Senator Harry Reid said today that the health care reform bill he’ll take to the floor of the senate will have a public option, but one that’ll let individual states opt out of if they so choose. Now this seems like a good idea, and it should get more senators to vote for it. But there’s a couple of points I haven’t heard anything about yet . . .

First, who in each state will decide whether to opt in or opt out?

I suppose it would be the governors after conferring with their house and senate leaders, but I sure would like to see it brought to ballot at some point or another. If the states have to opt in at first, like some are proposing, then that would give them plenty of time to allow the people to vote on it.

Sure the senators have said they’re basing their voting decision on their constituents, but that’s what they say. Who knows which one they’ve talked to, and how much money they’ve been paid to hear these people’s opinions? So bringing it to the people is the fairest way to go.

Secondly, if a state decides to opt out, can they change back later on?

I live in a state where, from time to time, we get a Republican governor. If one was in office when the decision was to be made, I know a lot of people around here would be mightily furious. There should be a way of turning back any decision that wasn’t actually brought to a general vote.

Hopefully these questions will be answered soon.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Technorati Tags: health care reform, public option

In his address this week, President Obama urged the passing of the Health Insurance Industry Anti-Trust Enforcement Act. This, hopefully will be passed and become part of the over all health care reform presently going through Congress. But you can help!

Senator Leahy would like your help in making sure everyone involved in passing this is notified about the peoples’ wishes. To give your support, you’re urged to go here: http://ga3.org/campaign/hcr_antitrust and sign a letter addressed to your state’s senators.

You can also see President Obama’s comments about this at the above site.

The Health Insurance companies have literally gotten away with murder, because there is nothing  preventing them from dominating any state’s health care market, and deciding who lives and who dies. Now we get a chance to fight back.

Technorati Tags: anti-trust, health care reform, Health Insurance Industry Anti-Trust Enforcement Act

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems very few people ever get killed in marijuana related car accidents, or many who get arrested for domestic abuse due to being under the influence of pot. Neither are there many cancer deaths from smoking marijuana, or liver problems, or anything like that. So maybe it is just me, but if something doesn’t hurt you, and in many cases actually helps people, why on Earth would it be illegal?

Some may make the argument that, because of all the drug cartels making a fortune on it, the government couldn’t support legalizing it. But isn’t the very fact of it being illegal give rise to these profits from shady groups? Certainly none of the shops in California where medical marijuana is legal go to these cartels for their supplies, do they?

In fact it stands to reason, if marijuana was fully legalized, new farm businesses could open up and put these shady characters on the run. People could start growing their own supplies, sure, but that wouldn’t cut into tax revenue any more than the people who make their own beer in their bathtub.

Another argument against legalizing marijuana might be, if you legalize pot, then you’ll be on a slippery slope to legalizing the real, harmful drugs. However, there’s one important difference here. Marijuana is actually an herb, not a drug. It’s only called a drug by those seeking to keep it evil. For centuries it was an herb, and it remains so regardless of its legal classification.

So simply declassify it and let it take its rightful place among all the other helpful herbs we know of. All the other substances known as drugs are created or modified in a lab. Marijuana is grown in a garden or field and is harvested just as it is with no modification. Even alcohol, a far more damaging substance, is processed. Thus its not a real long shot risk to merely call marijuana what it really is, and be done with all that slope talk.

After all, if it doesn’t hurt anybody, and there’s documented medicinal benefits to it, with the worst it might do is contribute to obesity because of the “munchies” that come with it, then why keep marijuana illegal? Just doesn’t seem right, does it?

Technorati Tags: legalization, marijuana, medicinal value, pot, Society

There’s no doubt the most divisive force to the human community on the planet is religion. Perhaps it’s because so many of them all claim to be the true one, and so their adherents are less willing to back off, which in turn creates fertile ground for conflict. But how could every religion exclusively hold the truth? The answer might be found in the study of Noetic Science.

Noetic Science is basically the study of mind over matter, but more specifically its the study of how the mind’s perception creates realities. Drawing its authority from Quantum Physics, it proposes the universal consciousness permeating the energy field that is the universe allows all living things, as observers, the capability of creative perception.

In other words, how we perceive things makes it real for us. Collectively, we all see the galaxy, our world in the same basic way because, through time we’ve been programmed to see it that way. So if someone mentions a pine tree, or a cloud mass, everyone gets pretty much the same picture in their mind.

But individual experiences in our world can alter perception of specifics and thus give different people various views of the same thing.

For example, a group of people may gather below a building, gazing up at an image on a glass window. To them it could be a sign of proof that the Virgin Mary is visiting with a validation of their Catholic beliefs. For others, it could be merely an appreciation of the amazing ability of how condensation can paint beautiful pictures in the strangest places. Or still others could perceive it as a ghostly image, validating their belief in the paranormal.

A poet once wrote, “Two men looked through prison bars. One saw mud, the other saw stars.” How we perceive things makes our world either wondrous or miserable, so why would it be so hard to comprehend that our perceptions could make certain things real for us?

When we believe something, that which we believe in begins to solidify in our mind. We reason how it fits with our present reality, and thus accept it as true. Once this happens, all events or other occurrences will tend to validate what we believe, and thus make it more solid to us. Then, the more we participate in life with these beliefs solidly fixed in our perceptions, the truer they become until we’re willing to stake our.

Couple that with the sense of community when several million believe similarly, and you have a remarkably solid set of perceptions that aren’t easily questioned, let alone quickly abandoned when faced with oppositions.

But in the end its all based on perceiving our world based on personal experience and occurrence. Any belief can become true if it fits, and if enough people share the same perceptions.

So which religion has exclusive rights to claiming its the true one? In light of Noetic Science, it would have to be all of them, because like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, believing IS seeing and as long as there are observers with their own life experiences, every observation would therefore be true to those who see it that way.

If humanity could only understand beliefs are personal, and thus truth is also an individual reality, perhaps then we could live in peace without fear of our realities being threatened.

Technorati Tags: belief, beliefs, noetic science, realities, reality, Religion, truth

You know, it’s amazing that anything gets done in Washington. Congress is supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the nation, but more often than not, it acts more like its running a three-legged race with a one-legged partner. Someone is always refusing to carry their weight for political or monetary reasons, which makes everything drag on far longer than it should.

Take health care reform for example . . .

There’s absolutely no reason why Congress should be concerning itself with protecting the over glutted coffers of the insurance companies. And yet, it seems making sure the top CEOs continue to bring in 57 thousand dollars an hour is top priority.

Does it make any sense? Well it does if you look at it from a strictly “kick back, re-election fund overflowing with money” point of view. Apparently, when the right wing and blue dogs say the #1 priority in the country is “jobs, jobs, jobs,” they mean their own jobs. Keeping the millions of dollars in contributions streaming in from corporations like the insurance companies, gives them a sense of job security they just can’t seem to pass up.

But we, the people have a recourse! If these politicians think their job security lies in how many deals they can make with corporations, then we need to show them their real job security actually depends on us and our vote.

Think about it, how long will huge re-election funds matter when no one pays any heed to the advertising they pay for? Great ads, with grandiose promises can’t stand up to actual track records on the ground, and so its up to the people to remember what these senators and congressmen really do while on the job, and who they’re actually working for.

Technorati Tags: corporate kick backs, politics, re-election funds, special interests, three-legged race, Washinton, we the people

We hear a lot about special interest groups lobbying Congress to get special corporate favors. They seem to buy senators and representatives who’s votes appear to hold no other logic than to satisfy these lobbyists’ agendas. As these politicians’ re-election funds are padded with corporate money, and their sent on free elaborate vacations, the people should be asking, “What about our special interests?”

While watching TV the other night, a political commercial came on for one of the people running for the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. It was the usual rhetoric about changing Washington, blah, blah, blah. But near the end, the candidate made an interesting statement . . .

He declared, “I will not take any money from Special Interest Groups.”

Wondering if he’d be willing to put that in writing, it occurred to me how great it would be if all candidates running for the 2010 election would be willing to sign a statement proposed to them, declaring themselves off limits to lobbyists.

Perhaps a group like MoveOn.org could head that up?

It would certainly give us an indication of where each candidate stood in regard to doing the right thing and serving the people he or she takes an oath to serve. It wouldn’t have to be an elaborate, drawn out statement either. Just something simple like . . .

“I, [candidate], declare myself off limits to Special Interest Groups, and will not take any money from anyone in exchange for special favors or to sway my vote. If I am elected, I put all citizens on notice that my seat will not be for sale.”

As these signed statements are collected, the running tally of names could be posted online somewhere so everyone could see it. Then we’ll know which candidates are for the people, or for themselves and their corporate buddies.

Then it would be just a matter of us holding them to it.

Technorati Tags: 2010 election, candidates, lobbying, lobbyists, politician, politics, Special Interest Groups, special interests

With sixty-five percent of the American people in favor of the public option, and the majority of the rest not fully aware of what the public option is (medicare for all), perhaps there’s another way for us to bring about a sort of health care redirect that could very well change the playing field.

Imagine if every American who was denied health care, whether it be from a “pre-existing condition,” or for whatever reason, took what they’d normally pay for a monthly insurance premium, brought it down to one of the 1,200 free clinics in the US (see http://freeclinics.us/ for one near you), and donated it with the words, “Here! Grow!!”

Or if you couldn’t donate any money, then perhaps donate some volunteer time. Everyone on staff are strictly volunteers, from doctors, nurses, down to the reception people. No one gets paid, but everyone gets quality health care.

Here’s what their website says . . .

The National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) is the only nonprofit 501c(3) organization whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States.

Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., the NAFC is an effective advocate for the issues and concerns of free clinics, their volunteer workforce of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, technicians and other health care professionals, and the patients served by free clinics in communities throughout the nation.

These clinics are not funded by anything other than public donations. The government has nothing to do with them, the big Pharma and Insurance corporations are not involved, yet they help thousands of uninsured or under insured people every day.

With some help from ordinary, working people, these free clinics could very well turn into a real public option, owned and operated by and for the people.

Think about it next time you get the sniffles, or just plain don’t feel well.

Technorati Tags: free clinics, Health Care Redirect, insurance, insurance premium, National Association of Free Clinics

Ever wonder what it would be like to be on the bottom of the food chain? Well, chances are you’re already experiencing it whenever you go to the super market, or pay your utility bills, or buy anything for that matter. Corporate greed is feeding off everyone who remotely resembles a consumer, and chances are, that includes you.

In the eyes of a corporate CEO, we are not citizens, we are livestock and our commodity is our hard earned pay. They manage to fleece us of virtually everything we own, and all the while convincing us its for our own good.

Take the super market industry for example . . .

Last year when the price of gas rose to over four dollars a gallon, we were told the prices of most products would have to rise as well to cover the extra cost of delivery. That sounded reasonable at the time. It would cost them more to intake all these products, and so “sharing” the expense with their customers was an acceptable way to go.

But the cost of gas is no longer four dollars a gallon, yet it seems food and other product prices continue to rise. Why?

Well, simply put, they’ve gotten us used to paying higher and higher prices, so why stop now. As long as we “need” these products, we’ll be willing to pay the price. So the average Joe will work two to three hours at his job just so he can get his laundry done at home. And mom won’t mind paying five dollars a gallon for milk, because its the only way she can get it to her children for their cereal.

When you think about it, the whole plot is ingenious. But when you think about it as to how it pertains to you and your family, and you don’t feel like you’re very existence is being eaten up by the bigger beast, then you’ve really been asleep at the wheel.

In the long run, one of two things are going to happen . . .

Either the people are going to put their foot down and find a way to fight back, or the entire system we all come to rely on will crumble. Siphoning people’s livelihoods until there isn’t anymore is unsustainable, after all.

A CEO doesn’t need to make $57,000 a hour, especially when families are losing everything they’ve worked their lives for just to pay his salary. But unfortunately it appears Congress doesn’t agree and will make health care reform a big win for these people.

Or maybe Congress knows something we don’t! Perhaps this whole thing is a giant plan to ship everyone to Canada and Mexico so they can turn the United States into one big country club for the 1% who can survive this economic cannibalism we’re all experiencing, and all those in Congress who go along with it can stay for the party.

It’s not very logical no matter how you view it, but who knows?

The United Corporates of America sound good? Nah, once we’re all gone they’ll just start eating each other. Nothing united about that!

Technorati Tags: cannibalism, corporate greed, Economic Cannibalism, Economy, prices

When Christopher Columbus landed in the New World, his most important discovery was that the people he met were, in his words “in dios,” or like God. They had no tenets or moral codes to follow, but rather were naturally inclined to living a peaceful, hospitable life. When explorers go into the Amazon region, they too meet up with indigenous people who have no inclinations towards hostility or savagery in any way. So we need to ask ourselves, have indoctrinated morals replaced the natural inclination of humans, and is this a good thing?

It may be interesting to note, while Columbus and his crew came from a society with a strict moral code imposed by the Church, they had no problem taking advantage of these so called savages. These peaceful people were almost immediately subjected to brutal treatment like slavery, rape, murder, their homes were claimed for the crown, their resources exhausted, and were left for dead when Columbus finally decided to leave.

It seems then, the concept of living by a moral code, imposed and enforced, becomes an inclusive entity that demands comparison to other moral codes, or a lack of one. The level of authority that set a moral code in place also tends to imply class distinction and a greater abhorrence to anything “other” a different group may be governed by.

Columbus noted the indigenous people had no moral code when it came to nudity, thus they were “lesser” in his eyes. They had no army, and thus were weaker. Had no currency, and so were poverty-stricken, helpless creatures.
All of this, observed through his own moral code gave him the impression of “sub-human” when he viewed the habits of these people. His perception of superiority was a direct result of his having a code of morality instilled in him from the society he lived in. It gave him the authority and justification to act harshly.

On the other hand, the indigenous people certainly must have seen these visitors as strange and very uptight people. Hostility was a foreign concept to them, and history shows that it took quite some time before they even realized they should be protecting themselves from it. Their natural inclination was to share, claiming no ownership to anything. So in their eyes, Columbus and his crew must have had a great need, otherwise why else would they be taking everything?

So while it would be a natural thing to have two people, separated by an enormous ocean, find themselves with totally different lifestyles, an established moral code proved to be the most divisive element between them. And we can clearly see how different moral standards among the people of the Earth remains an extremely divisive force. More than 95% of all wars fought throughout history have been caused for religious and moral reasons.

But could we as a society live without imposed morals now? Would we be better off to just let our natural inclinations take over? Or would that, as some suggest, create chaos and anarchy?

Perhaps we’re all too far gone to go back. Or perhaps the world is slowly beginning to see the artificial aspects of a morality written down in a book, yet rarely lived.

Technorati Tags: morality, morals, morals vs. natural inclination, natural inclination, Religion, Society