Mel--
I suppose we can agree to disagree on this one--Obama's plan is neither
universal (it does not guarantee coverage for all) nor cost-effective (by
keeping the private insurers in the game, it guarantees that the United
States will continue to have double the per capital costs of any other
industrialized country). Obama is a friend--of the private insurance
companies, not of the average Joe burdened by heavy insurance premiums and
medical costs.
As far as "malignant cor****atism," the Democratic-controlled House has not
advanced a single bill in opposition to a single plank of Bu****sm--the
mainstream Democrats in both houses have repeatedly voted to fund the war
in
Iraq, to approve the bloated military budget, to ratify the Patriot Act
and
Homeland Security, etc. They have not attempted to repeal Bush's tax cuts
for the rich and have not proposed a single piece of progressive
legislation: no living wage bill, no Medicare for all, no carbon tax, no
increase in union-organizing rights, no repeal of WTO/NAFTA. Nothing
progressive at all--just rubber-stamping all the offal of Bu****sm.
Think about it, Mel--the Democratic Party has not proposed--much less
passed--any progressive legislation for more than forty years, since the
passage of Medicare and the Civil Rights Bill in the mid-1960s. This is
not
your father's Democratic Party. This is the
Clintonesque/DLC/Republican-lite
party of "welfare reforom," WTO/NAFTA, rampant deregulation, bloated
military spending, and aggressive/militarist foreign policy (all prominent
features of Clinton time). Both parties take tens of millions of dollars
from the same cor****ate interests and essentially peddle the same
bipartisan
cor****ate agenda.
If you think there are major differences in the agendas of McCain and
Obama--and I mean MAJOR differences that would really affect the lives of
ordinary people--I'd like to hear about them. So far I don't see any. But
I'm open to hearing about any.
"Mel" <melvynnc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fa09bfc4-43ef-4fd5-95c3-55ccdf0ccb5c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 1, 1:52 pm, "anon" <shopatho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mel--
> Obama's healthcare plan is just another giveaway to the private
insurance
> companies that have gotten us into this mess with their cynical
> profiteering
> (some of Obama's biggest sup****ters are those very insurance companies).
> Even under Obama's plan, the United States will STILL be the only
advanced
> industrialized country that does not provide basic health care to all
its
> citizens; and, because of the continued plunder of the private insurance
> companies, it will STILL have double the health-care costs per capita of
> any
> other industrialized country with no better (in fact, comparatively
worse,
> in some cases) life expectancy. In fact, in a survey done several years
> ago
> by UNESCO, the United States' healthcare system ranked about 37th in the
> world, only two notches ahead of Cuba, which has nearly the same average
> life expectancy as the United States. See
>
> http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
>
> The only answer to the healthcare crisis in this country is to provide
> Medicare for all. Medicare is one of the most successful social programs
> in
> the history of this country--even right-wingers happily avail themselves
> of
> it, and would dread to see the day their parents did not have access to
> it!
>
> On this issue, the mainstream Democrats are just as culpable and
clueless
> as
> the Republicans. We need to campaign independently for Medicare for all,
> and
> put pressure on BOTH major parties to push for such a plan (right now
only
> two major candidates for the presidency sup****t such a plan--Cynthia
> McKinney of the Green Party and the independent Ralph Nader).
>
> For more information on this issue, please go to the Web site of
> Physicians
> for a National Health Program:
>
> http://www.pnhp.org/
>
> "Mel" <melvy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:17b12a3f-5eb4-470b-8aef-3d52d1af5c97@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jun 30, 7:10 pm, zumone2002 <zumone2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/59195471.html
>
> > Marijuana Has Anti-Inflammatory That Won't Get You High
> > Richard A. Lovett
> > for National Geographic News
> > June 24, 2008
>
> > A compound in marijuana may be a potent anti-inflammatory agent that
> > won't get people high, scientists say.
>
> > The finding could be a boon to sufferers of arthritis, cirrhosis, and
> > other diseases. Existing drugs can be less effective for some people
> > and can carry side effects, from stomach ulcers to increased risk of
> > heart attacks.
>
> > Marijuana sup****ters have long argued that the plant's active
> > ingredients, known as cannabinoids, are safe and effective treatments
> > for pain, nausea, and other ailments.
>
> > The most active cannabinoid—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC—is
> > known to have anti-inflammatory properties. But it is also responsible
> > for the plant's psychotropic effects.
>
> > Now researchers say that another cannabinoid, called beta-
> > caryophyllene, or (E)-BCP, helps combat inflammation without affecting
> > the brain.
>
> > (E)-BCP is already part of many people's daily diets, the researchers
> > note. Foods that are particularly high in the compound include black
> > pepper, oregano, basil, lime, cinnamon, carrots, and celery.
>
> > Essential oils from cannabis plants—whose leaves and flowers are used
> > to make the marijuana drug—contain up to 35 percent (E)-BCP.
>
> > But even after decades of cannabis research, scientists hadn't
> > previously known that the compound had anti-inflammatory properties.
>
> > "This is because the focus was on the classical cannabinoids [rather
> > than (E)-BCP]," said lead study author Jürg Gertsch of the Swiss
> > Federal Institute of Technology.
>
> > Lone Receptor
>
> > Cannabinoids in marijuana are known to primarily affect two of the
> > many molecular receptors in the human body.
>
> > The CB1 receptor is found in the brain and central nervous system and
> > is responsible for the high people experience when they smoke pot.
>
> > The other receptor, called CB2, is found in tissues in the rest of the
> > body and triggers a cascade of biochemical reactions that can help
> > combat inflammation.
>
> > "Our interest is to exploit the pharmacological nature of the CB2
> > receptor," because it does not have psychotropic side effects, Gertsch
> > explained in an email.
>
> > "Targeting the CB2 receptor could be a therapeutic strategy to prevent
> > or treat diseases like Crohn's disease [inflammation of the intestinal
> > tract], liver cirrhosis, osteoarthritis, and atherosclerosis."
>
> > THC activates both receptors, so it won't alleviate inflammation
> > without also making people high.
>
> > But (E)-BCP affects only the CB2 receptor, according to the new study,
> > which appears in today's issue of the Proceedings of the National
> > Academy of Sciences.
>
> > As part of their research, the scientists engineered a strain of mice
> > that lacked the CB2 receptor. The team then fed the modified mice and
> > normal mice a diet rich in (E)-BCP.
>
> > When the scientists induced inflammation with chemicals, normal mice
> > experienced an anti-inflammatory effect while the genetically
> > engineered mice did not.
>
> > "This experiment shows that the anti-inflammatory effects are mediated
> > via the CB2 receptor," Gertsch said.
> > ...
>
> > --
> > Luke
>
> Luke,
>
> First off, let me thank you for keeping this newsgroup current about
> the latest research. I am a lurker that never skips your posts. I
> used to post here before but feel I have little to offer since it's my
> son with CD and he usually refuses to talk about his health. And
> that's a good thing. He trusts me to know what to do if he flares and
> I do mostly because of you and this site. His wife (a godsend) often
> asks me about "stuff" when we're alone. BTW, I think this is very
> healthy for all concerned--the patient doesn't obsess, and the helpers
> are knowledgeable.
>
> As to today's research, it moved me to comment. IBD sufferers have a
> tougher battle with daily life than most--and deserve/need the chance
> to get high. They have extra op****tunities to get low so this seems
> almost fair. Put another way, even if marijuana didn't reduce
> swelling, many chronically ill folks should be allowed to use it for
> its psychological effects.
>
> Probably the next time I'll post here is closer to the US elections.
> Four years ago, I implored people to vote for Democrats for their own
> self interest--better healthcare insurance plans. To me, the
> Republicans are in it for the money, the Dems for the votes. The
> former motivation has given us the present system, the latter possibly
> will benefit those without huge bank accounts and great job benefits.
> It's a no brainer to me--the fact that the Rs have screwed up
> everything and everyone except the very rich has made self interest
> inclusive of the whole planet and all its inhabitants.
>
> Again, thanks for your scientific diligence--hopefully we'll hear
> about a cure (or better treatment) before the general population. We,
> the sufferers of IBD--and their families--deserve at least that. Then
> we could all get a little high with our friends w/o marijuana.
>
> Mel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
anon,
I agree with you about medicare--and that Obama's plan is much weaker
than it should be--Edwards and Clinton had better ideas. That said,
Obama is leaning in the right direction--and would go along with
universal healthcare--McCain and friends would veto and filibuster it
to death. In sum, Obama is a friend--not yet an ally, and McCain is
from the enemy camp. On all things civil, the US cannot afford 4 more
years of malignant cor****atism.
Mel
|
