The case agianst Ron Paul: How his plan for America would spell disaster for all of us

I have no clue why there are all these Ron Paul signs in my community. To be honest, he is by far the worst candidate on the republican ticket in terms of policy. Now, I can respect the fact that you like a maverick. But when you sit down and look at Ron Paul’s policies, you can see that on many issues he is inline with the political beliefs of white nationalists, Cult leaders, Linden Larouche, and crack pots who lived 100 years ago. Quite frankly despite his positions in the war on drugs, and on the civil liberties, most liberals should fear Ron Paul more then Giuliani. What follows below is a point by point on key parts of Ron Paul’s agenda, and an explanation of why certain parts of the white nationalist movement have come to view Paul, as their man in Washington.

On the Issues Ron Paul is just wrong.


Ron Paul supports a policy of non-intervention.
Ok, I think this sounds good on face. No Iraq war right? But Paul also wouldn’t intervene in cases of Genocide, or in cases where our treaty obligations compel us to, like in the Taiwan straight. I think that the United States has an obligation to intervene by any means (including militarily) in the case of Genocide. Removing the military option makes diplomacy far less effective in stopping regimes bent on genocide, as they often will step up their abuses when faced with sanctions. Preventing another, Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur is in the United States’ security interest, and we are obligated by international treaties to intervene. Taking a non-interventionist positions means that we don’t go into germany, it means that we don’t bomb Serbia and put peace keepers on the ground, it means that we will never stop the Darfurian Genocide.


Paul supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[15] and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
Paul wants to take away citizenship from people this is a bad idea. Paul’s proposed amendment against birthright citizenship is vague on who is a citizen. Who can be a citizen is key facet to defining what a democracy is, and whether it is health or not. I will argue that this should always be as expansive as possible but at the very least should be bestowed on those who were born in a country. Paul effectively wants to institute blood purity laws like German had until 1996. their is a reason why Germany got rid of them, because they were a racist Nazi hold over.

The issue is that Paul's amendment doesn't tell you who a citizen is. It crosses that out of the constitution. Right now, at the very least you know who a citizen is by where they were born. If you were born here then you have all the rights of the constitution. That means you can't have troops in your house, can have an abortion, the government can't tap your phones with out a warrant. Sure the government abridges those rights sometimes, but it's not supposed to, and you have recourse, guaranteed recourse through the court system. Get rid of that, without giving us some guarantee of what a citizen is, and all of a sudden the government can define what a citizen is down to an elite group of individuals, and that’s Nazism. Plain and simple. Whether or not you realize it changing the 14th amendment is opening the back door to fascism, and the last thing you want is skin heads coming in the back door.

Also Paul despite being against spending wants to build a border fence that won’t work, but will cost in the billions. He’s from Texas, he should know that building a fence just lead to bigger ladders, and people going around it.

He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks,[16] but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.
I actually like this about paul, but I don’t think his letters of marque goes far enough. That said, I won’t dwell much on this except to say that this position is fairly extreme, and jack sparrow.

Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[17] He has pledged never to raise taxes,[6][18] and states he has never voted to approve a deficit budget. Paul would abolish the individual income tax by scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels.[19][20] Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[21]

Sounds good on face, right? Wrong. The income tax is one of the best ways to create a tax structure in a society, especially a society which bases its self on the foundation of rampant consumerism. Excise taxes hurts the people at the bottom most, and because they spend most of their income on good, they have less money to spend, save, and invest, which pulls the rug on the entire enterprise. Fixing capital gains would be far more effective, and better for everyone. Also his cutting spending back to 2000 wouldn’t make up for the difference, and also wouldn’t be very good for the country. The country has grown since 2000, we have greater needs, so we should increase spending. Also according to the American society of civil engineers the infrastructure in this country needs over 3 trillion dollars spent on it. Other wise bridges will start collapsing… oops, all ready have.

He would eliminate most federal government agencies, calling them unnecessary bureaucracies.[22]
Here I totally disagree. If anything we need a better federal democracy which will draw the best and the brightest, we need to restore the services our government can offer, to bring us into the future, cut them so we can go back to the past. The United States right now is in a process of dedevelopment which normally doesn’t happen in countries unless someone is bombing you or a nepotistic dictator ship takes over.

Paul is also vocal in his opposition to inflation, arguing that the longterm erosion of the dollar's purchasing power arises from its lack of commodity (such as gold) backing, which would restrain excess "printing" of money and consequent
Maybe fifty years ago. Paul is right tagging your dollar to a currency reserve good for the stability of the currency. However, it would do severe damage to the global economy. First consider that gold is most valuable today as an industrial material. Did you know that the most productive gold mine on the planet is a cell phone recycling center in Japan?
Tacking the dollar to gold would drive prices up, and make wii’s so much more expensive, (rember that consumerist economy) and that a bad thing. But also consider that the United States has sold much of its valuable commodities over the last 3 or so decades, Paul’s policy would significantly lead to inflation as the dollar is rapidly devalued. At that point the Chinese, and Saudi’s would drop their currency reserves leading to global drop in the dollars value, and let me tell you, that would lead to a global economic collapse, except Europe and China, they would be all good. The dollar would be “worth more” But it would also be worth less. As it stands a floating dollar is tacked to the value of our overall economy, which is like several trillion dollars. Even if we had several billions of dollars in gold. It would still be a significant weakening.

we could maybe get a few billion dollars in gold to back our currency, then we would have an industrial gold shortage world wide. Kiss modern electronics good by. No more Iphones. Secondly, right now the dollar is backed by the trillions of dollars that the us economy makes every year, plus petrodollars held by the sheiks, plus the Chinese and Europeans holding reserves of the dollar. The best dollar policy from a purely currency model isn't to go back to the gold standard (god, I feel like its 1890) but to start printing notes over $100. Right now the USD is loosing ground in certain tangential areas (like amongst organized crime) who prefer the Euro because it comes in higher denominations and has a similar backing system to that of the dollar. It wouldn't necessarily bring the USD rolling back full force, but it would help to mitigate some of the stress caused by the fact that for every million the house of Saud has they have to make space for 10,000 USD notes. I mean that’s a lot of space, and they weight a lot, and they are bulky. Its not going to tip the scales, but it will be one of the straws that breaks the camel’s back.
Oh, and once petrol goes to the Euro the US Economy is fucked! like a porn star in a snuff flick.

He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for many reasons, believing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[26]
The fed is a necessary regulating body, you can’t just get rid of it. It would screw Wall Street over, and would crash our economy.

He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security to protect the system for everyone.[27]
This would crash social security. The best way to save social security is to stop the worker pay portion, and increase a progressively increasing tax on petrol. This would have a double effect of helping stablize social security and cutting down on American’s use of oil.
But hey, lets just let who ever wants to not pay… duurrrrrr. Yeah that will keep our old people off the streets.

Paul strongly supports Constitutional rights, freedom of the Internet,[28] the right to bear arms, jury nullification,[29] and habeas corpus for political detainees.[30] Civil liberties concerns have led him to oppose the Patriot Act, a national ID card, federal government use of torture, domestic surveillance, presidential autonomy, and the draft.
Hey this is all good… on face.

Paul defers to states' rights in areas not addressed by the Constitution. Paul’s Position on States Rights means a roll back of the supremacy clause and commerce clause, and undercuts his position on constitutional rights. While Paul on one hand wants the federal government to provide rights to the individual, he doesn’t care about how states treat their citizens, because the states have rights, and because he doesn’t believe in federal power as the court has expanded it under the commerce clause and the supremacy clause. Paul would make states only obey their own constitutions, which don’t afford the same rights as the federal constitution. In some cases you get more rights, in some cases you get less.


Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life",[31] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[32] and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[33][34] (He says his years as an obstetrician lead him to believe life begins at conception;[35] his pro-life legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade for ethical reasons and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters.")[36][37]
Paul’s for the negating of a women’s right to chose, but thinks the states should be the ones to do it.


He defers to private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.[41]
Bye bye spotted owl and old growth groves. I don’t know if you ever have been to an old growth forest, but you should. Its amazing to walk under trees that are hundreds of feet tall, and were around before Jesus (if you believe in the guy).

Paul advocates for the elimination of government involvement and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the dynamics of a free market.
Lassie faire capitalism doesn’t work. It especially doesn’t work in the United States where we see up to 700% increase in healthcare costs. Oh, yeah… And then we distort everyone else’s healthcare system. Do you really think there would be waiting lines in Canada, if all the physicians weren’t tempted to come here, and we weren’t buying all the MRI machines?

So why do racists like Paul?

White nationalists like Ron Paul for a variety of reasons. First, is states rights, which has a significant rhetorical history going back to the civil war a rational for keeping slavery and jim crow laws in place, and as a legacy issue within white power/nationalist circles. It also functions as a link to main stream conservative discourse. It allows double speak and coded messages from republican candidates to this group of voters.

That said I don't believe Ron Paul is racist, but his policies could have negative impact on racial minorities and allow for a political resurgence of groups like the KKK.

His monetary policy is also on which many white nationals agree, but that’s mainly because they are scared at the instability which a floating currency promotes. Also they view it as a mechanism which strengthens the position and power the Jewish banking conspiracy that is keeping them down… man, and like controlling the world. At least that’s what they believe. Bunch’a hippies who did to much acid, and then read Mein Kampf, If you ask me. But seriously they are terrible people.

Ron Paul’s policy on guns, and lack of federal government involvement also fits the broader aim of white nationalist groups because it will on serve to allow them to effectively arm themselves in such a way that they could succeed.

Finally Ron Paul talks about racial relations in a way that appeals to them. Not that he takes the same position, but because his language fits in the same framework as there’s. While Paul doesn't complain a lot about "special rights" a code word for the fact that they now have to serve people of color in their businesses, Ron Paul adopts the "the best way to approach race is not to talk about it we are all equal now stance" a stance which is empirically been proven false, but his view is compatible with some of their views.

Finally, the biggest reason why White power groups like Paul is because he wants to change the 14th amendment. Ok, right here this is why I would never, ever vote for Ron Paul, and why I think he is joke. He wants to make it so that if you are born in the states your not an automatic citizens. Trust me the White Power folks love this one.

When you here your republican friends say that they like Ron Paul, please, please, do not encourage them. Its very important. Realize that Paul isn’t any different from the garden variety conservative. He’s worse.

Check out a great stranger article on the Ron Paul campaign and why people seem to respond so well, here.


Ron Paul's Positions pulled from wikipedia, 11/20/07.

Ghosts in the Wings

The 2008 federal elections. One is in the democratic party primary. It exists in the form of two people either of who could easily dominate any of the present contenders. The second is in the high number of republican’s not seeking another term.

Last week Al Gore won the Nobel Peace prize for his work on Global Climate change. While many were quick to put forward the notion that this was for his work on An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has been a long standing advocate for Global Climate change science. Ever since his days at Harvard where he studied under one of the founders of the field Gore has been an advocate about taking the cautious road when it comes to Global Warming, and its associate problems. As a Senator and Congressmen, Gore advocated for an increase in funding to study the problem. Just like Al Gore was responsible for the creation of the commercial internet (yeah, that’s right), Al Gore also bares some responsibility for the wide spread understanding that global climate change is a problem (inconvenient Truth), and also for our ability to conceptualize the impacts via scientific data he as a legislator sought to provide. Back when Al Gore was VP, he flew into Kyoto, and when there looked like there wasn’t going to be an agreement Al Gore politicked it into reality. This accompanied by his book on the Bush administration, Clinton credentials, wry whit, and powerful leadership means that at any time he could throw his hat in and become a viable candidate. Moreover, he has tons of energy going his way. Think of the Star power he could muster?

The other ghost in the wings in the Democratic primary is not so much a person but a duo, Stephan Colbert and Jon Stewart. Colbert has already thrown his hat in the ring for both the democratic and republican primaries in South Carolina, and he did it in character two, which makes me a little nervous. Jon Stewart on the other hand doesn’t have a character. As a result if Jon Stewart chose to enter the race the transition from comedian to candidate would be much smoother then Colbert who would have to place his bets solely on the Colbert Nation. Jon has well established credibility particularly on other news program, for instance Cross Fire. Below are two embedded Youtube videos with links to an interview he did with Bill Moyers, if you watch that video you know that Jon Stewart would rock some serious socks if he got into the races.

Part-2
Part-3
Part-4

My favorite quote, “I would love to do an interview where it just sorta deconstructed the talking points of the Iraq war.” I am such a debate nerd.

Unfortunately for the party faithful, myself included, it’s highly unlikely that either of these two forces will enter into the election race. In the case of Gore, I think it’s an unwillingness to stress his personal friendship with Bill Clinton any further. There was an extremely interesting article in this month’s Vanity Fair discussing their relationship, and I believe that in fact there are serious issues in that friendship. It’s obviously a relationship that he values, and gore is still pretty young. Plus I think he’s happy where he is. But he could win. Colbert won’t/can’t seriously enter into the race. The way in which he has constructed his show/act restricts him. As a result he can get a bridge in Hungry named after him (sorta), but he won’t be able to translate it across to people who are only tangentially familiar with him. Jon Stewart has yet to be show interest beyond being the clown. He has deep held beliefs, cutting insight, and a good sense of humor. While he cares about the issues, I think he has a post-Nixonian sense of cynicism about the political process. On one hand this sense of cynicism keeps Stewart real, but on the other hand it means that in order for Stewart to try and save us from ourselves things are going to have to get pretty bad. Jon Stewart is like a lump of coal becoming a diamond. The worse and more absurd things get the brighter he sparkles. I just hope his luster is bright enough to keep out the darkness that seems to be engulfing us.

One a completely different note, I have been thinking about the other big election coming in 2008 the House and Senate elections. I was going to write about this anyway today, but I thought a discussion of dream scenarios for the Democrats would off set this discussion of a possible nightmare.

The 2008 election could be a bellwether year for the Democrats, however sings are indeterminate. While the nation suffers from Iraq Fatigue, and political destruction under the Bush administration and a sizable republican minority that seems to be very adept at stalling, there are a few signs that things may not be an easy victory. What arose my concern was the failure of the democrats to override a veto on health care, the failure of the SCHIP bill marks a serious failure on the part of Democratic congressional leadership, and spells serious trouble for their excellent (as it stood the last time I heard a report on it) FISA bill, and other issues down the pipe. If the Dems can’t win health care, and they haven’t done much yet on anything else, what is the incentive for the Democratic wave to keep cresting? This lack of legislative record, and the retiring of Senators, and Congressmen with controversial records may mean previously secure seats are more open then they have been in ages, but it also means that they face republican’s without a record. It almost puts the Democrats ina parliamentary position where they need to pick up more seats to govern but can’t pick up those seats without being in power, but unlike a parliamentary government there aren’t any other parties to form and break coalitions with. At least some other people are aware of this situation too. This was a post I found on the NY times blog section. If the Dems are aware of what’s going on then we need Granny to put on some combat boots, because if Pelosi and Reid can’t get shit straight we may be in as a bumpy ride, and I really don’t want to move to Canada.

Stephan Colbert and the Race for The White House.

Last night on the Colbert Report Steven Colbert announced that he would be running for president in his home state of South Carolina. I don’t know whether this is just a political stunt or not, but a Colbert Candidacy on either a republican or a democratic ticket would be extremely interesting for the race.

A recent blog post on the NY Times’s website has an interesting quote that shows that republican’s generally don’t do humor well.

Katon Dawson, the chairman of the state Republican Party, said his office had also received a call from Mr. Colbert’s staff … Mr. Dawson, though was far more dismissive of Mr. Colbert’s apparent intentions than his Democratic counterparts. “My advice,’’ he said in a telephone interview, “is that he could probably have more fun buying a sports car and getting a girlfriend.’’

Clinton: Establishment V. Netrootz in Democratic Party Politics

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign for the nomination is going exceedingly well. She is referred two by almost every one as the front runner, She is back on top in the found raising category, and she is getting important endorsements from local party officials left and right. The web and liberal political enthusiasts on the other hand are in a bit of a different mindset backing both Obama, Edwards and of course Kucinich (who’s supporters are a little on the crazy side but very nice).
This split is perfectly understandable. Clinton embodies what the democratic establishment values most: She’s a Clinton, which means she has name recognition something they love. She’s a women, making here a “progressive” choice. She does well enough among black voters with whom her husband was immensely popular. She’s a Senator with a strong on giving bush more power record, meaning she’s not soft on terrorism. Clinton has it all in there eyes.
The Netroots on the other hand represents a group that was never happy with Bill Clinton’s term in office. More over, they are a livid at the lack of spine that the Democratic majority in Congress has shown in congress on key issues; particularly the war in Iraq, and fiscal policy. The rightly recognize that the path the majority has taken has jeopardized the new, and hard won majority. The net roots is also driven more to support outsiders, hence their choices in the democratic primary. This outsider attitude can also be seen in the Netroots of the Republican Party which has raised $5 million (USD) for Ron Paul.
When the election comes around the question will be will the Netroots be able to beat out the establishment? My answer here is no. While Clinton will face a large challenge she is the only candidate in the top three who is embraced fully by the Democratic establishment, while both Obama and Edwards split the Netroots. The Netroots did show its muscle last election, but it was most effective in promoting a-typical democrats against corrupt republicans, and less effective at forcing its candidates through against more moderate conservatives, and in conservative strong holds, so staunch right-wing neo-fascists lost in Pennsylvania, but Darcy Burner lost to Dave Riechart in Washington. The Netroots won’t be able to significantly affect the primaries, especially when they are split.
While Clinton doesn’t energize the faithful yet, she is able to significantly reach out to Middle America. While that reaching out to this group shouldn’t be a candidates main qualification, its understandable that the democratic establishment post-Bill Clinton craves that demographic.
Unfortunately Clinton’s campaign has shown an almost distain for the Netroots even while embracing their tactics and occasionally their rhetoric. I think this means that instead of adopting a ticket which is balanced (Clinton for the establishment, Obama or Edwards for the Netroots) Clinton will pull a Gore, and grab another boring establishment VP, such as Joe Biden, or Bill Richardson.
Unfortunately that thinking is so first decade. It’s still a valid strategy, but if things continue it won’t move the democrats very far past 2008. The sad fact is that the lack of social investment in the US has led to dedevelopment. This makes progressive values and programs more then right, it makes them necessary. More and more Americans are less well off. Bill Clinton’s post-Regan appeal as a conservative Democrat, isn’t as large as it once was. Soccer Mom’s aren’t just worried about education any more, health care, the environment, and roads, are becoming national issues. I don’t know if you realize this but when roads become a national election issue, you’re like on par with Bolivia.
Progressive values will become key for national leadership. Unfortunately if the bulk of the Democratic Party doesn’t change its tone, it risks becoming irrelevant. Or worse yet, it won’t become irrelevant and politics will continue to be more about pulling the wool over people eyes, and making ourselves outraged about ads in the NY Times. We really are at a cross roads, and what the Clinton Campaign chooses to do ultimately will determine whether American recovers, or whether our educated youth begin to leave.

Because everything is political - The Seattle Sonics

Billionaires are great. They set up charities create investment, buy really freakin' big houses, and try and move sports teams to their home city. Yes, I am talking about the Seattle Sonics and the Seattle Strom, and their new owner Clay Bennett and a group of Oklahoma Business men.

Today, they are being sued by a pair of Seattle Season Ticket holders for fraud. This case serves a as a good talking point about wealth, responsibility, and Stadiums. When Clay Bennette and his group bought the Sonics, and the Storm it was with the intention of moving them, or flipping the team. This is the source of his suit against the city of Seattle. He is costing the city thousands of dollars in attorney fees, just because he wants to move the team. Now, if he gets a new stadium like he wants, he'll sell the team and make a nice profit.

So, what are the options? Well you can sue, which has happened. Now there are other solutions as well. We can let the team move for instance, which no one really wants to do. Seattle loves the Sonics, they are one of the few teams in the area not to suffer fair-weather fans. Take my Mariners, please! Just don’t take my Sonics. Also, we have the domination machine known as the Storm. Now the Strom gets a good amount respect for a WNBA team, and they wouldn’t do as well in conservative Oklahoma, as they do out here in liberal Seattle. There are marketing reasons for this that I don’t really want to get into. We could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on building a new stadium. But that would make traffic worse, and who really wants that. Also it would put a drain on local businesses at a time when our economy is gangbusters. Plus, it would be in Everett or somewhere similarly crappy.

The solution I favor is buying the teams. Yes, the city of Seattle should own the Storm, and the Sonics. Why not? It would be more financially reasonable then say building a stadium we wouldn’t own or make money off of. There would be security for current fans, knowing the team definitely is leaving, which would increase ticket sales. Also there is the windfall that new fans would create. People not in favor of the Sonics, and the Strom would get behind them. I am not saying every one would, but the Northwest likes to buy local, and a local team, with local owners, might be enough to convince some skeptics to come to a few games, and maybe buy a baseball cap or something.

Buying a team also means that we won’t have to keep spending tons of money making major renovations every 10 years, and building new facilities every 25 years or so. Ultimately a locally owned team is the best solution. If Seattle doesn’t want to put its money where its mouth is it should let the teams leave, but we shouldn’t waste our money on another stadium.

This article was inspired by a peice in the Seattle Times. Linked here.

Fred Thompson (No surprise)

Fred Thompson

In the PAC NW we call it like we see. I have seen fog with more substance then Fred Thomson. Unfortunately a lack of substance appeals to the vast majority of both democrats and republicans. I think we may be looking at the Reagan revolution all over again. Following the Bush era, the election of any republican, and a large swath of the democratic field will have tragic consequences for the country.

In all honesty I am tired of politicians, in the American sense of the word. What we need is a leader. There are very few of those in the campaign right now. If nothing else we need a paradigm shift in American politics, as a result I am throwing my hat behind Obama. He isn’t the leader I would like but he is changing the paradigm of politics, or at least he was. Anyway, I like the guy’s rhetoric, and when all you are voting for an image and a product and not a candidate then Barack is the best there is, with Edwards a close second.

At the start of the race I was really behind Richardson, but for whatever reason his campaign has silently imploded, if not for the damn internet he might have a comeback chance. But with the invention of the 364 campaign the public memory is digitally encoded.

Swedish Hospital and what it tells us about the state of medicine

As a cancer survivor the issue of health care is one very dear to my heart. This is in part a selfish motivation of wanting to have the freedom that a universal system would provide to me, and partly an outgrowth of my liberal bias filtered through a direct and personal experience with the health care system.

Recently one of the major hospitals in Seattle, Swedish Hospital ended a contract with an insurer that will affect about 14,000 families in the area. The reason for this was for a variety of reasons the primary one was that the insurance company United Health care didn't want to increase its payments to the level that Swedish administration demanded. I think that while this development doesn't necessarily spell doom it does illustrate several problems with a privately founded system.

The largest problem is the way in which profit is viewed. Not making a profit isn’t a bad thing. Ok, I know that makes me sound like a Communist, but covering cost means every one gets paid, and your business operates well. The value of the company and the stocks don’t necessarily drop. You maintain. It’s all good. Also increase in staffing and technology, are kept as costs, profit normally vanishes from the company in the form of extra payment to investors, or owners, rather then manifesting as new capital, or a reserve. Investors and owners also have the expectation of the unlimited growth of profit. This drive to increase profit means that costs will inflate every year above the rates of normal inflation. In some respect this increase in costs is a direct response to increasing costs, implementation of new technology and techniques, and the hiring of new staff. But as the Swedish case illustrates, often it’s a move to increase the profit margin.

A second problem illustrated by the Swedish case is that in a private system, the government has to step in to pay for the nation’s underclass. This isn’t the lower class but it’s the old, and the extremely poor. In recent years (Yay, Bush!), the government has cut back on Medicare, and Medicaid payments, which is a huge source of funding for a large urban hospital like Swedish, as a result profit margins have shrunk (see earlier paragraph). Now this isn’t a big deal in my book as they are still making money, but think of hospitals that aren’t able to make a profit. The pendulum swing of government money determines the level of services. In a socialized system this still exists, however, in such a system healthcares stats as a public good relegates the swing of public fund to a minimum. The reason for this is that healthcare being a good of primary importance, to you know life, means that the demand for quality will balance out the drive to cut spending because we live in a representative democracy. In other wards politicians are sort of the corporation for selling us public goods, and if those goods go bad, we should vote the bums out of office. Unfortunately, we still haven’t figured that out here. But that’s largely due to a drive over the past 30 or so years to diminish greatly the amount of public good provided to the people.

A final and third problem illustrated in this particular example is a general shift away from “bulk” business in medical care. This sounds good, like we all get better more personalized service, but in the case of hospitals it really just means less people get served. I guess I should be happy cause my level of care is going up. However, the image of little kids with pale skin, yellowed and texture of old parchment sitting in a wheel chair in the hospital, too sick to play. Sitting there waiting while a social worker meets with their uninsured parents to figure out how the family will pay for, hopefully, their child’s life without going bankrupt. Even worse, a life of perpetual dept now that bankruptcy is harder to go into, especially as a result of medical care, then in the past. Thanks big business. This image and my own experience spending a large part of my teens in hospitals has given me the impression that health care is a right. But then you know there is that whole universal declaration of human rights that we signed on to.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Ah… good old article 25 section 1. and I know its not constitutional amendment but consider how something like this would play into US Constitution Amendment 9. Also consider that the clinic and medicine as we know hadn’t been created yet. I think you see where I am going. Even congress has recognized the right to care, passing laws which make it illegal for hospitals to deny care. Thus, I think it fair to say that healthcare is a right, and that even the chilling effect that our country creates with our system is unconstitutional.


From Puget Sound Business Journal
"Swedish's ratio of operating income to revenue is much smaller than it wants. "Our operating margin now is less than 2 percent," Veilleux said, "and 2 percent is not sustainable for the long-term. We need 3 to 5 percent."

Leo Greenawalt, president of the Washington State Hospital Association, noted that a number of years ago hospitals signed a lot of "disadvantageous" contracts with health insurers, accepting payment terms close to the cost of caring for patients, thinking that they " just needed to have the business for the volume."

Now, hospitals are "doing everything they can to get out of those contracts," Greenawalt said, because they need more revenue from private insurers to make up for low payments from Medicare and Medicaid.

With "the government paying worse and worse," he said, hospitals are "struggling with survival."