell Bill was introduced, establishing a system of Universal Health care for all Americans, regardless of financial status. And almost immediately the forces of paranoia, propaganda and dire consequences roared into place.

A lot of this came via the AMA, whose President was the dubious Dr. Morris Fishbein, the most vocal opponent of Universal Health Care and had the membership of the AMA to tap into.

This clip, from a 1948 CBS Radio program called "In My Opinion", features Senator James E. Murray (D-Montana) who co-authored the bill in question. His vocal opponent was Representative A.L. Miller (R-Nebraska) whose paranoiac doomsday rant belied the fact that he was, prior to his stint in Congress, a practicing surgeon and a member of the AMA.

Do I hear conflict of interest? Do I hear a certain breach of ethics?

Who ever said Politics was ethical? It's politics, fer chrissake!

Miller - "I saw physicians on clean surgical cases without surgical masks or rubber gloves. They were chattering like magpies over the open abdomen"

Murray - "But I do want to talk to Americas doctors. To the doctors through the country who are busy treating the sick, to the practicing doctor who usually hears of health insurance over from the Political Doctors, who are obstructing an intelligent, practical program."

(h/t Mugsy)

I guess the UK is sick of hearing we namby-pamby Yanks brag on our health care system and trash theirs, disregarding the fact that the UK pays significantly less per capita for health care and achieves far better outcomes. And they've decided to push back:

Britons love to mock their National Health Service — just don't let anyone else poke fun at it.

They particularly resent the British universal health care system being used as a punching bag in the battle against President Barack Obama's proposed reforms.

Conservatives in the United States have relied on horror stories from Britain's system to warn Americans that Obama is trying to impose a socialized health care system that would give the government too much power.

In an interview widely interpreted here as an attack on the U.K., Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told a local radio station last week that "countries that have government-run health care" would not have given Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffers from a brain tumor, the same standard of care as in the U.S. because he is too old.

The superheated debate broadened this week to include renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, a British icon who suffers from motor neurone disease. A U.S. newspaper wrote that under the British system Hawking would be allowed to die — an assertion that Hawking said was absurd.

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking said, joining the ranks of those praising Britain's system.

Britons say the country's universal health care system, which provides free medical care, is far fairer than the current American system.

Behind the criticism is a popular British view that American society represents unbridled capitalism run amok, with catastrophic results for people left behind in the boom times like those of the last two decades.

Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, who is usually pro-American, blasted U.S. health care Friday, suggesting the delivery system is fine for the wealthy but not for the poor.

"If you can't pay, you have a very, very second-rate service or you can't get health service at all," he said.

Britain's left-leaning government has responded to criticism offering selected statistics that show England out performing the U.S. in health spending per capita, life expectancy and more.

Newspapers have jumped in, with the Daily Mirror calling the United States "the land of the fee" because of the way patients are forced to pay for medical services.