Updated -- Mid-Term Elections -- Not Just for Seniors Anymore!

Updated 10/18/2009

Should there be health care reform?

All parties agree that the answer is -- yes.
The health care reform will be “deficit neutral” and won’t bite into the profits of the health care industry. This last statement sounds fishy but if it can be done then more power to you.

The Democrats say Americans have been waiting too long for health care reform.
the Republicans say that law makers should slow down and do it, health care reform, right.
The dems accuse the Reps of just stalling to ruin any chances of reform and the Reps accuse the dems of willing to bankrupt the nation for the sake of a political victory.
Each political side on this issue have their extremists.

If a public option is not included in the final health care bill the democrats will feel they’ve lost. That is until the economy begins to turn around as a result of this new health care bill. If that happens the president is vendicated because that is what he has said would happen all along. When people get into new jobs or get their old jobs back and are spending their dollars on Chinese goods Americans will forget what all the fuss was about.

But what if the public option is not in the final bill and the economy does not create the jobs? The ghost of “public option” will haunt the 2010 midterm elections. The dems will point out that but for the exclusion of the public option the economy would have performed much better. The democrats will ask the country to send more democrats to the capital in order to get work down easier.

The Republicans will point to a rushed health care bill as the cause of a slow, jobless economy and ask the public to send more Republicans to Washington to reverse the damage caused by a democratically controlled congress.

No matter how you slice it folks, unless there are jobs, that pay well and make Americans happy, the 2010 elections will be an up hill climb for the democrats. Any politician who is thinking of keeping their job should concentrate on creating as many jobs as possible. Nothing new in that statement. right?

Well if Americans are currently saving their money there is nobody to buy Chinese goods.
So, the midterm elections are going to be very contentious and both parties are going to target young voters like never before in a mid-term election. The contest to win over Seniors will be just as ferocious.

For the Democrats:

A. voters will have to feel an economic difference in their lives, that is, by January of 2010
B. People will have to respond to the “new health care reform” positively.
C. The general public will have to have a positive outlook on the countries fiscal crisis by 2010.

For the Republicans:

A. The democrats must fail.
B. The failure must appear as if a result of the Democrats not listing to their advice.

If you think health care reform is an issue on the news these days, just wait until the mid-term fight for control of congress. If the Republicans can shake the appearance of the party of “No and I don’t have a better solution” they will pick up more seats than the democratic strategist predict.

The Democrats can avoid this problem but they are betting on the idea that ;

A. once health care reform is passed, people will relax and the issue will be in the past.

B. Once people appreciate their new health care, people with new health care will vote to keep the democrats in power.

So, use reconciliation! Why just threaten? The democrats have argued that those apposed to the public option are crazy and that their numbers are “artificial.” If that is the case then the Democrats should stop wasting time and use this option. If the Democrats insist that their health care reform bill will function as beautifully as they insist it will then they should pass the bill using reconciliation.

However, if by the 2010 election the effects of their health care bill is having a negative effect on the country then run the democrats out of Washington.

So, if we pass the health care reform using reconciliation, how can we measure it’s effects on the economy by the 2010 mid-term elections?

UPDATE --

What happens to democrats if by the 2012 elections soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq?

What happens to the democrats if by 2012 the DOW is well above 10,000 and still no jobs?

What happens to the democrats by 2012 if health care reform does not appear to have delivered its promise of more bang for your buck?

Obama insisted that reforming health care would turn the economy, it was the first thing that needed to change before anything else was worked out, so, what happens to the democrats if by 2010 or 2012 health care reform appears to be a tax payor burden?

With any luck, by the 2012 election the benefits of a reformed health care will inspire voters to support the democratic ticket. A healthy economy and a healthy people will emerge by 2012 to vindicate the parties current political struggles. An easier victory for Obama than his first run for the White House.

It all hinges on jobs, good old fashioned or new fashioned jobs.

Good luck democrats

Rafael Buelna

President Obama, Governor Paterson and disability discrimination

President Obama is not a racist, he is just another able bodied man that exaggerates about how much they can stand looking at the disabled or their comfort level. My knowledge on this subject comes from personal experience and a little research. Consider that if Paterson does not run for governor the parties chances of winning will diminish despite what the current polling says. Paterson should drop the race argument, don't even bring it up anymore but pick up the disability argument, but quickly.

I know the able bodied readers are just about now getting mad but read me out for a moment.

Candidate Obama was fond of reminding America that just because he looked different, when compared to our pasts leaders, it didn’t mean he was not qualified to lead the country. Candidate Obama wanted Americans to see past physical difference, just like MLK Jr had asked years ago. Many political commentators wondered if Americans were ready for a “black president.” Candidate Obama insisted on running regardless of whether his decision could have hurt the parties chances of winning the election in 2008. The party and then America took a chance and voted Obama into the White House.

Now that President Obama is concerned about his own political destiny taking chances on “change” is no longer in fashion. After all how many disabled African-Americans are governors in the United States? Obama chose now Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor because he sought someone qualified that had empathy. President Obama wanted to give the spot to a group that has been traditionally under represented. Haven’t the disabled been traditionally under represented? An article in TIME “The Limits of Empathy for Sonia Sotomayor” discusses this point clearly.

I am now going to say something, nay, write something again that not many people across the country want to announce.

President Obama and the Democrats do not want N.Y Gov. David Paterson to run for governor because people, the general public, do not like looking at the disabled and the Obama administration is no different.

Here is my argument.

It’s not about race or poll numbers, Gov. Paterson is blind and people love to exaggerate their comfort with looking at him or at any disabled person for that matter. If you can view the sky, hear a bird, walk, talk, jump and do simple math at the same time your considered an “able-bodied” person. If your one of the few hero “able-bodied” people that can hang around people regardless of their disability then god-bless you but most people can not stand looking at or being near the disabled. Especially when high stake games like a governors office is concerned and the balance of congress.

Please continue to humor me, just consider how popular the SNL parody of Gov. Paterson is with the audience. In one particular skit the audience laughed because the “governor” can’t tell that a graph he is holding is actually up-side-down. In this skit the governor is being made fun of simply because he’s blind. Would SNL portray President Obama to appear incompetent because he was Africa-American? A continuous SNL barrage of skits aimed at laughing at disability for the sake at laughing at disability. The disabled can be made fun of but SNL crosses lines the Democrats would never accept if the President was being lampooned but just for being African-American. Defending against the SNL barrage has cost the Governor resources and weakened his poll numbers.

The Poll numbers Speak for themselves.

Read an article published in the NY Daily titled “New Yorkers prefer disgraced ex. Gov. Eliot Spitzer to David Paterson, Marist poll finds for the breakdown on how the pollsters are sizing up the 2010 election and to find out what people currently feel about Gov. Paterson’s chances at winning the election. It appears that in a little over a year the people of New York and the democratic leadership can properly evaluated their governor but not their president. Apparently we are suppose to believe that the people of New York and that states democrats can get inspired by Mario Cuomo to beat Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2010 but not for Gov. Paterson.

OK, so Mario Cuomo is also a well qualified candidate and a minority (Italian-America) but how is voting him into office anything but the status quo the President is asking us all not to accept these days? Maybe if the democratic leadership in Washington and the democrats of NY would have backed their governor a fraction of the amount of times they’ve backed the President the Poll numbers would be better for Gov. Paterson? The NY Democrats rather punish Gov. Paterson for not appointing Caroline Kennedy to the senate this last year. So the democrats and their money supply, insider knowledge and sympathetic news networks abandoned Gov. Paterson and are now surprised to see his poll numbers down even concerned that he may not win a 2010 election.

This punishment came down on the Gov. because he did not appoint to office a famous person with no prior experience to a public office. The democratic party punished Gov. Paterson regardless of what the effects of that punishment might have on the office of a fellow democrat. They did not take into consideration the good of the party when they decided to collectively shun the governor and start a wink campaign against any of his future attempts to run for the office. Where was the Presidents concerns for the party months ago when NY democrats began to slice away at Gov. Paterson? Instead of supporting him through fiscal and administrative issues they chastise their governor for not out performing President Obama.

No, Governor Paterson the president doesn’t want you to run but its not because your black nor your poll numbers its because your disabled and you frightened the good voters of NY; no offense Governor. Wasn’t there a “Seinfeld” episode about this issue with disability and in “Frasier” and one in “Curb Your Enthusiasm?” Those good democrats or informed progressives of NY that would support Mario Cuomo can not vote for Paterson. Why? Those democrats that would be disappointed because Gov. Paterson was on the ticket would rather give their vote to Rudolph W. Giuliani? Paterson is so bad, only after a year and a half, that Giuliani is a better person to run the state?

Is this the argument which the democratic leadership is really making?

Has the president come to the conclusion that, after reading reports and listening to advice, he feels that citizens of NY (because of ignorance or shallow souls) would prefer a Gov. Giuliani over a governor Paterson? This judgment made only after a short while because, after all, Paterson inherited the Bush economy while President Obama still has a two years leeway left. Can somebody explain that one please? How can New Yorkers hold the Governor responsible for not turning their economy around before the rest of the country?

Yes folks, Obama and the rest of the democratic leadership believes that when it comes to disability the status quo works. The party can not take a chance, like they did for Obama to experiment with supporting a disabled man for governor when a very important election seat is at stake.

The party will suffer if Paterson runs for governor and then the democrats decide to stand behind him with whole hearts. The Time to support him is now because any person that runs for Governor will ask why the democrats threw one of their own under the proverbial bus. Why did the democrats grade Paterson using a whole different set of criteria?


On September 21 the NY Times reported that the African-American leadership is trying to persuade Governor Paterson not to run because of the lack of excitement from the Obama administration towards a Candidate Paterson. Recently, in a 4-3 vote the court upheld Gov. Paterson's decision to appoicnt appoint a Lieutenant Governor which he had been criticized for attempting.

It seems that Democrats where wrong on that issue. Is there anything else they've been wrong about?
　
P.S
　
　
"There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford."

Nowadays people say “there for the grace of god go I.” In the United States the severely disabled (like the blind) receive welfare and are not expected to work. In fact in the minds of many people the disabled are excluded from any expectations of being active participants in society. Participating in society is an option for the disabled not a mandate. So, when a disabled person like, Gov. Paterson decides to step into a leadership role the general public has a problem manipulating their ideologies. For example:

A. If blind people get free money because they’re blind and don’t have to work how the hell is this guy going to sympathize with my able-bodied needs?

B. What the hell does this blind guy know about running a city that able-bodied people built?

C. Elections are important and experimenting with minority issues (disability issues) only threatens our parties results.

The polls are down for Gov. Paterson but that is true about other democrat governors around the country. What is not true about other governor races is that they are not all happening in New York and do not include a blind candidate. What is the real story behind Gov. Paterson’s low poll numbers? Are the poll numbers down because the performance of the governor has been hampered by New York’s sluggish democrats? Democrats that move as slow as molasses in the winter time to help their governor.

In a survey put together January 6, 2009 by the Public Policy Polling, Kennedy did not appear to be the strongest potential candidate in 2010. The results showed state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was leading Rep. Peter King, who still is the most likely Republican candidate, 48 percent to 29 percent while Kennedy’s numbers were 46 percent to King's 44 percent.
　
CNN reported that in August the White House was concerned about the polls and Gov. Paterson’s ability to win an election against Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2010. In July the poll numbers started to go down for Gov. Paterson.

The NY Times offered an article titled “Conceding Errors, Paterson Vows to Regain Trust” By DANNY HAKIM and CONFESSORE Published: February 22, 2009. In that article Gov. Paterson is critiqued but take a close look at the problems people have with Paterson. Issues with forming an administration, the state economy, which all sound like GOP critiques against President Obama. While the Democrats and other talking heads remind America that the Obama administration inherited a Bush economy the same reasoning does not work to shelter Gov. Paterson from Democratic criticism. That Obama is having difficulty filling key positions is reasoned away by the administration as part of the process but when Gov. Paterson has this problem its because of his ineptitude.

Gov. Paterson stated to the NY Times

“…the governor, who was abruptly elevated last March after Mr. Spitzer resigned in a prostitution scandal, also said he had taken the job in an unusually difficult period, and expressed confidence he could gain the trust of New Yorkers if he managed the state’s finances well.”

In other words, just like Obama, Paterson inherited a bad economy and people should be patient because it will take a while to turn around and improve. So, why do Democrats accept that President Obama can have nine months in office and not own the economy while Gov. Paterson must turn the economy of New York around?

Well folks, the disabled are a minority of sorts and they, like other minorities, must out perform all counterparts. Otherwise, why hire a disabled person for any job. This complaint, of having to out perform others or do twice the work, is common among Chicanos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other people. Read some of the information a cursory search on the web can pull out on this issue. At one particular web page called “Blogtalkradio” one particular blog post says it clearly titled “The Feminization of the African American Male.” Here is another article titled The Only One: Being Black in the White Working World By Camille Jackson, New Haven Advocate. Posted March 20, 2002.

Here is the voice of a Latina, Stephanie Valencia had to say from Las Cruces, NM at the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs, The White House CHCI Fellowship 2004-2005: Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee. Each one of these Americans have a common complaint that other minorities can relate to but somehow can not apply the reasoning to the disabled.

So keep convening yourselves that the reason that Governor Paterson is behind in the polls has to do with his ineptitude but your only fallowing for warped reasoning that will lead you into a warped future. Just because the democrats have supported a hand full of disabled candidates in the past doesn’t mean they’re above being shallow minded and short sighted.

Rafael Buelna

Eighty or Bust! Reduce the Total Student Load

Reduce the Total Student Load (TSL)and the performance of students and teachers increase. William Ouchi, author of "The Secret of TSL: The Revolutionary Discovery That Raises School Performance" (Simon & Schuster) spoke today on Air Talk and explained how lowering the TSL will help improve the quality of education public school students receive but especially for crowded cities like Los Angeles.

Lowering the TSL should be a priority for the Obama administration. At a private school the total student load is 6o students per teacher but at public schools a single teachers is responsible for 245. Lowering the TSL is different from lowering the classroom size. While lowering class size helps if the total Student load is above eighty students the quality of education suffers. So, the maximum load is eighty students. The teacher in the above cartoon is having a hard time balancing her students. So, two hundred and forty five would mean she and the studen ts would all fall off the tight rope.

Save our children and our teacher by reducing the TSL.

Check on the interview, click the title.

Obama is interrupted by Kanye West

Obama is interrupted while giving a speech to a joint house of congress by Kanye West.

GOP bites the fingers off Mr. Public Option

In the United States two individuals who disagreed with one another over the Health Care Reform debate, got into a fight because of that tension and one of them lost a finger. In the cartoon above Congress negotiates behind closed chambers while the public has a ferocious debate about the "public option" attribute of the health care bills currently making their way through the House and Senate.

Throughout America events called "tea parties" are being held and growing. Although, news sources, to the left of politics, are reporting on these events the number of people showing up to them are worrisome. The left explains these gatherings as "Astro turf," or not a real grass roots movement and likes to expose the tensions and ignorance of people that attend these tea parties. The idea is that if readers are informed about how bizarre these tea party goers are the democrats will hold together as a unified party ready to back their president.

Referring to the people that go to these parties as "tea baggers" or "Astro Turf" just helps fuel political fires. It is unclear whether these parties will continue to grow after any health care legislation is passed or whether they will fizzle out. Their members suggest that this movement is much more than about health care but instead describe a deep seated dissatisfaction with the way their elected leaders are managing the public trust -- specifically fiscal matters.

The left believes that this movement is really a thinly veiled protest against president Obama because he is an African American and that they are partisan in nature. The left points to statements made by tea party goers as proof of their racist motives and the tea party goers find ignorant statements the left make to prove their points.

Here is an example of the stupid things the left says that makes them little friends, "fat people are responsible for global warming...bigger carbon foot print...eat more...buy more..." There is no doubt that having a healthy weight is a good idea and eating right, exercising is part of that. Here is my problem, when you want to begin the difficult process of health care reform (within the first six month of a new president) don't start off by calling people, that are over weight, the cause of global warming. People stop listening as soon they hear they've been treated rudely.

Politicians need people to listen. Hasn't this been a summer of not listening? I am not saying that calling them fat is the reason behind the tea parties and the anger at the town hall meetings, only that when the left swept into office so did typical partisan politics. To right wing, conservative America anyone that brings up taxing junk food is "a liberal trying to take over their lives" So, attacking junk food just added to the tension between the left and right political parties. The fact that eating junk food has a negative reaction to a persons health has nothing to do with the debate, for tea party members, its "personal freedom." The fact that this "personal freedom" to gain too much weight ends up having costly repercussions for the country in the long run also matters little.

The tea party goers are beginning to consider themselves a nativistic movement. Calling them a racist or republican movement will only feed their fire and increase their numbers. Ignoring nativistic movements has never been a good idea but showing them that they are not the only party in town has always been a good idea.

In the cartoon above, while the right bites Mr. Public Option to pieces the left stays behind closed doors debating. What this indicates is that the left is a passive entity while the right is aggressive. What the left needs is creativity and to come to terms with its reality. The reality is that the left did not win the 2008 election alone. The left allied themselves with independents and conservatives liberals in order to give them the edge over Senator McCain to win the 2008 presidential election.

While the left would like to ignore that alliance those conservative liberals and independents are now absent without leave during the health care debate. The left half of the democratic party can not win health care reform alone.

While the left relaxed this summer the right was actively networking their rank and file members together under a reworked ancient slogan of "Locals Rule." To the tea party members the state "rules" over the republic and the community "rules" the state and individuality rules the community. The tea party is meant to remind us all that the evil empire (back then it was England) or our republic is taxing without representation. The tea party in Boston was also the inspiration for insurrection, violent resistance.

So, Glenn Beck, a commentator, author has called the president a racist and is throwing parties that inspire insurrection.

How creative can those that want health care reform or those that support President Obama be in defending their vision of what rules in the United States? Did we fight all these years for a Republic or a weak Federation?

Rafael Buelna

Democrats, Health Care and Circular firing Squads

It’s Important to Keep Being Transformative
　
What can be transformative to the health care system of the United States that brings its people satisfaction?

While some citizens want a paradigm shift others want the same system but modified. In other words these people would agree with the statement “we understand the health care system needs reform, so fix it Mr. President but don’t rock the boat for us and we don‘t want to pay very much for it.” Some pundits describe the current health care reform debate as simply moving the current state of affairs from the private to the public paradigm. So, the president is pursuing the wrong paradigm because the traditional paradigm is not transformative. What I have learned from my own investigation is that what makes Health Care transformative is three things. After making the process “patient centric” the next steps are:


A. making costs transparent,
B. lowering administrative cost and
C. adding incentives for a healthier life style.
　
These, of course, are a small fraction of the suggestions floating around the health care reform debate. Folks, the public debate on this issue has only touched upon a fraction of the contentious points yet to make headline news. Funding for this “deficit neutral health care plan” is one aspect of this debate not yet fully flushed out. Still others have added:


D. If the president compromises on the public option insurance choice then no bill!
E. Cooperatives might help.
F. Add the public option as a trigger.
G. Run the health care system like a public utility.
H. Add a trigger that releases a public option only if the insurance companies fail to comply with the wishes of progressives but on a state by state bases..


The President is about to give a speech on Wednesday and according to talking heads, like Keith Olbermann, he will be speaking not so much to the citizens but to his party and a few conservatives. The key message from the presidents corner will be directed to democrats urging his party not to let perfection be the enemy of good. The consensus is that President Obama will ask his party to keep a stiff upper lip and accept half a loaf of bread. On the progressive liberal side they question whether they ever asked for perfection at all from health care reform but for good and fair care.

By accusing the progressive liberal wing of seeking perfection in health care reform the president’s emissaries, the Sunday before his speech to Congress, were diminishing the needs and suffering of the constituents those representatives serve who lack health care, are under insured or are drowning in debt because of health care bills.

Instead of the Democrats situating themselves to reap victory from any reform in the health care system, they have fostered an atmosphere that situates them as “sell outs” which is a phrase used by Keith Olbermann from MSNBC in the last few days.

While candidate Obama promised a great deal of reform to the health care system in the United States President Obama actually did not write any of the proposed health care bills, his party did. Which means the politics of his party are a stronger force than President Obama. Candidate Obama promised not to bring politics as usual to Washington but health care reform was blocked all of August by politics.

Rank and file Democrats like accusing Republicans for the problems they’re having passing a health care bill but not many historians were surprised by the political response to the presidents attempts to get this legislation passed by Christmas. Being surprised by the conservative and health insurance industry response to health care reform is like fighting WWII over again and wondering if the Nazi’s are going to be respectful to Jewish people.

While progressives, such as Keith Olbermann, feel betrayed and contemplate punishing President Obama in the 2010 mid-term elections at least he has the good sense to interview people like Jonathan Cohn, author of the book Sick who believes that health care can still be reformed without the public option. Cohn warned that the reform must “provide the foundation” for proper health care in the future. Cohn was concerned that people who are waiting for health care get relief soon and that the President not compromise too much of what the current bills offer. While the public option is not essential, a health care system can run like a public utility and high standards can be set believes Cohn “This option is for those people that don’t like the public option.”


To be fair to Keith Olbermann he’s crying foul because “the White House [is] preparing to sell out…” all or most of the following “…the public option, the national health care exchange, no discrimination protection against those with preexisting conditions, and credits for small business that help make health care affordable.”


These attributes to health care reform are important and it is sad to see them bargained away but lets give the POTUS the benefit of the doubt and consider that he did everything he could to get the people of the United States something for their suffering. If liberal progressives celebrate something, anything the president gets them, anything, then they’ll take victory from those that wanted nothing in regards to health care reform. Liberal Progressives could celebrate that next year the fight continues for more transformative change.

In the mean time do not execute those sentenced to death using a circular firing squad. Think about it for a second, it's horrible. The only people that suffer are the soldiers in the squad. Their leader and the accused get away with murder! Kidding, I think?

What this means is that the Democrats are going to shoot themselves no matter how much warning anyone tries to given them.

Since hindsight is 20/20 lets stop talking about what the president should have done these last few months to move this issue forward. Lets, instead, look at some of the sentiments percolating to the top of the madness associated with health care reform these last few months.

As far as rage is concerned a man in California recently bit the finger off another man because they disagreed over this issue. Democrats are puzzled when Republicans are disrespectful at health care forums which to many people just indicates how little history people have read on this subject because this behavior is nothing new. If liberal progressives wanted a president that would not compromise on their ideals then they should not have let liberal conservatives and independents decide who was going to occupy the oval office.

The result is that on Wednesday progressive liberals will have a choice to make, punish President Obama because he has compromised too much or accept compromise with a smile and say “thank you sir, may I have some more?”

Progressives, in some circles, are tired of caving into conservative fears of "government take over" and in fact are tired of hearing that a government run organization must always mean a badly run organization.

Health Care is like Civil Rights Reform

Reforming civil rights did not take one bill or one political cycle but was a process that required multiple political battles and there were many political casualties along the way.

Is this analogy correct?

If progressives liberals stick to their guns and punish the president in 2010 for not holding out for the complete health care package candidate Obama promised them, what will a week party deliver for the two years that leading up to the 2012 election?

The Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats would benefit the most from any punishment the liberal progressives plan to dole out in 2010. Citizen independent will point to the progressive liberals as the key political obstacle to “half a loaf of bread.” In other words, as the pressure of the economy continues to press down on citizens, independents will regret not having a bill signed before Christmas to at least have had some help with lowered premiums. You get it right! A little help with the bills might be better than nothing?


Christmas was just an arbitrary date that means nothing to the health care debate. If health care comes by Valentine's Day or Easter that would be fine...with many people the date matters little.

Reforming health care has been described as an issue with the urgency of civil rights reform. It is not difficult to understand why people make that association considering the millions of citizens that deserve and need health care. What I do not see are the marches on Washington D.C that happened during the civil rights movement. If millions of Americans marched on Washington then maybe this issue would carry the sense of urgency that civil rights did. Yes, my fellow Americans, what I am saying is that were I your Commander in Chief, I would march on Washington to let the Congress and all Americans understand how serious about proper reform I was and what steps I was willing to take. At least I would if I were making this analogy.


But President Obama won the presidency because he courted the conservative liberals and the independents. So, unless the President coddles their fears he faces something worse than a progressive liberal punishment but a punishment by independents. Independents don’t have the commitment to march on Washington D.C. That is also the same group that is slowly abandoning the president according to recent polls. President Obama knows that he can disappoint a progressive liberal and still count on their vote because the progressive liberal has no where to go; what other party? Will the progressive liberal ever vote Green again and risk giving the country over to another Bush-like figure?
　
The piece of loaf vs. the whole loaf.
　
The Republicans are “shadow boxing” simply to hurt the president while progressive liberal Democrats are willing to push the health care reform into a new paradigm that has many liberals, conservatives and independents feeling that the devil they know is better than one they don’t. In other words these groups are not comfortable with the possible outcomes that come with transformative, comprehensive reform that progressive liberals have proposed. Also, the progressive liberals are willing to accept having to post-pone passing a health care bill if it means compromising on key issues. This is kind of frightening considering that people are losing their homes these days and want help quickly.

“Competition,”
“Choice,”
“Protection against discrimination for having a preexisting condition”
“We need a strong network to start out… a public option… not a trigger… not a patchwork or a weak group”
“…progressives should walk away ..”
“…The insurance industry should make concessions”
“…the president should talk to the forty seven million and tell them they should continue to compromise...”
“…those that get millions in contributions should compromise?"

These are some of the current narratives creating havoc in the minds of the left these last few days of Summer. Since the left fancies themselves as the reasonable half then they should ponder the following question before the speech on Wednesday by the POTUS.

1. If the president lowers the cost of monthly premiums for all citizens will that be enough to help during a economic down turn to keep some people above water? Or What are the repercussions of fettering an industry during an economic down turn?

Keep feeding from the anger of Keith Olbermann on the one end and Glenn Beck on the extreme other and the result is a weakened presidency. Maybe just getting one concession on health care could help turn the economy around and stabilize it there a few years. A citizenry making tangible economic progress will not vote out of office their commander in chief. Those citizens might vote the president into a second term to get a little more health care reform.

Mr. Olbermann means well and is frustrated because 77% of the public is in favor of a public option insurance plan which means this is the time that liberal progressives should strike out and get what they want: the iron is hot. But alas! The liberal progressive base will be asked to be good soldiers and put on a good show for the cameras on Wednesday which is pissing off Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann said “Triggers, ha, ha, ha, when the system does not work know!” In other words as soon as the health care bill is passed the triggers would release and fire off the public option insurance choice because the system is already broken. What Mr. Olbermann failed to realize is that the “triggers” will only have to release fifty times to have a public option choice of insurance for every citizen. If all the compromise would do is delay the public option for a while why put the presidency at risk?

This may just end up being one of those years where fighting for health care finally pays off or it will be another year of fighting for health car reform. Either way the fight is always worth having because of constant need: forty seven million.

Liberal progressives understand that many of the congressman that promise to stand their ground and vote down a bill with no public option insurance choice are merely political posturing or saving their jobs. These law makers will simply say “sorry, I tried to get the public option and voted down this bill, now, I have to get my constituents something and vote for this bill over here.”

So be original Democrats. Stand behind the president when he disappoints you this time around. Show the health care insurance industry that the health of America is more important than our egos.

Hey, and if President Obama asks us to march on Washington D.C. to defend the transformative health care reform 77% of Americans want then prepare yourselves to march. Otherwise, stop comparing the health care reform debate to the civil rights movement.

Tell the reporters that your content with what the president did for health care reform this year. Also, tell them that next year you’ll expect more from him and so on and so on.

Rafael Buena © all rights reserved 09/06/09

Give me Fair-Care, COME ON!

Update -- July 29, 2009

Fraud is a crime the president does not need congressional authority to ask the Attorney General to investigate. If the president suggests that there is fraud occurring within the Medicare system, then he should pick up the phone or email the the Attorney Generals Office to arrest and charge those responsible today: he did say fraud. Is this welfare fraud? Who is fraudulently taking money that is suppose to benefit Medicare patients?


Monday morning and the white noise is going to start our day here in the U.S. Pushy agendas on every news outlet will have health care, including the net, at the top of the play list. The Democrats are scheduled not to shot themselves in the foot and pass some form of health care reform. Unless.

The recession has been declared over but the pain remains the same. The talk this Monday will be about lagging indicators and the importance of cautious optimism. Now that the economy is doing well people will hesitate to embrace reform that threatens that recovery; maybe. For those that need and hope for insurance reform the tension over this issue will raise but for investors the tension will ease up a bit. I know America, what we want is a recovery and the single payer plan for health care or some kind of reform.

Can we have a recovery and health care reform in unison?

What I hope happens is that the Democrats pass a well thought out health care plan and that the recovery will quickly bring along with it jobs. This economic recovery put a damper on President Obam's assertion that costs associated with health care are holding back the economy from recovery. It looks like the economy is doing better with out any drastic measures needing to take place. If we want to pass health care reform it looks like the economy has got to be in the dump. That is until health care reform is passed and then it jumps right back up magically to where we need it, the DOW for example, to indicate. After all we don't want to pass health care reform and then have the economy get worse, right.

So, America, how much pain can we take?

On the one hand individuals are sinking under the weight of health care costs and on the other thousands of people each day are losing their jobs and a recovery could mean those people get jobs and can afford to buy homes, food, etc.

This is an emergency and the democracy gives the office of the presidency special powers to compensate for certain dangers or threats. If health care reform is passed despite the recovery then god bless but consider taking bold actions.

Go to whitehouse.gov and read up on the emergency measures that the president has already passed to make the lives of those losing their jobs a little easier by, for example, extending COPRA. Are those measures enough to solve the problems of the under insured? A

Put the fifty million people that need health care coverage on medicare temporarily or give them medicare coverage. This world be an emergency measure not a permanent solution that would only last for one or two years. By all means, however, fix the fraud and waste while your at it. Consider using the Safeway plan and many other of the Republican suggestions for the next year as additions to the Obama plan not as alternatives. If after a year the consensus is that the measures are working to alleviate the tensions associated with health care reform then continue the good work but if not then try something different.

The big question is how will the president pay for the reforms his administration proposes. The white noise is drowning out the details of many of the plans being proposed.

Let me just just say this one last thing. If you don't fallow my suggestions then at least let us know what can we, not as a country but as individuals, expect to pay each and every month for health care?

Rafael Buelna


P.S. You should read my latest fiction.