Go Watch Sicko!

Today is Saturday, June 24, 2017. As we wait for the CBO to score the Republican Senate's new Health Care Proposal and watch what changes the Republican leadership will make to attempt to convince a majority of Republican Senators to vote for this proposal, it's a great time to remember what American medical care was like just before the ACA (Obamacare) was passed and compare that with what medical care is like in other countries around the world. I chose to do so by watching Michael Moore's movie Sicko. Filmed in 2007, the movie compared America's for profit Medical Insurance and Pharmaceutical systems in comparison with the free medical systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba.

I warn you, it will make you cry. It will make you cry that Americans have more expensive health care, live shorter lives, and have higher infant mortality than any of those countries: Canada, Britain, France and Cuba. American infant mortality in 2007 was poorer than El Salvadore. Sicko will make you cry when you find out that citizens of all four of those countries, Canada Britain, France and Cuba pay nothing for their medical, dental and vision care.

The standard response of conservatives in the US is to assail socialized medicine as practiced in those countries. I warn you, when you watch Sicko, you will find out that you have been lied to, because all the standard replies about government interference, long waits, poorer care, rationed care, etc. are all lies, and Moore refutes those lies well.

There's the lie the AMA puts out about doctors not being able to work where they want or being poorly paid. Moore interviews a late 30-ish London family practitioner who shows off his £550,000 ($700,000) house and his brand new Audi, who is paid about $200,000 salary and pension. Of course, that London doctor talks about how a physician might not be happy with British National Healthcare is he wishes to have 4 or 5 million pound homes.

I won't talk further. Just be prepared when you watch Sicko for the feeling that the only people benefitting from American Health Care are the Insurance Companies, the Lobbyists, and the Congress members bought and paid for. Certainly not you.

We are missing the whole point of Jim Comey's Testimony

Thursday morning at 8:00am CDT, an hour before Jim Comey was scheduled to speak before the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was entertaining a DirectTV technician while he reconfigured our TV system. I had read the opening remarks that the Committee had released the night before, and like a few Americans (more than 19 million watched by TV alone) I was interested in hearing Comey's live remarks; I just needed my TV working again. Fortunately, the technician was able to get my setup hooked up and live again, just as Comey started speaking, for which I was finally pleased with DirectTV over something.

I listened to Comey's remarks, and to several station's wrap up and discussions thereof. I basically followed the discussions, Trump's Rose Garden reply the following day, and the President's lawyers concept of what happened, which apparently was very different from what I heard, since the attorney seemed to say that Trump was completely vindicated, that Comey was both a leaker and a liar, and that a DoJ complaint was on the way from the Trump crowd. (Now how could Comey have vindicated Trump is he was a liar?)

After all that, I realized that the most critical point of the testimony was being missed by most everyone:

Everyone seems to be focused on whether Flynn broke the Logan act, or whether Trump colluded with some of his campaign staff, or that Kushner was trying to setup a channel to keep communications away from U.S. Intelligence Officials, or whether Trump obstructed justice. To my way of thinking, the single most important point I heard from Comey's testimony was this:

Russian Government-directed Intelligence Operatives directly interfered in the 2016 election. The hacked hundreds of organizations in an attempt to gather and release information, some real, some faked, all intended to obscure the truth by which American voters would make their decisions on whom to vote for in the 2016 elections, plural, not just the 2016 Presidential election. They did so in an attempt to advance their aims and goals, whatever they were.

Not once did Trump ask Comey about Russian interference in the 2016 election. One of the primary responsibilities of the President of the United States is to protect the country. The process of electing representatives is a basic part of the stability of our government. If the people's right to choose their representatives is threatened by a foreign power, the President is responsible for removing that threat. That Trump refuses to recognize the Russian intervention in the 2016 election and fired Comey for not making the Russian investigation go away is dereliction of duty by the President.

Today, Saturday, June 10, both the left and the right are claiming victory in the Comey-Trump controversy. Trump's backers, chiefly through Fox, are claiming that Trump was vindicated and Comey is both a liar and a leaker. Those on the left, through MSNBC and CNN, are saying that Comey called out Trump's interference in the Russian investigation, Comey's firing, and Trump's lying.

The sad thing is that neither side seems to understand that America is the big loser, that we all are losing in this process, because there is so little focus on the Russian interference in our government, in our basic rights to elect who we want to represent us. All of the questions yet to be answered, all the issues that haven't been examined, are very important, and need to be investigated. But all the details rest on the basic act and its implications:

A foreign power, one which has been our adversary for more than a century, became more involved in obscuring the truth that Americans need to be free to choose their elected representatives. In past times, we would label that an act of war. That foreign power is still involved in the process of obscuring the truth and will continue to do so until our chief executive recognizes it, acknowledges it, and takes steps to stop and prevent it.

Bob Inglis is the only Republican I would trust

Robert D. Inglis Sr. is the former Congressman from S. Carolina. I listened to an interview he gave to CNN's Erin Burnett on Jun 9, 2017 about Trump and the Republican Party. He is the first and only Republican I have heard who looks with reality at the Trump debacle and the way the Republican party is enabling him.

What caught my attention was the comment Paul Ryan made about the Trump firing of Comey, and the way that Inglis described Ryan's comment. Ryan excused Trump's firing of Comey, as well as all the events that Comey described in his testimony of June 8 before the Senate Intelligence Committee, by saying this:

"The president’s new at this. He’s new to government," Ryan said. "So he probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI and White House. He’s just new to this."

Inglis called Ryan on his pass for Trump, saying that Trump is now President and is expected to act Presidential. Inglis pointed out that any person who shows up for a job is expected to do the job and perform to the expectations for the position.

Inglis further pointed out that had Hillary Clinton been elected President, and Comey had reopened his investigation of her email server, and had Clinton then fired Comey for investigating her, that Ryan (and the rest of the Republicans in Congress) would be calling for her impeachment.

Perhaps it is simply the relief I feel in hearing that there is one Republican in the US that sees this issue the same way I do. Perhaps there is a shred of hope for the Republican side. My lack of admiration for Paul Ryan continues to slide into the depths of the ocean. Ryan has been prostituting himself for Trump since before the Republican convention, when he lost his contempt for Trump and decided to support him come hell or high water.

Another item that Inglis covered was the "hope" issue: Trump told Comey that he "hoped" Comey could let the Flynn matter go. The gyrations Republicans are going through trying to explain that Trump was not threatening Comey with his job over dropping the Flynn investigation was starting to look like a rerun of Bill CLinton's "that depends on what "what" means, this time over the definition of "hope". Inglis flat out calls it what it was: Trump threatening Comey with being fired if Comey didn't drop the investigation. When the President of the US tells you he "hopes" you do something, that is an order to do it, and Inglis was correct in stating that the Republicans are enabling the bad behavior of Trump.

I think, though, one of the saddest things I have to point out is that Inglis was defeated in the Republican primary in South Carolina by Trey Gowdy. Perhaps it was the fact that Inglis had stated that we should go with science on client change. Inglis was done in by the Tea Party types that are sitting in Congress now facilitating Trump's bad behavior. I guess I have to take back what little relief I feel, because the one Republican I heard speak reality is not a sitting Republican.