Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

“Patriots” in the Health Care Debate

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (7 fans)

opednews.com

There have been a great many reasons given for steering clear of government run health care.

At the bottom of it all is an 1886 Supreme Court decision which did not give the status of natural personhood to corporations but which subsequent Supreme Court cases have cited as if it did give that status to corporations. The case of Santa Clara County v. The Southern Pacific Railroad was as flawed a Supreme Court Decision as any Supreme Court decision and more than most. It should and, hopefully, will be the subject of future articles.

This article, however, must unfortunately be written accepting the premise that even those in the highest levels of our country's judiciary are still under the false impression that corporations are natural persons and should be treated as such. Under the guise of using their First Amendment right of free speech, health insurance corporations have been able to round up "grassroots" supporters from a small, noisy pool of uninformed "patriots" and neatly place these supporters inside town hall meetings facilitated by members of Congress. These people are anything but neat once the meeting begins. They not only shout down the members of Congress if those members of Congress support health care reform, but have been known to shout down people who are ill or otherwise down and out because of the thieves and the boards of directors who run the health care insurance business.

What are some of the things these "patriots" complain about in opposing health care reform?

First, we have to talk about Socialism. To the uninformed, Socialism is a tyrannical form of governance in which the federal government owns everyone's lives. Socialism is a form of government which reviews high stepping paraders on the first day of every May. Under Socialism, the government taps the phones of all citizens and intercepts all communications. It reads everyone's emails and secretly opens everyone's snail mail before it's delivered to the intended recipient. To learn the details of how this kind of government operates, read DAYBREAK; UNDOING THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY AND FORMING A MORE PERFECT UNION by David Swanson, co-founder of the After Downing Street Coalition. This wonderfully revealing book talks about the so called George W. Bush administration or, more appropriately named, The Regime.

Socialist governments tie the hands of commerce for the good of the state. Under Socialism, only a privileged few can even get into a position of national governance. In the inspiring rags to riches capitalist democratic republic of The United States of America, it's heartening to know that one can become president by raising and spending a modest $750 million, as did Barack Obama in 2008.

People are thrown in prison because they disagree with the state.

Thus, it's only natural that under a Socialist government, a nation would have more people imprisoned than a nation which is not a Socialist nation.

The fact that the US, home of possibly more Socialist fearing people than any nation in the world, has the highest incarceration rate in the world, giving it the highest documented prison population in the world, is merely a product of the manifest destiny which ultimately became American exceptionalism.

Responses to the fear of domestic spying and open elections have been offered over and over again and most who are reading this article don't need to be reminded of the irrationality of the comparisons between the anti Socialist US and the rest of the world. They neither have to be repeated nor reproved here.

However, those "natural" people who seem to have more power per person than other "natural" people are able to say of Socialism, "Be afraid. Be very afraid." And those smaller people who don't seem to feel the need to be self informed, are, indeed, very afraid of Socialism.

Just as the large natural persons have convinced the smaller persons that marijuana is a gateway drug and will ultimately lead to one stealing money from one's neighbor to get the next heroin fix, those large persons have convinced those very same smaller persons that socialized medicine will for certain lead to those goose stepping parades and balcony reviews.

The "patriots" want their country back. Giving Barack Obama eight months to take their country away from them - the above mentioned town hall meetings began in August of 2009 - was unconscionable of the 52% of American voters who voted for him. Although he's since proven disappointing to many voters in this country, including the independents and liberals who voted for him, these corporate fabricated grassroots movements knew before he was ever elected that he was too "uppity" to even run for the office and totally incapable of doing the job.

The article "Socialism and Democracy; The People's Combination" attempts to explain that the word "socialism" shares its roots with such well accepted words as "social", "society" and "sociable". The article shows that, when thought of in that light, socialism or Socialism isn't a very frightening word at all.

Not only that, but if the premise of Socialism can be expanded to other, possibly private sectors of society, we see that not much that we do isn't of a socialist nature. Many of those activities don't even have a democratic component.

For example, how many workplaces, especially private sector work places, are democratically governed? Those who remember what it was like to work in a manufacturing factory in the US know that, once a worker enters the corporation's property, democracy is left at the gate. How many of a Fortune 500 global corporation's workers have a say in who the leader of their corporation will be? How many workers have a say in how the company can become more "competitive"? Certainly not the workers who are laid off, that's for sure.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Michael Bonanno is an associate editor for OpEdNews.

He is also a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Teabaggers; Children of the Sixties?

Will "Americans Elect" Their President in 2012?

Why Anarchism, Communism and Libertarianism are Pipe Dreams

LA Socialist Party Local Holds Organizing Meeting (Discussion with Mimi Soltysik, Local Chair)

Our Goal For 2010; Disprove Corporate Personhood

It's OK to say "Merry Christmas"

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments