Please send me the source of your belief that 2-3% of individuals pay 50% of the overall federal income tax received. I would like the source. It should be from the General Accounting Office. Please give me your exact source for this. The news stations, radio stations, and internet sites can count, but I really, truly want the original source for this information. Other people have repeated this, but no one seems to have the original source, so I question whether or not this is true. Just because it’s repeated does not mean that it is true. Please send the source for this information. I’d like the year that this statistic is attributed to, and its government source. Thanks!

P.S. I have many other questions for you, but let’s start with the source of your information.

Yet, they created the debate so that it was unpatriotic to speak out against huge corporations. And now look what has and is currently showing itself in the economy. We really do need to have serious talks about the consequences of economic policy like ‘free trade’, which interestingly isn’t necessarily about free trade. We need to talk about Orwellian style language trends and how it confuses the situation.

Thanks for commenting.

Although there are many other ways around campaign finance legislation, as exemplified by the passage of the McCain – Feingold Campaign Reform Act, while at the same time, McCain heads the International Republican Institute. The main point is that Republicans and Democrats operate within the same system. It’s a system that perhaps we should begin rational discussion upon. Really. I think the American public is really tired of rants about the difference between characters that are Republicans and Democrats, because in policy, they are more similar than they are different.

Why doesn’t the U.S. have a national healthcare program when most working Americans pay into it? What entity created this unique phenomena, and what entity will try to keep things where they are? The policy is what is most concerning and the policy, regardless of who gets into office, is what needs to be discussed by the American people.

P.S. It’s healthcare is also a major security issue.

For example, I set up a page on the website that has direct links to reports, articles and the General Accounting Office tables. They can be found on this page http://consideringdemocracy.com/downloads_6corp.html

Instead of simply saying that the IRS gives certain figures, please send your link.

It’s also important to note that I think that business is vital for any society. Taxes are also vital for any society and government to function. If the entities – I’m referring to large multinational corporations that are generating the most wealth are not actually paying into the tax, that is a problem. Goods and services are important, however they don’t exist in a vacuum.

Isn’t it odd? The 30 billion that you mention above seems to pale in comparison to the 700 billion that was initially allocated toward the bailout. It is very concerning that our policy makers are not dealing with the causes of this financial crisis.

I’m not so sure that I came out ahead, perhaps only while touring, but overall am carrying debt because of that pesky credit card bill that seemed to have slipped my mind. The credit card bill arrived a few weeks later and was larger than expected. It’s probably smart to think about how long a project will take to repay it, then add 8 months and at least $10,000. I wouldn’t trade the experience for anything though.


Among the report’s findings on specific insurance companies:

Wellpoint increased profits 91 percent from 2008 while it chopped 3.9 percent of its total enrollment.

United Health’s profit increased 28 percent from 2008, while enrollment dropped by 3.4 percent.

Cigna’s profit increased 346 percent and enrollment dropped 5.5 percent.

Humana’s profit increased by 61 percent while enrollment decreased by 1.7 percent.

Aetna was the only company with a drop in profit and a gain in enrollment. The company’s profit declined by 8 percent from 2008, and enrollment grew by 7 percent.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699

While I do criticize the U.S. media for its omission of certain types of information, they do, however, put in some research (perhaps its the interns, who knows, but someone is doing some research, thank goodness).

I think that it is also important to compare the United States with other countries that are developed democracies, having an industrial base, with a relatively literate and educated voting population. I find it odd, that when people are trying to defend the U.S. and its odd, antiquated form of privatized healthcare, that they often take extremely opposite countries, like your example of Uzbekistan to the United States, when it would be better to compare the policy of the United States to other developed countries.

It is also good to note that, there are very good doctors practicing in the United States. There are some treatments, however, that Americans must travel abroad to get, for example, advanced stem cell treatments. Have you traveled abroad? I find it interesting that I always come across Americans in other first world, as well as in developing countries, getting routine healthcare treatments. Many people do travel abroad for dental care, pharmaceuticals and other treatments, because amazingly, it can be cheaper to fly across the ocean to another developing country like Thailand to get dental work done. I realize that Thailand, while nice, some would classify it as a developing country. In this case, I am using the third world country to illustrate that our country, while a first world, developed country, seems to be failing regular, taxpaying Americans, such that, if people have the means or money to get the care that they want, or if they have traveled abroad and are familiar with other governmental systems and monetary exchange rates, they can benefit. While those who do not have the means, often those who are not as educated or those that don’t make a lot of money, find themselves getting in debt because of healthcare costs.

Most developed industrial, first world countries see their citizen population as a valuable asset that should be insured, as individual people, as they make up the whole citizenry. The United States is very unique among developed countries, because as opposed to having a policy that insures all people, regardless of what an individual may make, or regardless of what kind of policy that a person can afford, in the United States, the citizenry is perceived as a potential contributor to corporate insurance profit. They like to call it “choice” but really, it is difficult to fathom this as a reality when many people who pay into private insurance, month after month, are denied certain treatments because it is not included in the health plan.

Let me also be clear that I do not in any way defend Obama’s policies. Rather, it appears that he is beholden to a system in which major, powerful corporations are pulling the strings of the U.S. political arena.

I am looking forward to the Fortune 500 review. Perhaps you could supply your source for the 3% profit rate. I’d be curious where that comes from. I have heard that the overall growth rate for the U.S. economy has been around 3%, are you perhaps confusing the two statistics?

As always, cheers, and thank you for your comments.

some added points:


1. Your observations about GE are most interesting, considering that in the Spring of 09 (a little under a year ago) GE’s CEO was basically found to have made a sweetheart deal/understanding with the Obama administration that would position GE to make out like bandits under the health care scheme Obama hoped would have been already passed and signed last August. This caused some commmentators to describe GE’s CEO being in bed with the Obama administration as an egregious example of “crony capitalism.”


All those nicely packaged commercials that have been seen here and there featuring GE as studying/working wonders for our future, etc. have far more behind the scenes than most would realize.


As for insurance company “record profits,” see what that group publishes later this year, but please realize that the data is already available, is established fact, and NOT WIDELY KNOWN OR DISCUSSED, for obvious reasons. Obama’s people won’t bring it up for obvious reasons, as it immediately squelches the demogogic picture Obama and many other leftists in Congress feel they have free reign to try to manipulate our opinions with, with a pliable major network media that won’t report it, despite it already being documented and RELEVANT.


A whopping 3% is hardly the “record profits” demogoguery that Obama specializes in lately, but it is what it is. And the rareity of hearing it mentioned underscores your intial premise about the media’s need to report things fairly and objectively.


Call it media negligence by intentional ommision.


This was reported in Yahoo business, and also in USA today 3 months or so ago, I’ll see if I can go back and pull the reference for you. Not made up.


Same for the constantly repeated “47 million uninsured Americans” myth that is repeated so pervasively that most think it a fact that might as well be handed down from Sinai or something.


A careful, objective review of the census data from which such was supposedly derived, indicates clearly that the real figure is about 7-8 million, with much larger number actually in those other categories.


The deafening silence from most of the media about the fraudulent basis most frequently cited as reason to justify radical change ( i.e. 47 million) is another striking example of negligence by intentional ommission, media incompetence.


Kind of reminds me of Bernard Golberg’s example of the media massaging and directing (i.e. manipulating) public opinion in recent years about the homeless “crisis.”


You may recall NUMEROUS journalistic pieces during the Reagan administration about the plight of the homeless, the “crisis,” etc. 


Without point blank saying that Reagan and “mean” Republicans were to blame, such was the widespread IMPRESSION many were left with, some like Bryant Gumbel articulating nasty jabs about Reagan over things like these.


What few realized, then or now, was what the ACTUAL STATISTICS revealed. The ACTUAL DATA showed clearly that the numbers/percentages of homeless in America remained basically the same during the Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush41/Clinton administrations.


The only thing different when Reagan was President, suddenly the major media just somehow magically had 4-5 times as many major coverage pieces aired about the homeless, creating the IMPRESSION that there was suddenly a big new “crisis,” that many assumed was because of the “stingy Republican.” Even though the available statistics showed things were no worse than under preceeding presidents, and no worse than under President Clinton, the big media was more than content to let the unfair impression they created go unchallenged, at Reagan and Republican’s expense.


Even some members of the media naively think that homelessness was a “crisis” during Reagan, that was much better under Democrat Clinton. Even many pundits don’t seem to know that the ONLY DIFFERNCE was not the homelessness figures, but the sudden amount attention it got under
Reagan,at his expense.


As for WHO statistics, rather than a lengthy dissertation, suffice it to say that much of what they say is also flawed and bogus, even though many involved may be idealistic, well meaning people. In brief, they report data from many countries as “fact,” with little or no means of actually verifying it.


Simply put, despots like Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mugabe and the like aren’t going to have real, unbiased data available, just the propaganda and made up stats they want the world, and many idealistic gullible observers (easy marks for some with a strong inherent anti-US bias to begin with) take it at face value.


Furthermore, many stats, even if not intentionally misreported or ommitted, would still not always allow for remotely fair comparisons, considering many other countries are much smaller, demographically and ethnically homogenous populations than the gigantic melting pot of the USA. Namely, what the stats are with a country of 20 million blue eyed blonde Swedes, is probably not a fair comparison with a country like America, with 300 million people, much more diverse, wherein lot of the data counted against us involves deaths under 21 due to urban sprawl, drive by shootings, gang violence, epidemic drug use, etc. All of which are OBVIOUSLY SERIOUS ISSUES, but are serious SOCIAL issues, not the product poor doctoring and nursing. Lots of that kind of stuff weights down our statistics creating for flawed, but nevertheless widely repeated, comparisons by the WHO.


Stated differently, if better death rates favor upper Usbekistan over the United States, and supposedly bespeaks a superior health care system, why didn’t the Prime Mnister of Ontario go to upper Usbekistan for his heart surgery?


As always, cheers!

Hope that your new year is going well.

When I speak to doctors, actually, all that I have spoken to, and those who are polled, along with the Mad As Hell Doctors above, are for a type of universal health care coverage. Our current insurance system does create a scenario that makes doctors go against the Hippocratic oath (to treat everyone).

Thus, while we disagree, quite strenuously, I would like to ask: Have you traveled outside of the United States to another first world country and gotten hurt – then treated?

It’s quite nice to get medical treatment when one is hurt. Pretty much all the other developed countries that have a form of democracy have a healthcare system that allows for medical treatment.

Thus, I do not think that the desire to have healthcare and universal coverage of it is propaganda. It is a point of view. Good to hear from you!

I find it fascinating that completely opposite points of view on the political spectrum come to startlingly similar conclusions.

For example, I consider myself a (hummmm, labels, can be so tricky and difficult, so let’s say that I am a…) progressive conservative, for this discussion’s sake. I give my assessment that the media is leaving out important point of view, therefore, I would label the media as overly conservative. I would even say that they are seductively neo-conservative. You, however, seem to be (correct me if I am wrong) very conservative, and view the media as overly liberal, hence their faults.

Isn’t that fascinating? Opposite, get similar.

I also beg to differ with you as to where you get your statistics. I get mine from the World Health Organization, the OCED, and other organizations that look at overall systems between countries, then publish reports. Where do you get your stats?

As to the record corporate profits, and actual numbers, the Fortune 500 Magazine will publish profits, market values, etc. every April. I’ll get my copy, you get a copy, then we could go over the actual numbers. What do you say? I tend to believe that the numbers of profits tend to be quite high, especially the profits generated from the U.S. healthcare system. It is also a fact that corporate conglomeration has gotten quite concentrated so much so that GE (General Electric) which is a supplier of medical equipment, has a stake in media. GE recently “sold” NBC to Comcast, yet appear to still have some remnants of controlling interest. This is seen in such things as when the Olympics were broadcast (on NBC) there was quite a lot of “Here we are at GE to help you be healthy” type of commercials. Thus, I believe that the media is quite conservative. But really, we should get past labels, as they tend to have slippery and opposite meanings.

Perhaps the reason why we don’t have fair, balanced, indepth reporting – is because it is profit driven and overly dominated by corporate powers?

Not because it’s liberal, or because it is conservative, but because private corporations also fund our political system? This confuses the American public with opposing labels, while corporations continue to dominate the world arena, plunder banks and tear apart the social economic fabric that once made America strong? Don’t get me wrong. I like business, and not all corporations or businesses get a team of lobbyists. There are, however, a few very, very large and well connected corporations that do have a very strong hand in politics and within media avenues (I’m also putting in AM radio within the media avenues) to inject opposing, confusing views into the American consciousness. What if?