Tuesday November 17th 2009
Hour One: Why don't you think the "constitution" is strong enough to protect America from the 911 criminals? with Chris Holton wwwcenterforsecurity.org
plus...Why do you think your peers are so terrified of trying the 911 criminals in America...is it Obama hatred or do they not understand the constitution? Bob Barr www.bobbarr.org
Hour Two: What ties together Dick Cheney, Watergate and they JFK assassination that we've just uncovered in the last few months? with Lamar Waldron www.legacyofsecrecy.com. The Discovery Channel is doing a special "Did the Mob Kill JFK" airing this Sunday 11/22 8pm et.
Hour Three: "Hoodwinked: An Economic Hit Man Reveals Why the World Financial Markets IMPLODED-and What We Need to Do to Remake Them" John Perkins guests with Thom www.johnperkins.org
Plus...Don Siegelman...Is President Obama leaving Siegelman behind? www.donsiegelman.com
I used to work for an employer which provided a decent medical benefits plan from a major insurance provider, for which it paid most of the cost; employees paid only a token amount for yearly increases in the premiums, which were then covered by small increases in pay. Contrast this with being pushed something called “limited medical indemnity insurance.” What the hell is that, you might ask. Good question. Well, it’s not “major medical insurance,” or designed to “replace, provide or modify major medical insurance.” “Limitations” on the plan may vary from state-to-state, such as being banned for being judged a “scam” by the state insurance commissioner. Unlike a major health insurance policy, it lists the “benefit” amount rather than the co-pay or deductible—meaning rather than you pay this and the insurance pays the rest, they pay this and you pay the rest. Not particularly conducive to one’s peace of mind.
So what is it? Medical indemnity insurance, or “mini-medical” insurance, isn’t precisely about health. Insurance companies that offer it don’t even care if you have a pre-existing condition, or how old you are (which is “good” thing, I suppose). Indemnity insurance merely functions as compensation for economic loss, for a limited amount for a limited time—thus having a catastrophic illness is a must-to-avoid. It’s “cheap,” but if in this case you—and not the employer—is paying the entire premium amount, then maybe not so cheap considering the limited benefits. The rhetorical question then is whether this is an acceptable replacement for major medical insurance. The best plan that’s being thrust in front of me, I am told, is “better than nothing.” That may be so, but taking a 15 percent take-home pay cut to pay for it when I’m barely making ends meet is the problem that many of the uninsured are facing. This type of plan is the kind of thing we might expect from an “insurance exchange,” but it is highly unlikely that a public option with similarly very limited benefits would be offered up, because of the public backlash.
Thank you for your post yesterday. I'm grateful that you are OK and that things didn't spin out of control. It brings home, (in your case literally !), the wages of war. While I sometimes grow weary of Gerald's hyperbolic pronouncements about evil, I am growing evermore a pacifist and more weary of militarism in our country. I am not ready to unilaterally disarm, but, I do long for the day when their use is solely limited to sport. Your examples of compassion and sensitivity in your many posts here has helped to inform me. Thank you. Tell Gerald that I admire his passion and respect his aims even if I don't always enjoy his tone. Be happy and be safe. Peace
Obama lawyers to Democrat alleging political prosecution: Go back to jail
That's the message from Obama administration lawyers to former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, whose case became a cause célèbre among Bush administration critics as ground zero of alleged political prosecutions.
It appears that Obama is working enthusiastically towards knocking Clinton outta the best Republican President in a Century slot.
Mukasey . . . um . . . ur . . . Sorry. Holder remains the wrong man for the Attorneys’ General job.
The more time goes by, the more I feel that Obama's ideas of "CHANGE" don't parallel mine all that well. :(
I don't understand . . . The 'Yes We' can is a good place to keep your change . . . Better the Chase Manhattan anyway . . .
Thank you so much for your thoughtful post regarding the "standoff" yesterday. Somehow, I was hoping you would see it; your words are a source of comfort.
Gerald can be hyperbolic at times, but I understand his fear and anger. I so often feel like that, though I don't always express it the same way. He has pieces of the truth and I agree with him --- it and we who control this country and its multinational corporations are evil. (My definition of evil is something someone does to deliberately hurt another.) Because our citizens didn't understand and stop it, we are now its victims and enablers.
Anyway, thank you again, DDay. I wish I could give you a hug.
@Richard L. Adlof -
Silly me - I've been keeping MY change in a coffee can. Guess I oughta run out to Wal-Mart and git myself one o' them "Yes We" cans!
Thanx, man - I gotta get with the program.
What I still fail to understand is, if we elected the "right" President, how come he appointed the wrong Attorney General, the wrong Secretary of the Treasury, and the Wrong Federal Reserve Chairman?
A little help here, friends?
Sigh. Thom, Thom, Thom . . . President Obama reads the Constitution: We, the Corporate and non-incorporated Entities . . .
We did elect the RIGHT President . . . We did not elect the bat-shit farging crazy President . . .
When then Senator Obama’s voting record appeared on http://www.progressivepunch.org/ it showed him to be a mediocre, wishy-washy, just-right-middle-of-the-road centrist.
NO MORE DAN GAINOR!!!! GRRRR . . .
Why don’t we here from someone doing good work like Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington?
I think we need to suffer through Dan Gainor to meet Thom's goal of winning the water cooler wars (in my case lunch with retired conservative engineers). Dan does propose arguments very similar to my fellow lunch geezers, and Thom's responses help me answer those arguments.
I must admit Dan does make my head explode, and I wish for Thom to respond even more aggressively. Probably, if he did, Dan might not return.
A couple of observations concerning yesterday’s show: Thom’s guest from the Heritage Foundation himself can be accused of “absurdity,” given the fact that first he insists that tax increases on the rich put a break on people who dream of becoming famous making lots of money lording over serfs (like Howard Hughes, who from his Las Vegas penthouse bed threatened the governor of Nevada if he dared to allow the integration of the state’s public schools), and then minutes later asserts that taxes have only a “marginal” effect on business growth. So much for intellectual consistency. He goes on to blame the government for “walling off” CEO’s from accountability. Who’s to blame for that? As usual with conservatives it is either “the left” or “the left and the right.” You can never get these people to admit that just “the right” is to blame for any wayward policy that has caused suffering amongst the laboring people.
This other thing about “objectifying” people is a bit overdone, since being “objectified” can be an asset. Tall people are “objectified” over short people, thin people over fat people, and attractive people over unattractive people when it comes to getting the best jobs. Where I’m employed, “Operations” is reserved for whites “objectified” as being allegedly “smart;” frankly, I’ve seen no evidence of it. Another company seems to promote Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova look-alikes to the status of supervisors; I’m not sure why such a thing would capture my notice.