[Peace-discuss] Fw: UPDATE: Blue Dogs and Healthcare Reform

[C. G. Estabrook]

The inscos & their allies (including the president) surely wanted to destroy any 
  possibility of single-payer or a national health system, for obvious reasons 
of profit - altho' I doubt that "there's a good deal more money at stake in 
maintaining health-care corruption than in ... maintaining the military industry."

The federal government, as the "executive committee of the bourgeoisie" pursues 
  foreign and domestic arrangements in the interest of the lot of them rather 
than any particular one or one sector (e.g., oil rather than 'defense').  And 
there can be struggles among domestic power centers over how the executive 
committee should proceed. But they know that their interests as a class (quite a 
small number of people, actually) are contrary to the interests of the vast 
majority - but of course they can't let on...

Alex Carey, the late Australian social scientist, wrote, "The 20th century has 
been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the 
growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate 
propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

A principal job of the modern POTUS is propagandist-in-chief. That's been 
obvious since the Wilson administration, and maybe long before.  --CGE


Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 04:33:41PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> I think the Obama administration consciously encouraged a manufactured 
>> "health care debate." There was no need for one: there was an obvious 
>> solution, had they wanted it. But (among other things) they needed a 
>> distraction from their unpopular imperial war. They looked at the Johnson 
>> administration and realized that LBJ hadn't adequately masked his murders.
>>  --CGE
> 
> That's interesting, but I think the (literal) money is on the health care
> side. With something like $300 billion/year going to just the *overhead*
> portion of *private* health insurance costs, I think the lobbying weight
> would be on making sure that nothing radical like a single-payer scheme took
> all that away from them.  There's a good deal more money at stake in
> maintaining health-care corruption than in even maintaining the military
> industry.
> 
> I wish that the morality of how the US deals (militarily, environmentally,
> economically...) with people in distant parts of the world were a big
> political issue -- one that would make a misbehaving government fear its
> people -- but I don't think that it weighs heavily on the consciences of
> enough of us.  The wars are unpopular, but not deeply.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.