Texas Longhorns with newborn calf in Bluebonnets

Texas Longhorns with newborn calf in Bluebonnets

Please note I have a new phone number...

512-517-2708

Alan Maki

Alan Maki
Doing research at the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas

It's time to claim our Peace Dividend

It's time to claim our Peace Dividend

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

A program for real change...

http://peaceandsocialjustice.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-progressive-program-for-real-change.html


What we need is a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity" which would make it a mandatory requirement that the president and Congress attain and maintain full employment.


"Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens"

- Ben Franklin

Let's talk...

Let's talk...

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Steve Tobocman and Michigan AFL-CIO leaders are in a tizzy; they don't appreciate my advice to adjuncts living in poverty

AFL-CIO and Michigan Democratic Party leaders in Michigan are hopping mad that I gave a group of Northern Michigan University adjuncts the following advice.

State Representative Steve Tobocman, the Democratic House Floor Leader cried, "How much longer are we going to allow Maki to operate in Michigan; he isn't even a bonafide labor leader, he has no affiliation with the AFL-CIO or Change to Win."

Anyways, all this commotion just because I gave some adjuncts living in poverty in Michigan's Upper Peninsula employed at Northern Michigan University in Marquette this advice:

Check this out… This is what I was talking about how the Election can really be used by you to push for your demands:

McCain got ambushed real good by a teacher at the NAACP National Convention…

During a question-and-answer session, McCain also sought to assuage a frustrated Head Start teacher who complained that her salary from the federal program simply isn't enough.

The woman, wearing a union T-shirt, said she was making $17,000 a year and cannot afford housing, gas, food, or health care for her children. "We cannot continue this way," she said.


Full article below my comments…

You can learn from this. This teacher put Head Start teachers on the radar of every politician in this country. You can do the same.

Now, if this kind of activity is combined with an unrelenting campaign showing a couple of your families and detailing what it costs you to live, together with how much you presently make… you have a very powerful message… do what the Democrats don’t want you to do… focus on the Democrats by insisting they solve your problems by making sure you have a real living income.

[I think this Head Start teacher was wrong for focusing on McCain instead of Obama--- obviously her union was doing Obama a favor he has not earned. Lots of workers are making this mistake because the business union mentality of most “labor leaders” doesn’t allow them to “think outside the box. Democrats are going to be in power after Election Day so, what sense does it make to take your problems to McCain? More misleadership. More lack of clear thinking. And yet these same “leaders” will say Obama will be a labor President… Ya, sure, like Jennifer Granholm is Michigan’s “labor governor” and leaves you in poverty. Don’t allow a bunch of do-nothing labor leaders and do-nothing politicians to tell you to keep your mouths shut until after the Election because this will hurt Democrats--- these Democrats have not demonstrated one iota of concern for you or you wouldn’t be living in poverty right now.]

The Democrats are happy the teachers are focusing on McCain and are staying off their back. Do just the opposite and insist the Democrats fix your problem if they expect you to consider giving them your vote… you can always tell them: Solve our problem before the Election or we are telling people why we are staying home on Election Day. You better believe the Democrats don’t want a bunch of university adjuncts pushing this kind of message to the public.

Make the point: If Democrats can’t even provide 200 adjuncts at Northern Michigan University with a living income; how can we expect Democrats to solve the problems associated with poverty afflicting the entire nation?

You have a lot of power right now as this election heats up… an opportunity like this doesn’t come along very often.

Labor Day is coming up; I am sure there would be much embarrassment if you start bombarding the letters to the editors all over the UP and all the newspapers with the message: We want a living income by Labor Day or we aren’t voting.

Just say you expect a real living income in return for your vote… the corporations get plenty for their campaign contributions and all you want is a living income from these politicians.

Alan



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_naacp_14;_ylt=Au2wOiTomdzj7GDFG4m1UL5h24cA



McCain at NAACP pledges more education options

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer



CINCINNATI - John McCain told the NAACP and some skeptical black voters Wednesday that he will expand education opportunities, partly through vouchers for low-income children to attend private school.


The likely Republican presidential nominee addressed the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the nation's oldest civil rights organization.


In greeting the group, McCain praised Democrat Barack Obama's historic campaign, but said the Illinois senator is wrong to oppose school vouchers for students in failing public schools. It is time, McCain said, to use vouchers and other tools like merit pay for teachers to break from conventional thinking on educational policy.


Obama, he said, has dismissed support for private school vouchers for low-income Americans.


"All of that went over well with the teachers union, but where does it leave families and their children who are stuck in failing schools?" the Arizona senator asked. "No entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity."


In fact, Obama has spoken in favor of performance-based merit pay for individual public school teachers, even telling the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union, in a speech last year that the idea should be considered.


McCain received mostly polite applause in a room with some empty seats, two days after Obama's enthusiastic reception from a standing-room only audience hoping to see him become the first black president.


In his speech, McCain lauded Martin Luther King, Jr., as a leader who "loved and honored his country even when the feeling was unreturned, and counseled others to do the same."


In praising King to the NAACP, McCain used language similar to his mea culpa in April on the 40th anniversary of the civil rights leader's assassination, saying he had been wrong to vote against a federal holiday honoring King.


The NAACP gathering on Monday heard from Obama, who said he would push the government to provide more education and economic assistance, but he also drew big cheers when he urged blacks to demand more of themselves.


"Whatever the outcome in November," McCain told the crowd Wednesday, "Senator Obama has achieved a great thing, for himself and for his country, and I thank him for it. ... Don't tell him I said this, but he is an impressive fellow in many ways."


During a question-and-answer session, McCain also sought to assuage a frustrated Head Start teacher who complained that her salary from the federal program simply isn't enough.


The woman, wearing a union T-shirt, said she was making $17,000 a year and cannot afford housing, gas, food, or health care for her children. "We cannot continue this way," she said.


McCain said the point of his education platform was to boost pay for "a great and outstanding teacher like you" and other educators who are passionate about their work.


"I want to reward good teachers," said McCain.



Members of the audience said afterward they were glad to have heard from McCain, even if it didn't change their minds.


"Winning votes, I'm not so sure, but friends, yes," the Rev. Ronald Terry, pastor of New Friendship Baptist Church in Macon, Ga., said of McCain's appearance.


Marjory Shields, a Penn State extension nutritionist from Croydon, Pa., said McCain said nothing to make her waver from her support of Obama.


"I gave him the courtesy of listening to his platform. I thought that in order for me to make an informed vote this November I really need to hear what all the candidates have to say," Shields said.


"As far as my opinion on his speech, I feel he did not address certain key issues I wish he would have elaborated on," such as more specifics on education funding, she said.


McCain said vouchers and merit pay for teachers whose students perform well are two important ways to help kids in failing schools.


"After decades of hearing the same big promises from the public education establishment, and seeing the same poor results, it is surely time to shake off old ways and to demand new reforms," he said. "That isn't just my opinion. It is the conviction of parents in poor neighborhoods across this nation who want better lives for their children."


Both the merit pay and voucher proposals have met stiff opposition from teachers unions. Obama has indicated he would support some kind of merit pay system for teachers, if teachers help craft it.


Later Wednesday, McCain traveled to Omaha, Neb., where he toured Werner Enterprises, a trucking company, and promoted his plan for a summer suspension of the federal gas tax to help drivers cope with surging fuel prices.


Werner executives said a yearlong gas tax holiday would save them about $40 million, which could be spent on making their trucks more efficient.


Asked what individuals could do to lower the price of gas, McCain said they "can practice conservation" and pressure Congress to allow more offshore drilling for oil.

___

Associated Press writer Terry Kinney contributed to this report.





Alan L. Maki

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net



Check out my blog:



Thoughts From Podunk



http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Monday, July 14, 2008

From war to war with Obama... part way out of Iraq and further into Afghanistan... this is unacceptable

-----Original Message-----

From: WCS-A@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WCS-A@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Maki

Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:49 PM

To: WCS-A@yahoogroups.com; CarlD717@aol.com

Cc: 'David Shove'; 'Charles Underwood'; 'Randy Furst'; Shall@kaxe.org

Subject: From war to war with Obama... part way out of Iraq and further into Afghanistan... this is unacceptable

Does anyone really find going from one war to another war “progressive”?

Well, read Obama’s Opinion Piece in the New York Times which I have reprinted at the bottom of this e-mail.

Is this going from one imperialist war to the next acceptable to liberals and progressives?

Where is the outcry from the organization “Progressives for Obama” and others who have endorsed Obama without criticism or any kind of requirements?

The 2008 Elections are proving to be very confusing… we have some tremendous opportunities opening up before us with so many people so overwhelmingly disgusted with Bush and the Republicans; will we, as liberals and progressives, be able to get maximum gain from the opening before us?

Here is the way I look at the problem.

What I would like to try to figure out is how we build a bridge of liberals/progressives/leftists to the Obama Administration in a way where the needs of people for peace and social & economic justice take precedence over the warmongering, anti-labor, big-business interests now influencing Obama in a way that has put him completely out of touch, and out of reach, from ordinary people.

At the same time, we have vicious reactionaries who would like to sow confusion among people who are fed up--- fed up with the robbery at the pumps; fed up with wars, fed up with declining standards of living; fed up with our democratic rights being trampled on; fed up with global warming. In short, people are just plain fed up with just about everything.

The ultra-right is sowing confusion using racism and anti-communism… just as they have always done.

Many people, after getting their pay checks and paying some of their bills and trying to buy groceries, don’t even have enough money left over from their pay-checks to get them back to work; they have no savings in the bank nor under their mattresses. There is now a crisis of everyday living for many working people--- this is no exaggeration and we all know it. In fact, for people experiencing problems like trying to meet their mortgage payments and trying to pay their family’s health care bills they will probably tell you I am not adequately conveying their concerns and anger.

I thought this election was supposed to be about shifting the decision-making process away from corporate America while bringing the people into the decision-making process of government.

“Solutions,” and notice I put this word in quotes; but, solutions which create greater financial burdens and stress on working people already hurting are unacceptable--- “solutions” like health care reforms which entail so-called “affordable” premiums; no premiums are acceptable--- or affordable… remember, people aren’t even considering winter heating bills for the upcoming cold months… these bills are going to be real shockers and home heating assistance has already been cut as costs for home heating fuels will skyrocket before the cold arrives.

In my opinion, the longer we delay and procrastinate in organizing rank-and-file and grassroots activity among working people, the greater the gap becomes between Barack Obama and the people… unless we begin closing this gap now, we are going to have a huge chasm to bridge after the election; no matter how huge the landslide.

It seems to me that since Barack Obama, in his own book, has indicated a great deal of respect for the thinking of Frank Marshal Davis, we should be organizing study groups around Frank Marshall Davis’ two books, “Livin’ the Blues; Memoirs of a Black Journalist and Poet” and “The Writings of Frank Marshall Davis; A Voice of the Black Press.” This will help create a common ground for us to reach out to Barack Obama and the Obama Administration… it is quite apparent Obama is way out of reach of ordinary citizens right now.

A few “labor leaders” may have his ear… but, they are as out of touch with the reality of the lives of most working people as any corporate CEO.
As Lynn Williams, the former President of the United Steel Workers union has observed; rank and file initiatives are going to be the only way out of this mess.

Perhaps if we take Obama at his word, and accept his invitation, that he would like us to participate in the Democratic Party’s “Platform” creation by holding local get togethers in our neighborhoods, where we work and go to school; we can develop resolutions in keeping with the thinking of Frank Marshall Davis, and Barack Obama will be more receptive to our concerns because we will be speaking to him on common ground.

Here is what is posted on the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/08/obama-lets-voters-take-pa_n_111369.html

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee and Barack Obama's presidential campaign will hold meetings in all 50 states to get voters more involved in developing the party platform.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will chair the Platform Drafting Committee, the DNC and the Obama campaign were scheduled to announce Tuesday. The committee will invite members of the public to attend meetings around the country, with policy experts and other Democratic officials on hand to answer questions.

Both political parties produce a platform, or statement of its principles, each presidential election year. In the past, the DNC has held a limited number of public meetings around the country to seek input on the document, generally from advocacy organizations or research groups.

Voters can go to Obama's campaign Web site, to sign up to host one of the meetings, which will take place July 19-27. The drafting committee will receive a report with input from the meetings Aug. 1 before assembling a draft platform in Cleveland on Aug. 2-3. http://www.barackobama.com

The draft will serve as a working document for the full Platform Committee, which will meet Aug. 9 in Pittsburgh to consider and vote on the document. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid and former Discovery Communications President and CEO Judith McHale are co-chairs of the committee.

The disclosure that the DNC and Obama's campaign would seek broad voter input on the platform came on the heels of the announcement that Obama would accept the Democratic nomination at Denver's Invesco Field at Mile High, a 76,000-seat, open-air stadium that is home to the Denver Broncos, instead of at the smaller Pepsi Center, official site for the party's national convention Aug. 25-28.

"Barack Obama believes that every American should be able to contribute to the Democratic platform, just as record numbers have participated in this campaign," deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand said.


We are all “experts” on the problems we are experiencing… the time has come to put the faces of living, breathing human beings to the facts and statistics in a way that Obama will not be able to ignore.

Read this article below and if you are still hesitating and procrastinating in getting involved in rank-and-file and grassroots organizing, I suggest you read this article from the New York Times because I don’t think most of us want to exchange the war in Iraq for an even more costly, more destructive and more deadly war in Afghanistan.

The “Frank Marshall Davis Roundtable for Change” will be distributing sample resolutions on many issues in keeping with the request for our involvement being made, above, by Barack Obama in the Huffington Post.

HTTP://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/2008/07/14/OPINION/14OBAMA.HTML?EM&EX=1216180800&EN=1E19335BE0E1E1C9&EI=5087%0A


OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

My Plan for Iraq

By BARACK OBAMA

Published: July 14, 2008

CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.


Again, I don’t think most of us want to exchange the war in Iraq for an even more costly, more destructive and more deadly war in Afghanistan.

As I stated, the “Frank Marshall Davis Roundtable for Change” will be distributing sample resolutions on many issues in keeping with the request for involvement being made by Barack Obama in the Huffington Post.



For the Frank Marshall Davis Roundtable for Change;

Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my blog:

Thoughts From Podunk

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Friday, July 11, 2008

Obama's fraudulent health care reform

I sent this e-mail to Dr. Hart of the Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition (MUHCC).

It looks to me like what we are dealing with here is another one of Nancy Pelosi's "what we are going to do in our first one-hundred days if you give us a House and Senate majority."

As you know, voters provided this majority in both the House and Senate... in return the American people received the dirty end of the stick and got shafted by the Democrats who feared standing up to George Bush so they went along to get along... the problem is, these Democrats were really acquiescing to big-business and their lobbyists... the very same well-heeled interests who have their clutches into Barack Obama... given this situation, the only way working people are going to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anything out of an Obama administration is if we keep our distance from him while building massive movements capable of forcing Obama and the Democrats to the "negotiating table" on these important issues like health care reform and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Failing to push Obama for socialized health care with single-payer universal health care being the first step is the only way to go.

I would also point out that Brian Melendez, the Chair of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, has repeatedly portrayed Barack Obama as the candidate supporting the position of the MN DFL on health care. Is this Obama surrogate just lying to Minnesotans to get their votes?

Many people are apparently "thrilled" with Obama's campaign of "hope" and "change."

So far the admission price to hear Obama's meaningless, undefined rhetoric has been free for cheers and claps.

If voters decide to follow Obama's lead as he refused to show up for votes in the Senate on controversial issues people may decide with the price of gas the trip to the polls just isn't worth it.

With the high price of gas the high-paid party hacks are finding it hard to get people out to leaflet and talk to voters.

Obama's campaign could follow the lead of the corrupt politicians of the Red Lake Nation and pay to fill-up the tank in return for a vote.

Alan

-----Original Message-----

From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]

Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:04 PM

To: 'Jim Hart'

Cc: 'Carolyn Laine'; 'lhilty@frontiernet.net'; 'John T (Jack) Garland'; 'RhodaGilman@mngreens.org'; 'Elizabeth Frost'; 'settg001@umn.edu'; 'Ida Hellander'; 'dave@pnhp.org'; 'shove001@tc.umn.edu'; 'kiprs@usinternet.com'; 'info@pnhp.org'

Subject: Obama on health care

Dr. Hart,

Previously you told me the Marty legislation was single-payer universal health care and it fit in with Obama’s proposals for health care reform.

Check out the article below, and what I have highlighted.

I am very puzzled how this can be since Obama is opposed to what you are for.

Also, I would note that Obama claims to be stressing “prevention;” yet one of the biggest bank-rollers of his campaign is the Indian Gaming and the larger Casino industries. The Indian Gaming Industry employs over two-million workers; the other casino industry employs even more. Just about all employees work in smoke-filled casinos, with second-hand smoke being among the main causes of a multitude of diseases and illnesses; so much for “prevention.”

It would seem to me that MUHCC has a responsibility to meet with Obama’s campaign staff here in Minnesota and make yourselves clear that you feel he is headed in the wrong direction on health care.

To give Obama a free ride into the White House as he advocates health care “reform” that is completely at odds with what we want and the people are clamoring for makes no sense; this is not the way to win important concessions and reforms from Obama who is clearly the candidate of choice of big-capital at this point.

Since Obama indicates health care reform is one of the top two items on his agenda for resolution, I think that MUHCC should kind of become the Floyd B. Olson of the moment just as the Governor became the “thorn in Roosevelt’s side on the health care issue. MUHCC should insist on meeting with Obama the next time he is in Minnesota so you have an open door to the White House on this issue.

Obama is obviously at odds with what Minnesotans want in the way of health care reform; apparently Obama is selling “free enterprise” solutions to the health care mess out west because it is a “me, me, me” and “my right to do whatever I want, to whomever I want, without government interference” that gets the votes out west.

Minnesotans clearly want what the Canadians have.

Alan


Obama: End the war, pass energy policy and health care
reform

by By Mike Dennison of The Standard State Bureau -

The Montana Standard - July 5, 2008

http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2008/07/05/state_top/20080705_state_top.txt

For his first task as president, Barack Obama said
Friday he'll call in the nation's top military
officials and "tell them we have a new mission": End
the war in Iraq
.

Next on the list is reforming the nation's health-care
system, so everyone in the nation has basic health care
and costs are reduced for families and businesses
.


And, third, craft a new energy policy that "requires a
shift away from the sort of wasteful energy usage of
the past, and to develop alternative fuels like solar,
wind and biodiesel," Obama said in an interview on his
campaign bus near the Montana Tech campus.

Obama, 46, a U.S. senator from Illinois and the
presumptive Democratic nominee for president this year,
spent the day in Butte, taking in a Fourth of July
parade and attending a picnic with hundreds of well-
wishers and supporters.

But he also took time to chat with local reporters,
both on his bus and on the grounds of the World Museum
of Mining, standing before a small grove of aspen trees
that wavered in the breeze preceding an afternoon
thunderstorm.

Obama said he has a good chance of winning in Montana
because people are struggling here and will respond to
his message of change and reform, to stop the war in
Iraq, to reduce the weight of energy prices and ensure
access to public lands.

Obama has been polling strongly in several Western
states where Democrats traditionally lose in
presidential elections, Montana included.

Yet Republicans have signaled they certainly won't be
rolling over in these states, and will go after Obama
on at least one issue dear to the hearts of many
Montanans: Gun ownership.

Earlier this week, the Montana Republican Party called
on Obama to "clarify his muddled record on the 2nd
Amendment," saying Obama has a record of supporting
restrictions on gun ownership.

Obama said Friday he believes in "common-sense gun
laws" allow law-abiding citizens to purchase and own
firearms, including items such as background checks
when buying guns.

"There is not a sportsman or hunter in Montana who is a
legal possessor of firearms that has anything to worry
about from me," he said.

Regarding the war in Iraq, Obama repeated his call for
bringing home U.S. troops in a "careful and deliberate
fashion," consulting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On health care, he said he wants a system that
regulates insurers more stiffly and helps people who
can't afford health insurance acquire it. But he's not
in favor of a national, single-payer system like Canada

or other countries, that offer the same care for all,
usually financed by taxes.

"The problem is, we've got a legacy of employer-based
health care," he said. "People are accustomed to those
sorts of arrangements and they're fearful about what
they might have to give up in a transition to a
different system." Obama said his plan works within the
system we have now, offering "alternatives" to families
who can't get insurance now and finding ways to lower
premiums for all.


"And we've got to emphasize prevention, which is the
most important thing we've got to do long-term
," he
added.

Obama also said his broad base of donors make him the
candidate who can stand up to well-heeled special
interests who have been controlling policy in the
country.

The Obama campaign doesn't accept money from political
action committees or from people who are federal
registered lobbyists. However, it has accepted tens of
millions of dollars from big individual donors
connected with insurance, Wall Street investment
houses, hedge funds, banks and pharmaceutical
companies.

"When we have 1.7 million donors, there is no donor
that we're dependent on, there is no industry that
we're dependent on," he said. "I can say `no' to
anybody because I've got a broad base of support.

"I've been able to show independence not only in the
past, but will be able to show independence as
president."

Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my blog:

Thoughts From Podunk

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Monday, July 7, 2008

U.S. Okayed Korean War Massacres

I posted this blog yesterday and I have had numerous responses... so many responses that I have been up all night responding to e-mails and phone calls from all over the world... from Korea to China and Canada to Venezuela and Finland; from Boston to Oakland from Sudbury to Miami Beach.

Responses ranged from "both sides" did terrible things to "these killings were in response to what the communists did;" to "Stalin created the problem" to "the Soviet delegate to the United Nations did not show up and Malik's (the Soviet Delegate) vote could have prevented the Korean War."

But, the overwhelming majority of those I heard from told me they appreciated the new perspective I am shedding on this most disgraceful act of barbarism.

One has to ask: Why is it so difficult for the main stream media to call this what it was: POLITICAL REPRESSION. Murder. Barbarism.

Let us set the record straight as far as why Malik was not at the U.N. Security Council meeting... he was boycotting the meeting to protest the fact that the anti-communist, pro-American, pro-imperialist delegation was seated representing China and the Chinese people who had just been victorious under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party in securing their homeland from imperialist domination and imperialist rule had successfully completed a socialist revolution putting China on the road to real freedom; freedom from exploitation and the rape of the country's resources which the United States and other imperialist powers had their greedy eyes on.

In short, the world was in turmoil as people everywhere were still celebrating their victories over Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.

American workers were feeling their strength and their power and flexing their muscel at work and in politics under the leadership of the Communist Party USA... Truman had the leadership of the CPUSA shackled and chained... very literally.

In fact, all of these responses I received critical of what I wrote below about this article have absolutely nothing to do with the Korean War itself.

The United States brought a pro-imperialist, pro-capitalist government to power against the will of the overwhelming majority of the Korean people.

The Associated Press thinks we are all a bunch of dumb clucks to try and put a story over on us in this very well thought out deceitful manner.

The wholesale slaughter and butchering of human beings is nothing but the most atrocious form of political repression carried out for the single-minded purpose of smothering the democratic will of the overwhelming majority of the Korean people who wanted an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, socialist government.

What kind of fools does the main stream media take us for?

To round up this many people is not an act carried out with out considerable planning and forethought. Tremendous planning needs to take place. Informers have to provide names of people and tell these fascists who put together such a murderous plot against democracy and the people where people live and work... it is no small task rounding up so many people. Trenches have to be dug to bury the bodies.

This vicious, barbaric act of political repression could not have been carried out by the American puppets being brought into power... the United States had to be the master-mind and primary plotter of these sick and dirty murderous deeds.

Remember, only months before, these people who were murdered were OUR primary allies in the war with imperialist Japan. They are the ones who led the fight on the Korean Peninsula that routed the Japanese imperialists, only to face U.S. imperialist domination in the end.

These were not war crimes; these were crimes against humanity which were motivated by political repression against the patriotic people of Korea... their only crime was wanting to have the right to be full participants in a cooperatively run, democratic socialist society. This was these people's only "crime."

These human beings were murdered in cold blood only because they did not intend to allow the United States to take over their country in the exact same way the Japanese imperialists had done... the Japanese imposed a cruel regime of murder and repression on the Korean people; the United States intended to impose the exact same kind of government that the Korean people along with their Soviet and then American allies had driven from their country.

All throughout World War Two, General Douglas MacArthur, the United States government at the highest levels and the American people were fully aware that our greatest, best and most reliable allies in fighting the Japanese imperialist aggressors from among the Korean people were the Korean Communists... this was no secret. It was to the Korean Communists that arms and food was distributed through... it was the Communists who had the most reliable network to carry on the resistance struggle... everyone knew that at the conclusion of the War the Communist Party was going to be the strongest and most influential party in Korea.

It did not take the presence of Russian troops delivering Communist Manifestos to the Korean people... the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism had been well developed and promoted--- and accepted--- by the Korean people long before the Soviets arrived.

Socialism in Korea was on its way, World War Two or no war.

Socialist ideas were well established in the process of the Korean people resisting Japanese occupation of their country.

In fact, all over the world... the most reliable resistance to the fascist axis powers were the Communist parties... in Europe, in Asia.. and right inside the fascist powers themselves... the armed and political resistance was carried on primarily under the leadership of the Communist parties.

And it makes me sick to see the corporate controlled main stream media continue these to peddle their lies... what is just as sickening is to have those who call themselves liberals and progressives and even "Marxists" and "revolutionaries" not understand what took place as far as this political repression.

Whether or not the Soviet delegate was present for a U.N. Security Council meeting had nothing to do with this barbaric repression which was thought up, organized and carried out under the full and complete knowledge of the United States government and that worthless, cowardly piece of imperialist, fascist, crap--- General Douglas MacArthur.

In the name of democracy, such perverted and murderous campaigns have been orchestrated, planned and carried out by the United States government... the School of the Americas trains people to commit just such barbaric acts in the furtherance of U.S. imperialist domination.

From the Korean Peninsula to Spain and Greece to the streets of Chile to the jungles and rice paddies of Vietnam from South Africa to Palestine... the world's peoples have endured this kind of "delivery of democracy" to their countries... the motives are the same, corporate greed and conquest, the methods may very; but, in the end as people are on the verge of casting off the unbearable yoke of fascist and imperialist domination the American military and CIA chose the "ten cent solution" as the last resort... the trenches are dug, the people are shot, the bodies are buried, everyone in Washington holds up their hands and exclaims in unison, "We had no idea this was going on; our hands are clean." The cover-up proceeds. And fifty years later the skeletons appear.

In fact, every single administration--- bar none--- since Roosevelt's, and many before, has blood stained hands from having put down the democratic aspirations of the people in some country on the face of this globe.

The crimes of U.S. imperialism like this that is now just coming to light, the last few months in Korea, is but one more example of why we need to make sure that Barack Obama has his hands securely tied and restrained by the people to prevent such atrocities in the future.

To wait until after the election, as some suggest, for the American people to rise up and resist the drive to war with Iran, is only asking for one more imperialist blood-bath.

I say shame on those who look everywhere else except to their own government right here in Washington for excuses for the barbaric crimes of U.S. imperialism.

This is made in the USA:



These are the faces of the imperialist monsters responsible for these dirty deeds of political repression:





These are the courageous leaders of the Communist Party USA who had the courage to stand up and organize resistance to U.S. imperialism:



And these are a few of the rank and file workers and Communist Party members who faced job loss and years of political persecution for having courage to try to organize resistance to U.S. imperialism:



The faces of U.S. imperialism have changed... but the aims of U.S. imperialism have not:



From Korea to Iraq... the blood continues to flow; the barbaric criminality of U.S. imperialism knows no bounds, nor limits, as corporate profits are the objective of big-capital--- no limits except that to which U.S. imperialism is restrained by people united for real change:







The American people and people on every continent of our planet have paid a terrible price for the twin evils of racism and anti-communism being the ideological underpinnings of U.S. state monopoly capitalism as big-business extends its greedy fingers in quest of profits.

These mass graves now being "discovered" in Korea are nothing new--- part of a long, long trail of injustices... from stealing the lands of First Nations Peoples to the oil fields of Iraq... we need to unite for real change to create a new society based upon human needs, compassion, empathy and cooperation--- respect for all peoples... that society is called socialism; a society where private for-profit corporations will once and for all be abolished, and the motivation for killing people and shoving them into mass graves as politicians who ordered the killings scurry to cover up their dirty deeds has got to come to an end... it is capitalism which must be buried.


Alan L. Maki



What this Associated Press article fails to mention is one very important point:

Had Korea remained one united country, the Korean people would have created a unified socialist Korea; and, it was to prevent Korea from going communist where all problems arose... just like most world problems from the beginning of the Second World War on... Hitler was the "preeminent anti-communist;" but Harry Truman and General Douglas MacArthur were not far behind Hitler in this respect.

Korean communists led the struggle against Japanese imperialism; therefore, at the conclusion of the Second World War, communists were the strongest and most influential political force in Korea.

General Douglas McArthur, who, first, ran like a coward from the Japanese in the Philippines, then "returned" after the Japanese imperialists had become entrenched... rolled up his pants and waded onto the beach after thousands of his men had been slaughtered, and posed for photographers.

This same gutless coward, General Douglas McArthur, who had mowed down American servicemen in the shadows of the White House demanding their "bonuses" from World War One; McArthur stood by, not only turned his back on the executions of the very courageous Korean communists who had only shortly before helped the U.S. military efforts in defeating Japan; but as everyone knows, he approved and sanctioned this barbaric, murderous repression of Korean Communists--- poor peasants and working people.

We are talking about the mass slaughter of human beings for their political ideas.

People who were heroes for their courageous fighting ability against the Japanese imperialists were somehow demonized and turned into "criminals" when they wanted to be masters of their own destiny and refused to submit to the exploitation and dictates of capitalists.

What is also not stated, is those whom the Russians executed, were war criminals in the full sense of the word, just like any Nazi war criminal... these traitors were responsible for aiding the Japanese imperialists in carrying out some of the most heinous and atrocious war crimes against humanity--- perpetrated against their fellow countrymen fighting to free their country from Japanese domination.

Dah... the Soviets were in Korea as American and British allies per the Allied agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin to drive the Japanese from the Korea; not to occupy Korean Peninsula--- a "little fact" missing from this Associated Press story.

A massive Korean people's movement of workers and peasants was in progress over who would govern Korea after the Japanese were defeated. Remember--- the Japanese occupied Korea through the Second World War.

The "great" Harry Truman made the decision that Korean peasants and workers who sacrificed to drive the Japanese out, didn't have the right to determine their own destiny after the war and he chose to murder these workers and peasants in cold blood just as Hitler had done to millions of Communists.

With this real history in mind, read this sickening story.

It has taken "democracy" over fifty years to come clean with the truth.




AP: U.S. Okayed Korean War Massacres Associated Press

Published: Saturday July 5, 2008

SEOUL The American colonel, troubled by what he was hearing, tried to stall at first. But the declassified record shows he finally told his South Korean counterpart it "would be permitted" to machine-gun 3,500 political prisoners, to keep them from joining approaching enemy forces.

In the early days of the Korean War, other American officers observed, photographed and confidentially reported on such wholesale executions by their South Korean ally, a secretive slaughter believed to have killed 100,000 or more leftists and supposed sympathizers, usually without charge or trial, in a few weeks in mid-1950.

Extensive archival research by The Associated Press has found no indication Far East commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur took action to stem the summary mass killing, knowledge of which reached top levels of the Pentagon and State Department in Washington, where it was classified "secret" and filed away.

Now, a half-century later, the South Korean government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission is investigating what happened in that summer of terror, a political bloodbath largely hidden from history, unlike the communist invaders' executions of southern rightists, which were widely publicized and denounced at the time.

In the now-declassified record at the U.S. National Archives and other repositories, the Korean investigators will find an ambivalent U.S. attitude in 1950 — at times hands-off, at times disapproving.

"The most important thing is that they did not stop the executions," historian Jung Byung-joon, a member of the 2-year-old commission, said of the Americans. "They were at the crime scene, and took pictures and wrote reports."

They took pictures in July 1950 at the slaughter of dozens of men at one huge killing field outside the central city of Daejeon. Between 3,000 and 7,000 South Koreans are believed to have been shot there by their own military and police, and dumped into mass graves, said Kim Dong-choon, the commission member overseeing the investigation of these government killings.

The bones of Koh Chung-ryol's father are there somewhere, and the 57-year-old woman believes South Koreans alone are not to blame.

"Although we can't present concrete evidence, we bereaved families believe the United States has some responsibility for this," she told the AP, as she visited one of the burial sites in the quiet Sannae valley.

Frank Winslow, a military adviser at Daejeon in those desperate days long ago, is one American who feels otherwise.

The Koreans were responsible for their own actions, said the retired Army lieutenant colonel, 81. "The Koreans were sovereign. To me, there was never any question that the Koreans were in charge," he said in a telephone interview from his home in Bellingham, Wash.

The brutal, hurried elimination of tens of thousands of their countrymen, subject of a May 19 AP report, was the climax to a years-long campaign by South Korea's right-wing leaders.

In 1947, two years after Washington and Moscow divided Korea into southern and northern halves, a U.S. military government declared the Korean Labor Party, the southern communists, to be illegal. President Syngman Rhee's southern regime, gaining sovereignty in 1948, suppressed all leftist political activity, put down a guerrilla uprising and held up to 30,000 political prisoners by the time communist North Korea invaded on June 25, 1950.

As war broke out, southern authorities also rounded up members of the 300,000-strong National Guidance Alliance, a "re-education" body to which they had assigned leftist sympathizers, and whose membership quotas also were filled by illiterate peasants lured by promises of jobs and other benefits.

Commission investigators, extrapolating from initial evidence and surveys of family survivors, believe most alliance members were killed in the wave of executions.

On June 29, 1950, as the southern army and its U.S. advisers retreated southward, reports from Seoul said the conquering northerners had emptied the southern capital's prisons, and ex-inmates were reinforcing the new occupation regime.

In a confidential narrative he later wrote for Army historians, Lt. Col. Rollins S. Emmerich, a senior U.S. adviser, described what then happened in the southern port city of Busan, formerly known as Pusan.

Emmerich was told by a subordinate that a South Korean regimental commander, determined to keep Busan's political prisoners from joining the enemy, planned "to execute some 3500 suspected peace time Communists, locked up in the local prison," according to the declassified 78-page narrative, first uncovered by the newspaper Busan Ilbo at the U.S. National Archives.

Emmerich wrote that he summoned the Korean, Col. Kim Chong-won, and told him the enemy would not reach Busan in a few days as Kim feared, and that "atrocities could not be condoned."

But the American then indicated conditional acceptance of the plan.

"Colonel Kim promised not to execute the prisoners until the situation became more critical," wrote Emmerich, who died in 1986. "Colonel Kim was told that if the enemy did arrive to the outskirts of (Busan) he would be permitted to open the gates of the prison and shoot the prisoners with machine guns."

This passage, omitted from the published Army history, is the first documentation unearthed showing advance sanction by the U.S. military for such killings.

"I think his (Emmerich's) word is so significant," said Park Myung-lim, a South Korean historian of the war and adviser to the investigative commission.

As that summer wore on, and the invaders pressed their attack on the southern zone, Busan-area prisoners were shot by the hundreds, Korean and foreign witnesses later said.

Emmerich wrote that soon after his session with Kim, he met with South Korean officials in Daegu, 55 miles (88 kilometers) north of Busan, and persuaded them "at that time" not to execute 4,500 prisoners immediately, as planned. Within weeks, hundreds were being executed in the Daegu area.

The bloody anticommunist purge, begun immediately after the invasion, is believed by the fall of 1950 to have filled some 150 mass graves in secluded spots stretching to the peninsula's southernmost counties. Commissioner Kim said the commission's estimate of 100,000 dead is "very conservative." The commission later this month will resume excavating massacre sites, after having recovered remains of more than 400 people at four sites last year.

The AP has extensively researched U.S. military and diplomatic archives from the Korean War in recent years, at times relying on once-secret documents it obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and declassification reviews. The declassified U.S. record and other sources offer further glimpses of the mass killings.

A North Korean newspaper said 1,000 prisoners were slain in Incheon, just west of Seoul, in late June 1950 — a report partly corroborated by a declassified U.S. Eighth Army document of July 1950 saying "400 Communists" had been killed in Incheon. The North Korean report claimed a U.S. military adviser had given the order.

As the front moved south, in July's first days, Air Force intelligence officer Donald Nichols witnessed and photographed the shooting of an estimated 1,800 prisoners in Suwon, 20 miles south of Seoul, Nichols reported in a little-noted memoir in 1981, a decade before his death.

Around the same time, farther south, the Daejeon killings began.

Winslow recalled he declined an invitation to what a senior officer called the "turkey shoot" outside the city, but other U.S. officers did attend, taking grisly photos of the human slaughter that would be kept classified for a half-century.

Journalist Alan Winnington, of the British communist Daily Worker newspaper, entered Daejeon with North Korean troops after July 20 and reported that the killings were carried out for three days in early July and two or three days in mid-July.

He wrote that his witnesses claimed jeeploads of American officers "supervised the butchery." Secret CIA and Army intelligence communications reported on the Daejeon and Suwon killings as early as July 3, but said nothing about the U.S. presence or about any U.S. oversight.

In mid-August, MacArthur, in Tokyo, learned of the mass shooting of 200 to 300 people near Daegu, including women and a 12- or 13-year-old girl. A top-secret Army report from Korea, uncovered by AP research, told of the "extreme cruelty" of the South Korean military policemen. The bodies fell into a ravine, where hours later some "were still alive and moaning," wrote a U.S. military policeman who happened on the scene.

Although MacArthur had command of South Korean forces from early in the war, he took no action on this report, other than to refer it to John J. Muccio, U.S. ambassador in South Korea. Muccio later wrote that he urged South Korean officials to stage executions humanely and only after due process of law.

The AP found that during this same period, on Aug. 15, Brig. Gen. Francis W. Farrell, chief U.S. military adviser to the South Koreans, recommended the U.S. command investigate the executions. There was no sign such an inquiry was conducted. A month later, the Daejeon execution photos were sent to the Pentagon in Washington, with a U.S. colonel's report that the South Koreans had killed "thousands" of political prisoners.

The declassified record shows an equivocal U.S. attitude continuing into the fall, when Seoul was retaken and South Korean forces began shooting residents who collaborated with the northern occupiers.

When Washington's British allies protested, Dean Rusk, assistant secretary of state, told them U.S. commanders were doing "everything they can to curb such atrocities," according to a Rusk memo of Oct. 28, 1950.

But on Dec. 19, W.J. Sebald, State Department liaison to MacArthur, cabled Secretary of State Dean Acheson to say MacArthur's command viewed the killings as a South Korean "internal matter" and had "refrained from taking any action."

It was the British who took action, according to news reports at the time. On Dec. 7, in occupied North Korea, British officers saved 21 civilians lined up to be shot, by threatening to shoot the South Korean officer responsible. Later that month, British troops seized "Execution Hill," outside Seoul, to block further mass killings there.

To quiet the protests, the South Koreans barred journalists from execution sites and the State Department told diplomats to avoid commenting on atrocity reports. Earlier, the U.S. Embassy in London had denounced as "fabrication" Winnington's Daily Worker reporting on the Daejeon slaughter. The Army eventually blamed all the thousands of Daejeon deaths on the North Koreans, who in fact had carried out executions of rightists there and elsewhere.

An American historian of the Korean War, the University of Chicago's Bruce Cumings, sees a share of U.S. guilt in what happened in 1950.

"After the fact — with thousands murdered — the U.S. not only did nothing, but covered up the Daejeon massacres," he said.

Another Korean War scholar, Allan R. Millett, an emeritus Ohio State professor, is doubtful. "I'm not sure there's enough evidence to pin culpability on these guys," he said, referring to the advisers and other Americans.

The swiftness and nationwide nature of the 1950 roundups and mass killings point to orders from the top, President Rhee and his security chiefs, Korean historians say. Those officials are long dead, and Korean documentary evidence is scarce.

To piece together a fuller story, investigators of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will sift through tens of thousands of pages of declassified U.S. documents.

The commission's mandate extends to at least 2010, and its president, historian Ahn Byung-ook, expects to turn then to Washington for help in finding the truth.

"Our plan is that when we complete our investigation of cases involving the U.S. Army, we'll make an overall recommendation, a request to the U.S. government to conduct an overall investigation," he said. Charles J. Hanley and Jae-Soon Chang, The Associated Press

Friday, July 4, 2008

The Fourth of July and the Perversion of Patriotism

In the United States, big-capital--- big-business--- has always tried to pervert patriotism into a holiday of big-power chauvinism using the media and its bought and paid for politicians making the most shameful jingoistic speeches distorting real patriotism in order to sow confusion in the minds of the people.

Big-capital would like to poison our minds with the image of John McCain as a "patriotic war hero." Getting shot out of the sky while strafing with machine-gun fire poor Vietnamese peasant families working their rice paddies to secure their next meal has nothing in common with "patriotism." Any "suffering" John McCain endured by his captors was nothing compared to the suffering endured by the Vietnamese people who heroically--- and patriotically--- stood up and defended their country against big-capital U.S. imperialism which sought to brutally and tyrannically subjugate and exploit the people in the rape of their country in quest of corporate profits.

John McCain should hold his head in shame for the cowardly and murderous acts he perpetrated against the Vietnamese people. McCain had options; he did not have the good sense to follow the leadership of the patriots who opposed the dirty war in Vietnam; McCain lacked the courage, leadership and patriotism to lead the struggle against this unjust and immoral imperialist war. Today, instead of being apologetic to the Vietnamese people for his dirty deeds, and the American people for the shame and dishonor he brought upon our country for the war crimes he perpetrated against the Vietnamese people in our name from a jet-fighter adorned with our most sacred patriotic symbol--- the American flag--- McCain cries he was mistreated by his captors; that he was "brutalized" and "brainwashed" and "coerced" to make statements against the war.

Millions of patriotic American youth had the good sense and basic, common human decency to stand up and say, "Hell no, we won't go."

Today, who "coerces" McCain to to front for big-capital and once again do the dirty work for U.S. imperialism in carrying out another brutal and bestial carnage, this time in Iraq. And Afghanistan.

Who is "coercing" McCain to remain silent about the systematic brutalization of the Palestinian people? McCain's loyalty is to big-capital, and his patriotism runs as deep as his big-capital backers' pockets.

Little Rachel Corey had the patriotic courage to stand up to the Israeli war machine; John McCain does not... and from the looks of things neither does Barack Obama.

Big-capital's support for the unjust, immoral and illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aimed at securing the oil fields and gas supply pipelines of the Middle East along with the political domination required to suppress the resistance of the local populations to accomplish the rape of their resources has brought us to a Fourth of July, months before an Election, in which the perversions and distortions of what patriotism really is has risen to a new shameful level.

This Fourth of July and the perversion of patriotism by big-capital finds the oil companies like Mobil robbing us at the pumps, Archer-Daniels-Midland, Cargill & Wal-mart robbing us as we try to feed our families, the "Big Three" stealing our jobs, the rigged "one-armed bandits" of the corrupt Indian Gaming Industry picking pockets of what remains after the bankers and the mortgage companies foreclose and evict us from our homes.

The Fourth of July is about protest.

The Boston Tea Party. The fight to put an end to chattel slavery. The struggle of the miners, truck drivers and auto workers to organize powerful industrial unions capable of standing up to big-capital. The fight to defeat Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. The struggle against McCarthyism. The fight to bring an end to that other dirty imperialist war in Vietnam.

Protest against injustice is what the Fourth of July is really all about no matter how much money big-capital spends trying to poison peoples' minds to the contrary; no matter how many "stump speeches" the politicians they own say otherwise; the Fourth of July is about people struggling for justice, dignity and human rights.

Big-capital needs to shamefully distort what the Fourth of July is really all about because big-capital is the source of today's injustices and as any good community organizer knows, the only way to confront injustice is through vigorous protest.

Barack Obama made us all aware he was a community organizer. As such, Obama understands that in an Election Year, people will take their issues to the streets to make some "political hay" in an attempt to get their problems resolved.

There are those who argue that now is not the time to "make political hay" around our problems; Barack Obama, the community organizer mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, would have to disagree, even if his "political handlers" think otherwise.

We know, from history, the "wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the grease."

It takes massive, united protests to turn the wheels of justice.

There are those who compare Barack Obama to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt... unless we take our problems and our demands for solutions to the streets we will never find out if this is the case because these Presidents never would have achieved greatness had it not been for the determined revolutionary activism of people united for change.

George Washington took up armed resistance to British rule; Lincoln was elected in the midst of some of the most militant protests this country has ever experienced as caring and compassionate people were trying to bring an end to slavery; Roosevelt was elected in the midst of massive protests and social upheavals of workers and farmers seeking justice from capitalist tyranny--- protests unparalleled in American history; protests which resulted in tremendous benefits many people take for granted today.

The Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday because of the struggles of the common people for freedom and liberty--- struggles against tyranny and injustices.

Today, we face a powerful tyrant--- big-capital.

Big-capital is a far more powerful foe and tyrannical force than the British occupiers ever were.

Big-capital is far more powerful and tyrannical than the cruel, despicable racist slave holders of the Southern Confederacy who sought to destroy our country to protect their thoroughly corrupt, rotten and inhuman social and economic system.

Big-capital today is far more repressive, powerful and tyrannical than the mining companies and auto bosses of the 1930's; who, when confronted with sit-down strikes by workers seeking change were forced to recognize the unions.

Big-capital today is far more tyrannical, oppressive and undemocratic than what Joe McCarthy ever imagined in his wildest dreams.

To protest is patriotic.

The time has come to say: ENOUGH!

The time has come to serve notice on big-capital that WE ARE FED UP!

We are fed up with the robbery at the pumps.

We are fed up with the oil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is our patriotic duty to take to the streets in protest.

We need to serve notice on big-capital that we will not put up with this robbery at the pumps and the endless parade of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

We need to serve notice on big-capital that we are fed up and will no longer take what they are dishing out.

There is a lot of talk about "change."

"Change" does not take place by thousands of people sitting in the Excel Center or Cobo Hall listening and clapping to a politician talking about "hope" and "change" that has not been defined.

There needs to be a catalyst for this change; there needs to be a "spark" that ignites a movement for "change."

The Boston Tea Party was such a catalyst for "change." No one would dare to dispute that those who dumped the tea into Boston's harbor were anything but true patriots.

Today we need a "Boston Tea Party" as a spark to ignite a real movement for change.

On this Fourth of July, let us not be deceived by all the chauvinistic and jingoistic rhetoric coming from big-capital--- the merchants of death and destruction, their media and the politicians they have bought and paid for.

On this Forth of July let us prepare to take big-business on--- in the patriotic tradition of the Boston Tea Party, by igniting a boycott of Exxon/Mobil/Esso...

Gather together your friends and neighbors to picket and protest at your local Exxon/Mobil/Esso gas stations and convenience stores. This is the essence of patriotism--- saying "No!" to the robbery at the pumps; saying "No" to dirty imperialist wars for oil.

Make signs: "We are fed up with the robbery at the pumps." "We are fed up with your dirty wars for oil." "Boycott Exxon/Mobil/Esso." Walk around these gas stations and convenience stores on your way home from work; protest the robbery at the pumps--- this is the way to get change in a country tyrannically dominated by big-capital.

Like Thomas Paine and the protesting patriots of 1776, distribute leaflets with these messages every time you go to get gas at stations other than Exxon/Mobil/Esso.

Now is the time for us to define the "change" we need and want; we must not wait until after Election Day, then it will be too late.

Whether you intend to vote for Barack Obama, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader... we need to "unite for change;" every community organizer understands that the kind of "change" needed has to be well defined and articulated before politicians will listen. Also, what every community organizer understands is that politicians will never listen to voices for "change" until they take to the streets in protest where their demands are seen and heard.

Barack Obama's mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a true patriot in the best sense of this word. This summer, sit under the shade of a tree or on the beach and read for yourself the words of Frank Marshall Davis. Pick up his books "Living the Blues" and "The Writings of Frank Marshall Davis" at the local socialist institution--- your local public library.

Ironically, when I went to the Warroad Public Library to check out "Livin' the Blues" by Frank Marshall Davis, I was greeted by Mary Marvin, the head librarian, asking me to fill out a post card protesting the fact that the Warroad Public Library is the most underfunded library in the State of Minnesota. I wrote on the post card: "Fund our public library not this dirty war in Iraq." Mary Marvin did her patriotic duty and organized a protest for change. I did my patriotic duty and joined the protest activity she organized seeking more funding for our community's public library... dozens of library patrons had filled out these post cards to elected officials as an act of protest in order to get "change."

Pick up a copy of Howard Fast's, "Citizen Tom Paine."

Dalton Trumbo, a patriot extraordinaire, wrote "Johnny Got His Gun;" please give this book to any young person thinking of enlisting in the military.

Something to think about as you sit around the picnic table on this Fourth of July with family, friends and neighbors.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Health care reform or scam? Doctors supporting single-payer universal health care

Why the change of heart among doctors? GREED.



Now that health care is in a complete mess and continual crisis doctors are for single-payer universal health care; for one selfish reason: MONEY. Doctors are having a hard time collecting on their exorbitant bills from unemployed workers and workers paid poverty wages, and now these doctors want Uncle Sam to subsidize their extravagant life-styles and become their collection agency to boot.



The solution is very simple… take these greedy doctors out of the picture just like the insurance companies, HMO’s and pharmaceutical companies along with private hospitals. The time has come to consider socialized health care.



We can get all the doctors we need in this country in a few years… just go through the ghettos, barrios and Indian reservations and offer any kid who wants to become a doctor a free education contingent upon doing well in high school. Guarantee these kids a $75,000.00 a year job, plus cost of living increases yearly upon completion of university.



Let the greedy, money grubbing doctors compete with this.



Here in Minnesota the health care plan being brought forward by Democratic State Senator John Marty will protect money grubbing doctors as the pharmaceutical companies, huge HMO’s and hospitals continue to profit as Minnesotans pay exorbitant premiums.



To the Democrats, Republicans and many Greens the free enterprise system of capitalism is the “cats meow.” The doctors purr; the patients pay.



Put the doctors to work for a public health care system just like public school teachers.



Many of those training doctors--- adjuncts--- don’t even receive a living wage as they scrimp from pay-check to pay-check trying to feed their kids and make ends meet… I have yet to hear any doctor voice any empathy.



The only way single-payer universal health care is going to succeed in this country is when it is seen as a temporary Band-Aid solution with socialized health care being the solution… the Canadian single-payer system, one of the best health care systems in the world, is now in trouble because these parasites have been milking the system… it will take socialized health care to maintain good quality health care for all in Canada, just like here in the United States.



We need to go into health care reform with our eyes wide open and fully aware that this rotten capitalist system has given rise to an equally rotten and corrupt health care system where it is pretty much futile to even expect that a working person will receive treatment appropriate for their disease or illness… arrogant doctors pursue a course of treatment” most profitable for them and now these greedy parasites who have more in common with the scam artists in real estate and brokerage firms want to protect their nice little racket. And that is all that health care in this country has become; one big racket. Next thing you know the local bookie will be looking for the government to bail them out when someone betting on the ponies happens to pick a long-shot.



Minnesota Democratic State Senator John Marty is putting forward a scam in place of real health care reform; Senator Marty's scam will protect the bloated incomes of greedy, parasitic doctors, and do nothing to help people requiring health care.



As this article states very clearly, these greedy doctors have been the primary impediment to real health care reform for over eighty years in this country and now they want the government to protect their incomes… not coincidentally, doctors are among the biggest contributors to the campaign coffers of these politicians.



Let us be very clear about something: Doctors as a group in this country have been among the most reactionary, anti-woman, racist, anti-labor, pro-big-business, pro-capitalist, warmongering elements in our society. Most doctors wouldn’t give Physicians for Social Responsibility the time of day. Doctors have traditionally been the “grassroots” of the Republican Party. Is this true of all doctors? Of course not… but, the majority of the doctors in this country have been, and are, among the most selfish and greediest grouping in our society--- seldom, if ever, demonstrating any kind of empathy for anyone else's problems.

Now is the time to tell doctors to “take a hike.” We can find young people who really care about people to train to become doctors… Cuba did it, and so can we. In fact, the Cubans are exporting health care all over the world just like Manitoba exports forest-fire fighters. What does the United States export? Capitalism: War, exploitation, rape of resources, greed and poverty… just what wealthy doctors invest in to make more money.



Are we trying to solve this health care mess in the interest of getting the sick well and keeping people in good health; or, in the interest of doctors looking to make big bucks?



When push comes to shove, H.R. 676 isn’t much better without considerable tweaking; but, then again, looking at John Conyers’ list of campaign contributors one finds a bunch of doctors… ditto for Senator John Marty.


For years I have been pointing out what the writer below has just discovered: that universal health care was part of the original "New Deal" package of reforms; dropped after the American Medical Association attacked socialized health care as a "Bolshevik plot" intended to destroy the free enterprise system.


The American people consistently rally to the defense of public education... there is no reason to believe the American people will be any less supportive of socialized health care.


Alan L. Maki







The Doctors' Revolt

Doctors, the traditional advocates for the medical
status quo, are increasingly in favor of major
reforms to the U.S. health-care system.


Roger Bybee

| July 1, 2008 |

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_doctors_revolt

Doctors have historically been the watchdogs of the U.S.
medical system, with the American Medical Association
scaring New Dealers into dropping national health
coverage from the Social Security Act and then the AMA
shredding Harry Truman's reform efforts in the late
1940s
. But a new poll and other significant indicators
suggest that doctors are turning against the health-
insurance firms that increasingly dominate American
health care.

The latest sign is a poll published recently in the
Annals of Health Research showing that 59 percent of
U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that
essentially eliminates the central role of private
insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations
as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted
universal health systems that provide health care to all
citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors
and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix
of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential
health-care is administered by nonprofit government
agencies rather than private insurers.

The new poll, conducted by Indiana University's Center
for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, shows a
sharp 10 percent spike in the number of doctors
supporting national insurance: 59 percent in 2007
compared to 49 percent five years earlier. This
indicates that more physicians are eager for systematic
changes, said Toledo physician Dr. Johnathon Ross, past
president of Physicians for a National Health Program.

"What this means is the usual bloc of anti-reform is
breaking up," he told The Toledo Blade. "These doctors
are looking in the eyes of sick [uninsured] patients
every day."

The poll results underscore mounting signs that doctors
are resenting the increasingly short leash on which they
are held by insurers and large hospital chains, the
current masters of American medicine. And, increasingly,
doctors seem to be showing support for a single-payer
system that would essentially eliminate for-profit
insurers and curb the power of big provider chains.

The ever-accelerating corporatization of health care is
producing a seismic shift in the way that doctors look
at universal health care. Doctors are experiencing an
extreme and relatively sudden loss of control at the
hands of insurers and hospital networks, while being
snowed under by paperwork and bureaucratic battles with
insurance companies over authorizations and payments.

Losing Faith in the System

Dr. Seth Foldy, a family physician and former health
commissioner for the City of Milwaukee, believes that a
decisive breakdown of the health-care system has changed
the perspective of many doctors. "We've had a virtual
recession over the last six years, with more people
unable to get insurance and more doctors not getting
paid," he states. "There is an overall sense that the
system doesn't work, and, worse, there's been no real
effort to fix it."

The statistics indeed suggest a major breakdown:
Premiums have climbed 87 percent since 2000, and
workers' meager pay raises have been far outstripped by
major increases in their share of the premiums. While
the U.S. ranks 37th on a variety of quality measurements
used by the World Health Organization, per-capita
spending in the U.S. is twice as high as any other
nation. For example, the U.S. spent $6,697 per person in
2005 compared with $3,326 in Canada. Meanwhile, the
sharply escalating costs in the U.S. are leading to
shrinkage of insurance coverage provided by employers.
Some 47 million Americans are uninsured, with the
present economic downturn certain to significantly
increase those numbers.

Among the most acute symptoms of the current crisis is
the rapidly declining share of employers who offer
insurance to their workers. In Wisconsin, for example,
73 percent of workers had health insurance through their
jobs in 1979, but by 2005, the share had plummeted to 58
percent. The Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey
for 2007 shows that the percentage of employers offering
coverage has decreased by 9 percent since 2000, mostly
in firms with fewer than 50 workers.

As these trends have unfolded, coupled with growing
bureaucratic control by insurers and hospital chains,
many doctors have come to question whether for-profit
insurers need occupy such a central role in U.S. health
care.

State-level polls reinforce the just-released national
survey from Indiana's Center for Health Policy. A
remarkable 64 percent of the Minnesota doctors surveyed
in 2006 expressed support for a Canadian-style single-
payer system that would drive insurers from their
commanding role in the health system, reported Minnesota
Medicine. The Minnesota poll aligned closely with a
Massachusetts survey of doctors in 2004, which reflected
61 percent backing for single-payer, according to the
Archives of Internal Medicine. Doctors' views seem to be
coming into closer alignment with those of the general
public, of which 67 percent explicitly support a system
like Canada's or Britain's.

This finding among the members of Minnesota's Medical
Society -- an affiliate of the American Medical
Association (AMA) -- reflects a broader trend emerging
even among the members of the AMA, traditionally the
bulwark of those defending the medical status quo. In
1935, Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to include a
national health plan in the Social Security Act. But his
advisers persuaded him to omit inclusion of the health
provision, fearing that it would lead the AMA to sink
the entire Social Security project.


Similarly, when his successor Harry Truman outlined a
plan for national health care after the 1948 election,
the AMA opposed the plan despite 75 percent public
support for his proposal. The AMA ignited a highly
sophisticated, multilevel effort among its members and
business allies to block the "socialized medicine" plan
and politically crush its proponents, as professor Jill
Quadagno of Florida State University outlines in her
book, One Nation Uninsured. The Truman plan was soundly
defeated, and the AMA succeeded in unseating health-
reform champions like U.S. Reps. Andrew Biemiller of
Wisconsin and Sen. Claude Pepper of Florida, both from
"safe," staunchly Democratic areas.

But the AMA faces a vastly different landscape today.
Less than one-third of doctors belong to the AMA, as
physicians increasingly identify with organizations
based on their medical specialty. Moreover, despite the
AMA's harsh and incessant preaching against single-payer
health care as "socialized medicine" and its active
promotion of myths about "rationing" and "long waiting
lines" in single-payer nations, the group's own national
polling has shown a dramatic shift in its members' view
of reform over the past 15 years or so. Where only 18
percent of AMA members favored single-payer reform in
1992, the figure had soared to 42 percent by 2004.

Single-payer proved more popular than more modest
measures like public programs to cover the uninsured, an
individual mandate to purchase insurance, or an employer
mandate, according to the AMA's 2004 Advocacy Agenda
Setting Survey. Among some subgroups of the AMA, support
for single-payer was even stronger, reaching 58 percent
among psychiatrists. (Pediatric cardiologists showed a
70 percent level of support for single-payer in a 2003
poll of physicians published in the Annals of Internal
Medicine.)

Meanwhile, members of the American College of Physicians
-- the nation's second-largest doctors' organization
with 124,000 internal-medicine physicians and related
specialists -- voted in December 2007 to endorse the
single-payer idea. The vote followed an analysis of
health care in the United States and 12 other
industrialized countries, after which the ACP concluded
that universal coverage had been successfully attained
elsewhere through single-payer or mixed public/private
systems.

Ironically, the commanding role of for-profit insurers
and other corporate players has produced all the dire
effects that doctors were warned about as the products
of "socialized medicine," delivered instead by a system
that generates immense profits. "When doctors were
worried about the government looking over their
shoulder, now they actually have insurers second-
guessing everything we do," says Dr. Deborah Richter,
past president of Physicians for a National Health
Program and now a general practitioner in Cambridge,
Vermont.

"When doctors had a fear of bureaucracy, now they are
being hit with different demands from every insurer,"
Dr. Richter explains. "When doctors had a fear of losing
income, they're now facing declining reimbursements from
the insurers."

From Quadagno's perspective as a sociologist who has
studied the shifting contours of our nation's health
care, the complexity and failures of the current
corporate-driven system are central forces behind
doctors' changing views. "One big factor is having to
deal with so many companies, which creates huge
paperwork and headaches," Quadagno says. "And then
doctors either have to turn away the uninsured or
provide care for no compensation."

"The stock of the private sector has gone down in
doctors' eyes, while the stock of the public sector
hasn't," Foldy says. "Medicare is not unpopular among
doctors. The concept of Medicare for all [which is how a
single-payer plan is often described] is making
ideological headway. And prior to the Iraq War, the VA
system made great strides as a model of quality
recognized by many doctors."

Meanwhile, doctors' perceptions of the for-profit
insurance industry -- which ranks about as low as Big
Tobacco in the general public's eyes -- have declined as
premiums soar, bureaucratic problems multiply, and the
ranks of the uninsured grow. "There is much less trust
that the private-sector insurance companies will be good
partners in health care," Foldy says. "Doctors are
encountering a lot of problems with [insurance
companies], in honesty and uprightness around timely and
full payment. Doctors are facing a high denial rate when
they file claims."

Losing Control to Private Insurers

The high denial rate is the product of increasing
scrutiny of claims by a mushrooming private-sector
bureaucracy. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman
has noted, "Between 2000 and 2005, the number of
Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by
1 percent. But over the same period, employment at
health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent.
What are all those extra employees doing? ... They are
working harder than ever at identifying people who
really need medical care, and ensuring that they don't
get it."

Along with the denial of claims comes what Richter calls
the incessant "second guessing" by insurance company
staff. A survey by a physicians' group called Primary
Care Vermont found that doctors perceived insurers'
long-distance challenges to their judgments as a major
problem requiring constant, time-consuming wrangling.
"So you have an insurance clerk with a high school
education saying you can't do an MRI scan," Richter
says. "It's a steady drip, drip, drip. That takes away
from the care of the patient."

A whole new layer of intrusion into doctors' care of
their patients has cropped up in the form of "disease-
management programs," which Richter argues are chiefly
designed to generate more prescriptions for the
pharmaceutical industry. "There are now disease-
management program businesses, contracted by insurance
companies to deal with patients with chronic illnesses
like asthma, diabetes, or hypertension. These programs
are now bypassing the doctor and asking the patient to
request certain data or certain tests from their
doctors.

In one especially troubling case, Richter recalls, "one
of my patients got a letter just before the holidays
from a disease-management outfit saying he had
congestive heart failure. The letter spoiled his
holidays because he was worried he was going to die, and
when he finally came in to see me, he was mad at me for
not telling him about his condition." The patient
finally calmed down when Richter showed him that he did
not have the condition.

The level of bureaucratic complexity is nightmarish and
ongoing, says Richter. In a single day, she deals with
dozens of different insurance plans, each authorizing
treatments for different conditions and each denying
others. Moreover, each insurance plan has its own
"formulary" -- a list of approved drugs -- from which
doctors must prescribe in order to have the
pharmaceuticals covered by insurance. "With people who
are insured, you have to tailor what you do to the
insurance -- you have to change their prescription
according to the formulary," she says. "The new Medicare
Part D makes it worse, because there are 25 to 50
different plans. In any one day, I'm dealing with 30 to
40 different formularies."

Fighting over authorization for treatment is another
major issue, says Foldy, who specializes in working with
homeless psychiatric patients. "Surgeons probably hear
[denial of authorization] a lot more than I do. This was
even more of a problem earlier in the mid-1990s when
[for-profit, insurer-owned or influenced] HMOs were more
aggressive."

The mid-1990s were a period of extreme restrictions on
care, with employers viewing "managed care" as an
effective means of holding down premiums. For-profit
HMOs and insurers began pressuring hospitals to release
patients before they were well enough to take care of
themselves, as with "drive-through deliveries" where new
mothers were sent home within 24 hours after giving
birth.

"The [for-profit] HMOs have backed off some, and they've
shown themselves to be failures in holding down costs,"
Foldy says. When the HMOs were very rigid, employees
wanted their employers to change insurance companies.
"So the insurers decided that they would rather have
higher premiums and happier patients. The incentives
weren't aligned right to hold down premiums."

Heart surgeon Dr. Dudley Johnson, a renowned pioneer in
open-heart surgery who now specializes in high-risk
cardiac cases, has frequently encountered another form
of bureaucratic resistance from insurers. Insurers are
generally unwilling to refer patients outside the
hospital and clinic networks with which the insurers
have negotiated financial arrangements.

"In any number of cases, we've have to fight the
insurers, even when the patients' own doctors obviously
couldn't do the needed [specialized] surgery," Johnson
says. "Some of the patients would eventually get in.
Some of them never did get clearance, even though their
quality of life would be better with surgery as well as
their prospects for survival."

Doctors face severe pressures from their networks to
refer only within the network, Johnson says. "If your
doctor says a doctor outside your network is the best,
that doctor gets in a lot of trouble. The insurers and
networks are working in sync to get all the patients to
come to their hospital. They have people who check the
records to see to whom their doctors refer patients. So
you hear doctors say, 'I can't write it in the chart who
I'd recommend you to see.' There's a lot of pressure."

Such pressures have driven physicians like Johnson to
conclude that only a single-payer system can restore
patient care rather than profit as the core of the
health-care system. But even if the polls in Minnesota
and Massachusetts reflect a broad shift toward that
conclusion, single-payer advocates face the task of
converting individual opinion into effective collective
action.

Reform Movement Gaining Momentum

For activists like Richter, that means, first of all,
helping doctors to discover that they are not alone in
their alienation from the medical status quo. "Doctors
are complaining but don't realize how unhappy other
doctors are," she says. To break through this sense of
isolation, Richter has given presentations on the need
for single-payer reform at every hospital in the state
of Vermont. The response now is markedly different from
a few years back. "The crowds are bigger and the heads
are nodding in agreement," she says.

Richter readily concedes the difficulty of organizing
doctors, who spend much of their time working alone and
often either absorbed in building up a new practice or
preparing for retirement. "They say organizing doctors
is like herding cats. It's tough to get them to join
forces," Richter admits. "I don't see organized medicine
joining to lead the fight now, but eventually they'll
get on the bandwagon."

Quadagno is less optimistic based on her studies of the
episodic upsurges for health-care reform in the U.S. and
the current lineup of forces in the U.S. "Different
organizations have different stances, and there isn't
any unified force," she says. "Unions are now less
unified and less powerful than in the past. And then you
see the AFL-CIO's energy going into efforts like 'fair
share' initiatives to make Wal-Mart cover its employees
rather than pushing for universal care, such as a
single-payer plan."

While pro-reform sentiment may be building among
doctors, single-payer advocates will eventually face the
fierce and well-funded opposition of the for-profit
insurers and their allies like the drug companies (who
fear that a single-payer system will bring on
negotiations with the government overpricing, thereby
slicing their profits). "Insurers have the capacity to
do more than any doctors' group," Quadagno says
ruefully. "I don't think a single-payer plan can win."

In contrast, Richter is much more optimistic based on
her direct organizing experience and listening to
doctors' alienation from the fast-advancing
corporatization of health care. Although she's keenly
aware of the insurer-and-pharma coalition's influence,
Richter believes that the insurers will continue to
aggravate the grievances of both doctors and patients
alike. For example, the insurance industry's hiring
explosion will continue to mean more exasperating fights
for doctors seeking payment for their services, and for
the general public trying to get its bills paid. The
public's approval rating of the insurers is likely to
drop further.

Additionally, doctors are growing particularly inflamed
by the trend for "medical tourism." This term refers to
the outsourcing of medical surgeries, just as major
firms have been outsourcing both factory and white-
collar work to low-wage nations. "More and more
insurance companies are paying patients to go to places
like India for hip and knee replacements, bypass
surgery, and other operations," Richter says. There were
150,000 medical-tourist operations last year. It started
with cosmetic surgery, but now medical tourism has
really expanded because insurers can pay just one-tenth
or one-twentieth the cost they do here. Richter
predicts, "That may finally bring along the surgeons,"
who have been less inclined to fight for reform.

Given the enormous political clout of the medical
insurers and allied health-care interests, winning
single-payer health care in the United States is certain
to be an arduous and lengthy fight. But the heightening
conflicts between doctors and insurers and hospital
chains, along with the AMA's declining importance, has
made a significant swath of the medical profession far
more sympathetic to the single-payer option than
advocates would have dared to dream just a few years
ago.