[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

Thu Mar 25 11:10:01 CDT 2010

All good points--but if you only make $12k I believe don't believe any of
this is a burden because you aren't supposed to pay.  In fact, I thought
anyone making under $19K don't pay.  And--I thought---it's a sliding scale
after that?

At any rate, There was an email sent earlier by Claudia detailing the
med-bill-stuff in everyday language and perhaps that can clarify certain
issues regarding same?

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:54 AM, <pengdust at aol.com> wrote:

>  As an anarchist and a "precarious-shit-worker" who does do the
> 'grub-work,' I take offense to this "individualistic
> libertarian anarchists" claim. We, anarcho-PSWs, do not have cushy
> university jobs with health-care, sick days, vacations, living wages... or
> the time, privelege, and luxury for academic debates. It is true, those of
> us who make around $1000/month will NEVER, EVER be able to afford the
> $200-300/month minimum premiums to fucking corporations after paying some
> $400 in rent alone! [Add $200-300/loans in student loans, $150 in other
> bills, etc... and there's nothing left for food. Keeps me in my boyish
> figure I guess *;-)* ] Simply, everyday life is always a losing battle...
> we're working-poor and we're FUCKED, this is real. And, the $700 penalty on
> top of taxes will only make things worse! Now, for those who make some
> $40,000/yr this all may be doable, and an improvement, but for many of us
> who don't it's completely impossible unless the feds pay %100 of our
> premiums.... i.e., SINGLE-PAYER. So, single-payer is the ONLY improvement
> for us, and the ONLY solution that was never on the table! [thanks to
> Both Dems and Reps]
>
> So, please don't throw around sectarian epithets by calling
> "self-proclaimed socialists" anarchists in a squabble over who's a socialist
> and who isn't... I know many anarchists and almost every one of them are
> working-poor or working class whose fate is intricately tied to the fate of
> others.
>
> I suggest 'bourgeois' not 'anarchist,' and you can bicker about the rest
> amongst yourselves... here's an over simplified refresher for those who are
> a little rusty,  or a primer for the uninitiated:
>
> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois ] [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie ] [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class ] [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor ] [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeserving_poor ] [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work ] [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity_(Social_Christianity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity_%28Social_Christianity>)
> cge may like this one]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com>
> To: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>; C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> Cc: peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>;
> discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
> Sent: Tue, Mar 23, 2010 11:30 pm
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?
>
>  It has been my experience that all the self-proclaimed socialists  -
> especially in this town - tend to be self-centered, individualistic
> libertarian anarchists who are into doing their own thing and following
> their own personal agendas  - rebelling against bowing to the collective
> will or conforming to collective rules imposed on them by the collective.
> That is when they are not busy being political gadflies flitting from one
> cause to another only to put in a brief appearance with little mundane
> grubby work before going on to the next cause.  The "Being There" syndrome
> where one is a voyeur  is a predominant malady in this community; and
> witnessing versus participating and acting tends to be the primary
> occupation of many supposed activists.
>
>  *From:* John W.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:29 PM
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
> *Cc:* peace-discuss List ; melodye at nitrogendesign.com ;
> discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:02 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:
>
>
>
>> Not being a liberal but a socialist, I'm not looking for an escape route.
>> I
>> wouldn't have wanted to miss the most interesting and affecting
>> observation on
>> this matter that I've seen on this list. --CGE
>>
>
>
> Thanks, Carl.  Now here's the rejoinder to that, so as not to leave anyone
> out:
>
> If you and all the other self-styled "socialists" in this town were DOERS,
> as Melodye and Bob suggest, rather than mere talkers, you'd be organizing a
> credit union, for example, and we'd all pull our money out of Chase Bank and
> Bank of America and pool it in our very own Socialist Credit Union, which
> would pay far higher returns on investment because there'd be no profit
> incentive for stockholders, no big executive salaries, no annual bonuses,
> and low administrative costs.  We'd loan money to our socialist members for
> home mortgages, to lessen the probablility of their losing their homes to
> foreclosure by faraway corporate behemoths trafficking in human lives
> via sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps.
>
> We could also, for example, pool our money in a health insurance pool -
> from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.
> That's how the modern-day health insurance companies started out, after all
> - as local benevolent associations organized among immigrant groups or
> co-workers.
>
> The possibilities are virtually limitless if one is willing to put one's
> money where one's mouth is.  My experience of the "socialists" in this town
> is that it doesn't even occur to them to car-pool to meetings.
>
> John again
>
>
>
>
>
>> John W. wrote:
>>
>>>  On this list, three of us have been and are the harshest critics of the
>>> new
>>> health care 'reform' bill:  Carl, Dave Johnson, and me.  I'm curious
>>> which of
>>> the three of us has NOT, in the eyes of Bob and Melodye, worked our asses
>>> off
>>> to try to make both the local community and the larger society a better
>>> place, according to our lights and talents.  Name some fucking names.
>>>
>>> The way I see it, most of the folks on this list have decent health
>>> insurance, so they have the luxury of being "ambivalent" about the health
>>> care bill, reminding us of its many virtues and counseling us to take a
>>> 'wait
>>> and see' approach.  I, on the other hand, have no health insurance, and
>>> will
>>> NOT have Medicare when I'm 65 due to a quirk in the law over which I had
>>> and
>>> have no control.  I can't speak for Carl and Dave, but I have actually
>>> suffered the indignity of sitting in the Frances Nelson Clinic, getting a
>>> different doctor every time, KNOWING that there were tests not being
>>> performed because Frances Nelson could not perform them in-house, and
>>> having
>>> pills shoved at me which I KNEW would do no good but which were all that
>>> Frances Nelson had to offer. Having to present proof of income documents
>>> over
>>> and over so that even Frances Nelson's precious and scarce resources
>>> would
>>> not be "wasted" on me.
>>>
>>> The only decent medical care I've received in LIFE was at McKinley Clinic
>>> when I was a student at UIUC.  They have government-run, "socialized"
>>> medicine there; the doctors are on salary and all the services are
>>> "free",
>>> even the prescription meds, paid for by a student fee.  There I finally
>>> found
>>> a physician (female - God bless her) who cared about me as a human being,
>>> and
>>> ordered tests that were based on what I as a patient NEEDED rather than
>>> on
>>> what I could afford or on what paid the doctor the most money.  Sadly,
>>> when I
>>> ceased to be a student I could no longer avail myself of her services.
>>>  God
>>> bless her.
>>>
>>> So I'm afraid I can't be as blase as the rest of you about this shitty
>>> bill
>>> which leaves health insurance companies firmly in control.  Nothing at
>>> all
>>> has changed for me, not a God-damned thing.  And you can bet that if
>>> nothing
>>> has changed for me, it's not changing for millions of other Americans who
>>> are
>>> not, perhaps, as articulate as I am.
>>>
>>> Oh, yes, I forgot.  Something HAS changed for me after all, or it will in
>>> -
>>> what?  2014?   I'll be mandated to purchase a terrible private-sector
>>> health
>>> insurance plan, with money I don't have and with deductibles and co-pays
>>> so
>>> high I won't ever be able to actually use it, or else I'll be fined for
>>> my
>>> failure to purchase it.  Please forgive me if I don't see that as a
>>> benefit.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'll shut up now.  Every time I try to talk personal realities "on
>>> the
>>> ground" rather than abstractions, all the liberals' eyes start darting
>>> around
>>> the room, looking for an escape route.  Don't think I don't see it.
>>>
>>> John W.
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu <mailto:
>>> illyes at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Melodye writes:
>>>
>>> "It never ceases to amaze me how some of the biggest critics (on every
>>> subject) coming out of the shadows have done---- what?"
>>>
>>> Precisely, Melodye.
>>>
>>> Some pretext is generally behind this lack of accomplishment. A
>>> "Christian"
>>> pretext is that because of Original Sin it is not possible for a person
>>> to do
>>> good. A "Marxist" pretext is that the middle class will always prevent
>>> political progress, which isn't possible because the middle class is not
>>> yet
>>> destroyed. Market Fundamentalism supplies its own unsubstantiated
>>> theology.
>>> But don't be fooled. These are just excuses to hold in contempt those who
>>> do their part to leave the world better rather than worse. These critics get
>>> off
>>> on contempt. They attempt to set up abusive relationships with those who
>>> would do good.
>>>
>>> On a slightly different subject, I confess I have never seen anything
>>> quite
>>> so revolting as the Social Darwinian arguments coming from opponents of
>>> the
>>> efforts of our first black President and our first woman Speaker. (Their
>>> race
>>> and gender have nothing to do with this, right?) In the Gilded Age, it
>>> was
>>> seriously proposed that charity was vice, because it lessened the
>>> pressure on
>>> those on the bottom to change their evil ways. And now the new Gilded Age
>>> has
>>>  arrived, with the same recycled pseudo-scientific nonsense, that we all
>>> already get what we deserve.....
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner*, and is
> believed to be clean.
> ------------------------------
>  _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing listDiscuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.orghttp://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100325/97f863c9/attachment.html>