The State of U.S. Healthcare

America has one of the lowest ranked healthcare systems of an developed nation anywhere in the world despite being one of the most expensive. Among the top seven most industrialized nations, the U.S. is ranked dead last.

When it comes to life expectancy, America comes in at 47th among 201 countries. We average 79.4 years of age, with women living to be around 82 while men tend to live to age 77. Although that sounds pretty good, it's actually considered pretty low when compared to some of the top ranked nations such as Italy where the average age is 84.20 or any of the Scandinavian countries where most people live to around 83 years of age.

So, with the United States ranking among the lowest developed nations in terms of healthcare, who are at the top? The top three are all Asian countries, namely  Japan, Macao, and Hong Kong with overall life expectancies of 84.95, 85.51, and 85.83 respectively.  

The majority of top tier industrial nations are also in the top 20. The few exceptions include China in the 52nd spot with an average age of 78.79, Poland in 54th place with a expectancy of 78.60, and Saudi Arabia at 60th with a average expectancy of 78.10.  It should be noted that in every instance, women outlive men by an average of roughly ten years.

In terms of infant mortality, America again ranks last. The average is currently 5.4 per 1000 births, making us the highest of any top tier country. It's worth noting that as of 2021, the U.S. spent 17.8% of its  Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare, which is two times that spent by any other top industrial nation.

The primary reasons cited  is poor prenatal care such as smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, failure to take proper medications, and improper diet. Other factors include the high rate of cesarean sections as well as high rates of poverty which contributes to other health problems such as obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes. 

In addition, the groups most affected tend to be minorities, especially Native Americans, Black Americans, and Hispanics (as an aside, these same groups also tend to have the lowest life expectancies). 

When it comes to prescription prices, the U.S. spends more per capita than any other top tier nation. On average, we spend $1000+ per person annually on prescription drugs while average in other top tier nations is just $552 per person. At the same time, three in four Americans report being unable to afford the price of their medication. Spending on medication from 2004 through 2019 increased 69% in the U.S. while elsewhere it increased by just 41% on average.

Why is that? In part, it's because prescription drugs are, on average, nearly three times more expensive for a given drug than in any other country. A Humira Pen, for instance, used to treat inflammation in diseases like arthritis, averages nearly $5000 dollars per injection while in other industrial countries the same pen would cost about just under $3000 dollars.  The result is that many Americans are forced to chose to either do without or to ration their medication which often means not taking them as prescribed.

Another key reason is the emphasis of the healthcare industry on treatment (and thus writing more prescriptions) and less of emphasis on prevention. It also worth pointing out in other industrial nations, doctors are less time restricted when it comes to treating patients while in the U.S. physicians are typically capped at 15 minutes per individual and follow a quota system. The result is a focus on profitability and less on the long term welfare of the patient.  As the expression goes, "a cured patient is a lost customer".  

In addition, the United States also ranks at the bottom when it comes to the availability of hospital beds, and subsequently the length of the average stay of a patient. In the U.S. there are approximately 2.8 hospital beds available per 1000 individuals.

In terms of long term care, the costs per patient is the fourth  lowest at $924.00 dollars per patient. Italy is the cheapest at $422.00 dollars per patient, followed by Australia and Japan. The UK is next after the U.S. at $952 dollars. The most expensive costs per patient for long term care is the Netherlands at $1,858.00 dollars. Also among the most expensive are Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany at $1,567.00, $1559.00, and $1,445.00 respectively.

Among the other top industrial nations, that number is 4.3 beds per 1000. The lack of beds obviously affects the length of an average hospital stay. In the U.S. the typical patient is in the hospital for about 4.8 days (only the Netherlands is less, at 4.7 days). In Canada, Germany, and Switzerland is roughly 8.5 days. In France it's 9.1 days, and in South Korea it's a whopping 19.1 days! Can you imagine eating hospital food for nearly three weeks? Blah!

Lastly, we need to look at how the United States compares other industrialized countries when it comes to the availability of physicians. Based on the latest data, which is from 2019, the U.S. has least number of practicing physicians of the top 13 industrial nations.

The U.S. has just 2.6 doctors per 1000 individuals. That compares to France where the ratio is 3.2 per 1000. Australia has 3.7 per 1000 while Germany and Switzerland has 4.3. In Austria that number is 5.2 doctors available per 1000 potential patients. 

As an aside, the American healthcare system has more nurses than does comparable healthcare systems worldwide, and while the U.S. has more hospital staff than other nations, the majority of them are clerical/non-medical administrative personnel.  

As a result, the U.S. is tops when it comes to medically related administrative costs; an average of $925.00 per patient compared to an average of $204.00 among the top wealthiest countries. Sweden and Japan by comparison spend just $70.00 dollars per patient.

Lastly, what about quality of life? According the World Population Review, Northern Europeans clearly have the highest quality of life. In fact, the top ten nations are almost always include the Scandinavian countries of Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, along with Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

As for the United States, we currently rank 20th in the world, just behind Spain. You'll note that the countries with the highest quality of life also tend to have the longest life expectancies and the better healthcare.  

What does this say for the United States? The majority of the countries which rank higher than the U.S. in terms of life expectancy, healthcare, prescription prices, and so forth all focus on prevention first followed by treatment. They also place a greater emphasis on the overall wellbeing of the patient and less on meeting quotas or cost per patient ratios.

The majority of the countries follow a decentralized national healthcare system which is available to all its citizens. The healthcare is government managed with about 75% - 85% of the costs paid by tax revenue collected at the local and national levels. Prescription prices are often negotiated by the State rather than insurance companies or hospitals to ensure the best quality at the lowest cost.

Dental coverage for children are typically free while adults can buy dental insurance which is often subsidized by the government. There is also cost sharing between the patient and state based on the patient's income with costs being capped overall.  The costs of various medical services such as ambulances are typically bore by the State.

Hospitals and medical practices are given various financial incentives to improve efficiency and productivity. As stated previously, the State also encourages health conscious lifestyles such as regular exercise, longer vacation times and extra time off for "mental health", healthy diets, while encouraging cessation to bad health behavior such as smoking, poor diets and obesity.  

Free clinics can be found nearly everywhere, which is in part to help encourage males to seek treatment (men are notoriously for not wanting to get checkups, thus contributing to their higher mortality rate). Maternity leave is typically paid and extended to include the fathers as well.

The American healthcare system is a primarily profit driven enterprise with an emphasis on treatment and less on prevention. That has to change. While Americans are keenly tax adverse, a single payer tax system provided by the government would go a long toward improving overall healthcare, lower costs in the long run, and ensure health coverage for all, which would reduce costs now picked up by taxpayers.   

It would have the added benefit of allowing small businesses unable to afford health coverage for employees to compete with larger companies who can. Insurance can still be purchased by those looking for additional coverage.

Finally, doctors and medical professionals need to spend more time with patients and focus more on care and less on quotas. There also need to be more emphasis on mental illness treatment, which would go a long in alleviating some of the homeless problems facing communities today. Government funded research must pay along costs savings to the public. In addition, each state should negotiate prescription prices with the manufacturer to ensure patients receive the lowest cost possible for their medicine.

Meanwhile, there needs to be an additional effort made by the State and employers to encourage healthier lifestyles, including perhaps providing free or low costs classes in dietary choices, exercise, mental health, prenatal care, growing gardens, and so forth. 

 

  If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Video: Why American Healthcare Is The Worse In The DevelopedWorld

Life Expectancy of the World's Populations

US Has Highest Infant, Maternal Mortality Rates Despite theMost Health Care Spending

How do prescription drug costs in the United States compareto other countries?

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022:Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes

The U.S. Has Fewer Physicians and Hospital Beds Per CapitaThan Italy and Other Countries Overwhelmed by COVID-19

How Does The U.S. Healthcare System Compare To OtherCountries?

World Population Review: Quality of Life by Country 2023

These 10 Countries Are Seen as Having the Best Public HealthCare Systems

Healthcare in the Nordics

Our Quality of Life and Positives Changes We Can Make

 

As pointed out in our previous article, one of the ways to judge a country's future is to look at its infrastructure. In our case, it looks pretty bleak. Another indicator of a nation's health is to look at its quality of life.

In terms of freedom and quality of life, America ranks fairly low. According to the "Democracy Index", which is published by the Economist Group, America is defined as a "flawed democracy", which should come as no surprise given that we're an Oligarchic led Corportracy. As an aside, a "flawed democracy" is just one step above a "failed democracy", and the bad news is that social indicators don't show us moving up.

When it comes to overall health and quality of life, Spain and Portugal are one and two. They're followed by Switzerland, Japan, and Iceland. Others in the top ten include Singapore, Norway, and Austria. And the U.S? We didn't do so well. We came in 153 out of 166.  

We also have one of the lowest life expectancies of any industrial nation, with an average of 79.11 years (81.65 for women and 76.61 for men).  We are between Estonia and Panama. The top five belong to Hong Kong  with an average of 85.29, Japan (85.03 avg.), Macao (84.68 avg.), Switzerland (84.29 avg.), and Singapore (84.07 avg.). In fact, everyone in the top 39 positions have an average in the 80's.             

The Conde' Nast Traveler, which provides travelling advice and ranks travel agencies, and so forth, published a report in March of this year of the world's happiest countries. As with previous reports, all of the Scandinavian countries make the top ten, which Finland, Denmark, Switzerland making the top three. The U.S. came in 14th, just behind Ireland and ahead of Canada (in 2019, we were 19th).

Another indicator economists, historians, and other social scientists look at in judging the stability of a country is the percentage of its population which is incarcerated. Unfortunately, we again don't stack up well compared to other countries.

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, about one in one hundred Americans are behind bars at either the federal or state level; 2.3 million people (which includes juveniles as well as adults). Globally, that's one in five of the world's population. To put it another way, while we have just 5% of the world's population, we have 20% of it behind bars.

The next closest country is Communist China, which imprisons 1.6 million. Even Russia and Iran jails fewer people...by far!  So how can we justify calling Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Rwanda, or Venezuela "tyrannies"  when we imprison a greater percentage of our population people than any of them?

Of course, one answer to that question is that our prison systems outsources to more "for profit" prisons than any other nation. The overwhelming majority of countries utilize state run and financed institutions (through taxes, etc) to house inmates. We tend to emphasis time served rather than focus on reform and other methods to change behavior---even for first offenders.

In doing my research, I came across another interesting statistic. Of the so-called "top tier" or "first world" nations, we are the only ones which still utilizes the death penalty (albeit, it's decided at the state level). Of course, you can expand the definition of "top tier" to include nations like Saudi Arabia, Japan which also employ the death penalty. However, as of 2020, just 53 countries in the world have a death penalty; most of whom are third tier nations.

So, with all the statistics and other data about the United States and how it compares to the rest of the world, what does this tell us? There are a number of takeaways to consider. First, we have to understand that we are not the America our Founders had envisioned. I suspect that if they could see us now, they would have paid that damn tea tax!

Secondly, those elected to handle "the People's business" are actually "doing their business" on the People. We've lost our Republic plain and simple. Perhaps it was while we were busy trying to keep a roof over our heads and food on our tables. Maybe it was while we were distracted by all the "reality" shows, sports programs, video games, and manufactured propaganda masquerading as "news".

Congress represents Big Business, not us. Their lobbyists write the legislation. They help push it through committees and work to get it passed. These bills serve their interests, not ours. Not by a long shot. We get the crumbs.  We don't have lobbyists to represent our interests or to write bills for our wellbeing.

Corporations do their best to evade paying their fair share of taxes, and while the percentage of what we pay isn't the highest in the world, what we get for our money isn't the best either. Corporations are not "people" despite the Supreme Court's misruling. They do not necessarily represent their employees. Their loyalty is to their corporate officers, shareholders, and ultimately, their bottom line.

Corporations should also pay their fair share of taxes, even if that means establishing a minimum tax rate for "Big Business", plus a penalty for off shoring jobs and then shipping product back into the United States tariff free. Corporate lobbyists should never write legislation. Period. If a corporation or its industry is deemed to be essential to national security, it should be regulated if not nationalized in case of national emergences.

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. We make the Chinese look like truants! We need to take the profit out of the prison system. We need to focus on reform, especially for first and non-violent offenders. We need to invest in reform and post incarceration support, such as helping with remedial education (GED, etc) and developing employable skills, helping to find stable employment, and periodic follow-up down the road. It's better for all of us in the long run and it's cheaper than building more prisons and housing more prisoners.  

As for the death penalty, I've always supported the "eye for an eye" principal. But, if we're going to take someone's life, let's make damn sure we have the right person. Coming back later and saying "Oops. We're sorry" ain't going to cut it. If there is one iota of doubt, take the death penalty off the table. Let's also make sure we're doing it for the right reasons; that the punishment fits the crime. Let's also make sure that we judge and sentence based on the crime, not on race, gender, income bracket, or other factors.

Prisons should also not be "resorts". A wealthy white collar crook shouldn't be sent to a less restrictive and better quality prison than a poor one trying to survive. Perhaps if the white collar crook had to spend their time with the "common riff raff", it might change their perspective. Everyone should be subject to the same laws and same penalties. No more two tier judicial system; one for the rich and one for the rest of us.

Prisons should be, as much as possible, self sufficient, including growing as much of their own food as possible. All prisoners should be required to take courses in civics and social behavior, and when possible, pay restitution to their victims. Finally, they should not have "state-of-the-art" gyms and weightlifting equipment. The last you should want is murderers and rapists getting bigger and stronger!

But none of this means anything unless we take back our country from the ruling Oligarchs who are taking this Corportracy that used to be our country  down the road to a neo-fascist surveillance dystopia.  Unless we do, the only thing that will change is the speed by which things will get worse.

They tried to frighten us with words like "socialism", which they equate with "Communism" or (wrongly) with Hitler and "Nazism" (a totally different political ideology). Why? It threatens their ability to control. They use these words because they create images which frighten people in lieu of what they actually mean---democracy, which  puts control  in the hands of people, which is their ultimate fear.

Ideally, socialism is control by the people. In practice, however, it's controlled by the state. While I don't consider myself a "socialist" and prefer a low intrusive democratic government, I do believe that there are some things the state should do or can do more effectively, as did some of the Founding Fathers.

There are features which were once considered "socialist" or even "Communist" just a few generations ago which I support such as Social Security, the right to organize and bargain, having a safe work environment, clean water and air, anti-child labor laws, COLAs, women's suffrage, equal rights and equal pay (which still has yet to be obtained), unemployment insurance, and so forth. 

When it comes to a minimum wage, we forget that it was established for entry level jobs and help people get started in the job market. It was never intended to a "living wage" (to support a family for instance). Ultimately, the job market is the best place to establish an acceptable wage. If no one takes a job for the pay you're offering, then maybe you need to do it yourself or offer more.

As an aside, I also like worker co-ops. In many cases, it isn't just a matter of the employees knowing how to run a company at least as well as the former owners, it's a way to keep the company open and people employed. Companies are likely to do better when everyone has a stake in its success.

I think that America, like all other developed nations, should have a minimum national insurance plan. Not all employers can afford insurance for their employees, especially small businesses.  Without one, we often lose the local "mom and pop" businesses to mega corporations.

A basic national insurance plan, like single payer, would help to level the playing field between small companies who can't afford insurance and the larger ones who can. Individuals could purchase additional insurance on the open market to suit their specific needs. I should add that all taxpayer based jobs should be required to have the same insurance as the rest us, including Congress, which is exempt.

I also believe that the Federal Government only has powers designated to it by the states, and not that it has all the powers except those specifically reserved by the states. In other words, a smaller and more decentralized federal government. I believe that the closer you are to the source of a problem, the easier it is to solve. Therefore, we need to focus on solutions at the state and local levels as much as possible.

There are things we can do to reclaim our nation, as I mentioned above, but there are some other things we should push for too. We need to restructure our tax system and adopt either a flat or consumption tax, in addition to establishing a minimum tax for global corporations.

Corporate lobbyists, consultants, or advisors, should not have a hand in writing any legislation or make recommendations about which bills to support. Corporations are not "people" and money is not "free speech". Therefore, we need to rescind Citizens United and remove virtually unlimited corporate funding of elections.

Any tax increase proposals, as well as fee or rate changes, should be subject to a public vote. To paraphrase the TV commercial says, "it's our money and we want a say how".  We need to end partisan gerrymandering. We need to level the election play field by making all election requirements the same regardless of registration. Appointment to boards or commissions should be based on qualifications only, not party control.  Citizen's initiatives and referendums should be a matter of law.

Aside to term limits, Rank Choice voting should also be added to provide a more equitable choice of candidates. Some public offices should be non-partisan such as Treasurer, Secretary of State, County Clerk, County Judge, or  Secretary of Agriculture. For that matter, once elected, politicians should resign their party affiliation. They're there to represent everyone, not just their party, which means everyone else is taxed without representation (proportional representation would fix that).

These are but a few of the things we must do, to restore our country to the American People and make this a top tier nation once again. As it is, America will soon be no different from any other second level nation with pockets of cities and communities which look like they belong to a third world nation than to the United States. It won't be easy, but I think it's a worthy cause. I hope you do too.

 

OECD Better Life Index

Sustainable Public Transit

World Happiness Report

 

The Healthiest Places To Live

What Percentage of the U.S. Population is Incarcerated?

Which countries have the death penalty and how many peopleare executed every year?

Life Expectancy of the World's Population

 

Frustration with a Failing Democracy

 

It's often been said that you can tell the political condition of a country by looking at its infrastructure. Well, if that's true, then we should be in  ICU on life support with a minister preparing to read us our last rites.  America currently has approximately 4 to 6 million miles of road which are in need of dire repair at a cost of some $2 trillion dollars or more according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. That includes 73,000 bridges which are deemed "structurally deficient",  meaning they're unsafe.

In addition, there are 600,000 bridges over 20 feet in length which are pretty sketchy too. They add that at the current rate of disrepair, we may have reached the stage where our roads will decline at a faster rate than we can repair them.

The decline in the quality of America's roads doesn't reflect the increasing congestion, which leads to more accidents or poor air quality due to car and truck emissions. Some believe additional tolls would cut down on the congestion and provide additional revenue.

However, studies by the Department of Transportation have shown that while they help, they come nowhere near covering the costs to actually fix the problem. Another example of government's "Band-Aid" approach.  What the United States needs to do is invest more in energy saving mass transit such as electric light rail, trams, and trolleys, as well as electric or biofuel public transit like other industrial countries have done.

While we're at it, the U.S. also has one of the least efficient national electrical grids in the world. Currently, our national power grid covers some 7 million miles and produces around $4 billion dollars of electricity. It's the largest power source of its kind on earth. Bigger than Russia's and bigger than China's, and yet it struggles to keep up with demand, not to mention its vulnerability to terrorist cyber-attacks.

Adding to the problem is that multi-billion dollar companies like Google, Facebook, Walmart, and others are bypassing state and local utilities and going direct to producers, which deprives local municipalities badly need tax revenue.  Local governments stymie competition by giving energy producers a monopoly over electrical output. In some cases, local government is also the sole stockholder (this also applies to water too).

Municipalities also encouraged legislation to cap or limit the percentage that individuals who generate "excess" electricity through the use of alternative sources can sell back to local utilities or remove themselves from the local grid, making it all but impossible to "disconnect" from the grid.

Energy experts say that it would take an estimated $1 trillion dollars minimum just to bring our energy needs current, and make it both more efficient, and environmentally friendly. Rest assured that the public will pay for it one way or another. Meanwhile, rates keep going up with nearly 100% approval from public commissions and boards which are suppose to review rate requests and protect the public. But what do you expect when you have former energy executives on these boards?

However, what is needed to fix the problem, is practically unthinkable to most politicians and government bureaucrats---more taxes. Americans already feel they are grossly overtaxed as it is. On average, about 30% of the average American worker's wages goes to pay taxes. While that sounds like a lot, the average worker's tax rate, according to the 37 member OECD, is 34.6%, which puts the U.S. among the 30 lowest taxed country among industrial nations.

While individuals in other nations pay more in taxes, they typically also get more in return. Specially, better education for their children and themselves, Asian and European countries tend to be at the top of the list, especially in the areas of science and math, and yet we tax more per student than these same countries.

Speaking about kids, a 2020 report from UNICEF on child poverty placed the U.S. 34th among 35 countries along the worse with roughly 20% being "food insecure". Blacks and whites were about equal while Hispanics were slightly higher. Asian children had the lowest rates of child poverty. Single women with children was by far the worse off.

Another report, this one from the Congressional Research Services dated April 14, 2021, showed that the poverty rate among adults 80 and over was just around 13.6% (it was highest among single women). For those 65 to 69, it was 8.4%, and 7.4% for those age 70 up to 74. From 75 to 79, the poverty rate was 9.2%.

Worldwide, the highest poverty rate among seniors was in South Korea, with nearly half of those 66 and older living in poverty. Next was China with 39%, followed by the U.S. Where seniors fared the best was in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, France, Germany, the UK, and Japan.

We need to reinvest in this country, which means improving our infrastructure. It means becoming less dependent on fossil fuels. Corporate industries, not the public, should fund cleanups and restore the environment. We should stop penalizing research and innovation into alternative energy sources or renewable material. That same goes for people who use solar panels, water barrels, windmills, or plant local or community gardens.   

Education should be restructured to educate. Not to cater to the latest political cause, be it liberal or conservative. Every child must master the fundamentals---writing, reading, grammar, and math--at their grade level. They also should be taught to balance a checkbook and keep a household budget. No more placing the blame for a child's inability to learn on their race. If they fail, then they fail and should repeat the grade.

 Education should be honest. That means teaching the facts and both sides of social issues. They must  be taught critical thinking skills. They'll need it in the real world. Discipline is must. There can be no learning without it. Lastly, not everyone is college material (or will play professional sports). That's fine. Provide an alternative route such as the trades.

They should also be taught that while degrees in Women's Studies or "African/Black Studies", and philosophy sound good and noble, they aren't likely to get a job with them. They'll have a unemployable degree and staggering debt. So, pick a major where there's a demand, and then, maybe, minor in one of those other noble sounding programs.

Our children are increasingly coming under the control of the State, be it federal or local. They want to eliminate the parent.  I suspect that if they could take them straight from the crib, they would. Of course, their argument is that most parents aren't willing to take an active role in their children's upbringing, let alone their education, for one reason or another so "someone" has to.  

The most cited reason is that children are being raised by someone other than the parent (like a aunt/uncle or grandparent) or that one of the parents is absent and/or have a unstable home environment, which brings me to the next point. We must reexamine our social safety net and remove or modify those items which reward parental absenteeism.

Finally, we need to ensure that neither our children nor our seniors are "food insecure". There is no excuse for it in a country as resource rich as America. We throw away more food than some countries consume.

Along the same lines, we can do a heck of a lot better when it comes to medical care.  Did you know that we're the only industrial countries in the world without some form of national healthcare? "Obamacare" was a sophomoric try, but at least it was an effort. Personally, I think single payer coverage is a much more reasonable way to go, and potentially cheaper too.

Through a combination of corporate, public, and individual participation, a basic coverage could be given to all U.S. citizens. It could allow employers and the public an opportunity to buy additional insurance from the marketplace. We also need to regulate the healthcare industry as whole to curtail outrageous fees and prescription prices. This could be done by allowing the government to set caps on prescriptions as well, and allowing purchases from approved companies located outside of the U.S.. Even allow some procedures or services to be paid for in cash. 

There should also be a change of focus. The countries which rank higher than us in terms of healthcare have a different focus for instance. Here in the States, we concentrate on post treatment or reactive care, whereas other countries focus on preventative care which keeps people healthier longer and lessens the severity of illnesses so that everyone benefits. Some even make use f alternative treatment and medicines like herbs or time off for "mental health".   

While this may sound bleak (and it is), there is still a silver lining. We have the ability to fix these and other problems. We also have the resources. All that's missing is our resolve to do it.  The best place to start is at the bottom; that is, at the local level. That's where we can have the best impact. Most communities already have food banks or after school tutoring available, and speaking as a community organizer of over 40 years, I can assure you that they love volunteers.

If you can't do it in person, consider doing online volunteering. There's lots of programs available. Better yet, start one if you can't find one you'd  want to join. Attend board and commission meetings, be it school board, zoning, water, or energy. The majority are open to the public, and it's a great way to get your feet wet!  

With a little research for the rules and regulations in your area, you can also start petition campaigns. Attend community meetings which are typically held monthly by local politicians. Start a "letter to the editor" campaign. If you own as little as one share of stock, you can attend their shareholder board meetings, which usually allow up to 15 minutes to address the board (though you're actually speaking to other shareholders in attendance). That's plenty of time to expose what they're doing and ask for change.  

You could even run for office, but if you do just remember that both parties are owned by corporations, and they don't like reformers despite what they claim in their commercials. Therefore, if you're going to be a "boat rocker", count on doing it mainly by yourself, and hopefully, with family and friends support. Parties often promise money and other support to their candidates. Unless you're already a big name, don't hold your breath, especially if they think you're serious about change.  

Instead, you'd be better off lobbying sitting politicians (regardless of their party) on behalf of your neighborhood, community, or a focal issue. Be sure to brush up on what you can and can't do as a citizen lobbyist.  I've found this route to be the most rewarding.  Besides, they can be a little more cooperative when they know you aren't after their seats.

America is at war, but it's not against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or even Russia or China. This war is one between a corporate and government partnership which is neo-fascist in character and led a group of very wealthy individuals and corporations against us; the ordinary citizen and voter. The object of the war is the creation of surveillance state with the possibility of occasionally acting like a police state.

This new system, which is called an Corporatocracy, will create its own image which we will be conditioned to identify with. Wars will be fought for "freedom" or some other emotionally charged word, while in truth it will be about corporate access to markets or control of assets and resources.  Our loyalty will be defined by products we choose rather than to our nation. We will be encouraged to focus on video games, reality shows, or work and to leave politics to our intellectual and social betters who know what's best for us.

They want a compliant workforce which is just smart enough to do their jobs and nothing more. They want control of every aspect of our lives. To get that, they must divide us every which way they can. They will control our children in order to forge new generations of worker drones who will rely on the State without question. That means rewriting history and the future. We're already seeing that with the removal of statues, censorship of books, and curriculum taught to our children.

Don't expect it to stop until we've forgotten the truth and bought into their manufactured reality. It can be stopped. I've given you some pointers above. The question then becomes, will we?

 

How 35 countries compare on child poverty (the U.S. isranked 34th)

CRS Senior Poverty Rates

 

Deception By Religion / Trumpcare: Bad Medicine?

There is so much happening in the world right now that it's difficult to decide what to write about. Therefore, in that case, I'll run with a few trending topics. First, let's look at Europe. In England we're still seeing various acts of violence, such as individuals on motor bikes (what we might refer to as a "scooter" in the US), doing a drive by. However, instead of using a gun, they're throwing acid in the faces of their intended target. Currently, about two such incidents involving four individuals have been reported. Most of the those attacked didn't sustain any serious injuries, while one is reported to have significant injuries. What this attack reminds me of is the same cowardly attacks made on females attending school in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nations where there is a radical or extremist Muslim presence. The reason, in case you're wondering, why little girls going to or returning from school would be singled out for such a horrendous attack.

One of the key tenants of radical Islam is the control of females. By that they mean utter subjugation---no driving, no voting, no showing of skin, no excursions without their husbands or male members of their families as escorts. Finally, no education. That's right. Females are not to be educated beyond a functional level; how to read and write and some nominal mathematics abilities. So, in order to discourage these girls from attending school, these cowards often attack the girls with cane poles and beat them all the way back home, or, as in this case, attack them with acid in order to disfigure them (the thought is so that no one will want to marry them. The first rule according to their religious teachings is that women are responsible for home and hearth). Therefore, since this is the kind of barbarity we see in the Middle East, plus parts of Africa and Asia, it's logical that we're dealing with the same people.

Elsewhere in England, but especially in continental Europe, there has been a number of protests by "migrants". Some are demanding that Europe accept Sharia law only; some are demanding that non-Muslim European women cover up, plus demands to stop producing pork products as well as liquor, including beer and wine. Interestingly, many are protesting the quality of their free food and free government housing (which, in most cases, had been the homes of poor citizens just a few days earlier). Sadly, low income nationals been forced out in order to make room for the immigrants, who are now demanding better housing (a few are demanding better medical care as well , of which they aren't paying for either). I would be remiss if I didn't mention the attacks on young girls and women in subways, parks, swimming pools, and so forth. When---and if--- confronted by the police, the men usually claim that they didn't understand the cultural restrictions or that they were "offended" and so they were just "protecting" the women in accordance with their religion ( I would love to know how they explain the gang rapes or rape beatings). Naturally, they should know right from wrong, so I guess they are just playing the cops for fools, who----along with the corporate media---seem to be buying it. Perhaps it will take a few journalists, cops, or their family members being beaten or repeatedly raped to drive home the danger.

On the home front, we again have the issue of healthcare; the zombie legislation which refuses to die. Under this recent incarnation, the Republican controlled House didn't have enough votes to pass it through. However, that's really not the issue. If you'll recall, when the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") was first proposed, the Republicans fought it tooth and nail; citing a whole host reasons why it was a bad bill---some of which proved to be true. However, it took the US Supreme Court, in violation of role per the Constitution, to turn the bill for healthcare into a tax before it could be ushered through. Meanwhile, the Republican House leaders promised to work on a "solution" which would be ready and "in the drawer", ready to pull out and pass as soon as they had the votes to get it through Congress.

Well, they now have the firepower. They control both houses of Congress and the presidency. However, it's now quite obvious that there was no one working on a replacement bill during all these years despite promises to the contrary. There was no new healthcare bill to "pull out of the drawer". What they have is a half-ass bill designed to lift up and protect their corporate masters. Meanwhile, those at the lower social/economic ladder face the very real possibility of losing coverage all together. Now, no matter what you say about Obamacare---pro or anti---you have to admit that this was the first time so many people were finally covered; some for the first in their lives. In addition, Obamacare at protected not just the poor or working poor (formerly known as the Middle Class), it provided coverage for seniors. Seniors, in case you don't know it, is the largest demographic in America based on age (currently seniors are comprised of the WWII generation aka "the greatest generation", the Silents who are their children, and now, the Babyboomers, who are now entering retirement.

From what I've heard about the latest healthcare bill, which uses the moniker "Trumpcare", was that most of those mentioned above would be crap out of luck when it comes to coverage, especially pre-existing coverage. In addition, the list of prescriptions not covered are expected to be expanded., meaning that individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, when, given the astronomical costs of some medication, will be all but impossible. While a few have taken to going to Mexico or Canada where the medication is cheaper, are often taking a gamble on being stopped at the border or receiving inferior medication. It seems that the only ones who actually benefited from "Trumpcare" were business owners and the pharmaceutical industry.

I wonder how many people will have to die or suffer the consequences of doing without their medicines before Congress, the White House, the media and their corporate owners finally create a realistic plan? Personally, I favor a single payer. This would provide basic coverage for everyone irrespective of previous injuries or what medication they're on. It would also allow individuals and businesses the opportunity to purchase additional coverage separately. In this way, those who don't need extra insurance will have basic coverage while those who need more or specialized coverage can buy it on the open market. Lastly, whatever type of insurance plan Congress settles on, I think it should be mandatory that all government employees including those elected to office have to participate in. In other words, Congress, the Presidency, the Judiciary, and all the bureaucrats cannot exempt themselves.

Finally, Russia. Specifically, Russian interference in the 2017 Presidential Election. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, this is a non-starter. I think this is all about trying to find an explanation for why Hillary Clinton was denied her coronation. Disagree? Let's look at the "7 Stages of Grief". First, there is Shock. I think we saw that all over CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and the other corporate news stations, not to mention all the various talking heads from Rachael Maddow to "The View". After that we had Denial. There were hundreds if not thousands of protesters chanting that Trump wasn't "their" President, with others demanding recounts or wanting to find something---anything--- to impeach trump on. Many boycotted the inauguration and parade (a few were childish enough to post pictures comparing Obama's inaugural turnout with Trumps). Next comes Anger. That's obvious enough with idiots trying to block traffic, demands "safe spaces", claims of "offended" , riots (err, I mean "protests"), trying to shout out or attack anyone who disagrees with them (refusal of free speech) and so forth.

After Anger, we come to Bargaining. Bargaining, in this connotation, it means trying to find ways around what happened. This may including refusing to cooperated in any way possible, or providing excuses for what happened (in this case, "the Russians must have done it". Once we realize that we can't bargain or negotiate our way out of the situation, we slid into Depression. I think that's where many Democrats are now. These Democrats are coming to terms with the realization that they had a crappy candidate; one that was full of flaws... including some treasonable crimes as well as actions which shows either a complete lack of intelligence or hubris such improper handling of secured information, refusal to use secured servers, lackadaisical handling of cell phones and e-mails just to mention a few.

Next on the Grief Hierarchy comes Testing. This is perhaps the most critical step now that we've had an opportunity to get ticked off and an opportunity to vent and point fingers and so forth. Testing means you understand what happened, and to a degree, why. You know that you can't go back and change events. Things are as they are. However, this stage is where we re-evaluate what went wrong and why. We know our political system is broken beyond repair (and our social and economic systems are severely damaged and isn't functioning properly). This is where change happens. It's where we take a measure of ourselves. In many cases, it's where decisions to jettison the existing system is collectively agreed upon; where we might look to third parties or Independent candidates; where we decide on a new social and/or economic contract) or how we get our news and other information. A great deal can and often does happen in this stage.

Finally we come to Acceptance. By the time we reach this stage, we (hopefully) have got our collective act together. We've accepted what happened...and why. We've learned where to place the blame (which, more often than not, is mostly on ourselves). In addition, we've come to a consensus on how to proceed. We've changed the rules. We've decided on a collective direction. Lastly, this is the stage where we look around and see where how much we've changed or adapted. It's at this stage where we've realized how much we've grown. I think by the time we've reached this stage, we will have accepted the notion that a woman...or anyone of any race, religion, or gender, has the potential to become President.

It's also at this stage where we accept the fact that we simply misjudged the quality our earlier choice. I think too that by the time we reach this change, we would have found a way to re-spark our nation; where we have found and implemented a new system which works for all of us, which means doing away our current form of government, a neo-fascist Oligarchy, complete with its growing surveillance apparatus. To do nothing is a guarantee that it will continue to grow like a cancer and our former constitutional republic will be found only in the history books.

Stopping the Merry-Go-Around

Republicans seem pretty pleased with themselves these days. Trump, who they were calling a "fake Republican" before denying the heir apparent her crown in November, has been mostly embraced by the GOP faithful, especially given that his victory also resulted in Republican control over the House and Senate, and will most likely result in the appointment of federal judges to the bench, not to mention possibly replacing two Supreme Court Justices at least. Of course, the corporate media has used every opportunity to throw mud at Trump; to discredit or delegitimize his administration or policies. Democrats to have made it a point to defeat every effort Trump or his administration makes regardless of what it is. Of course, one could argue that the Republicans did the same thing during the eight years of the Obama Regime, and that would be largely true except Republicans, at least, did make the occasional effort to get along with Obama (that may have also been done in order to get some friendly press from the openly Liberal media too).

While Trump victories have been rather few and far between during his first 100 days, one key issues seems to have been addressed---repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something else (some are calling it "Trumpcare" given "The Donald's" propensity to have his name on everything). Of course, this is the second go around with repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Now it has to go over to the Senate for further discussion, so it has a way to go before it lands on Trump's desk for his signature. There's still a lot we don't know yet (given that it was a rush job) like exactly how many low income individuals or families will be adversely affected. It's quite possible that hundreds of thousands will either face much reduced coverage or lose coverage all together. While the Senate will likely make some changes, one provision which will likely remain is allowing States the loophole to opt out of any type of national healthcare. This alone could result in tens of thousands facing some form of coverage loss.

Personally, I can't say that I was fan of Obamacare, although I agreed that the US needed some form of nationalized healthcare. After all, we were the only industrialized nation without a national healthcare plan. However, what irked me the most was how the bill was deferred to the Supreme Court which ruled it "unconstitutional" as written, and then proceeded to rewrite the bill as tax , which it could uphold. This was clearly in violation of the Constitutional's separation of powers clause. Secondly, I've always favored the "Single Payer" form of national coverage. This would allow everyone to have a minimum coverage and leave an option for either employers or individuals to purchase additional coverage. This way small businesses wouldn't have to worry about the expense of insurance coverage in their competition with larger companies for qualified talent, plus the overall costs to businesses and States would be much more affordable than Obamacare. Lastly, everyone would be under the same basic plan, including government employees as well as Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the President, and I like that. Why? Because it's fair. It treats everyone the same.

Under the Affordable Care Act, as well as this package the House just passed, Congress, and both the Judicial and Executive branches are exempt. Yelp, this new healthcare coverage is good enough for us (assuming we actually get coverage), but not for them. Nope. They get to keep their current healthcare package, which you and I still get to pay for, and I have a real problem with that. I do not think that government officials should be exempt from any laws that they impose on us. However, the GOP has stated that that a separate bill has to be submitted to make Congress, the Presidency, the federal Judiciary subject to the law, if passed, along with their staff. At present, Congress' coverage is provided through the Senate Homeland Security and the Government Affairs Committee.

Those in Washington, as well as our State Capitols and local City Hall, are our employees. We hire them for one, two, four, or six years. They work for us. I don't know of any employee exempting themselves from the same rules that apply to their employers. Do you? I also don't know any employee who gives themselves pay increases (especially in the dead of night or during some holiday), nor do I know of any employee that takes money or gifts from potential competitors or repeatedly fail to do their job and expect to remain employed. But that's what we've got in Washington and in places like Albany, Sacramento, Minneapolis, Frankfort, and other State capitols, not to mention in city halls throughout the country. So here's what I propose:

First, no law passed by a legislature or imposed by a government agency, can exempt those who passed it. In short, no one is exempt from any law, statute, or ordinance. Secondly, there must be term limits. The House of Representatives, who currently serve two year terms, shall be allowed no more than three terms or a total of six years. The US Senate serves a six year term. Therefore, no Senator can serve more than two terms. If you can't get it done in 12 years, you're in the wrong line of work. The President was previously allowed to serve as many terms as they wanted, however, in following with Washington's tradition, all but one self-limited themselves to no more than two terms of four years each. The one exception for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected in 1933, during the depths of the Depression, and then whose presidency carried through to the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. However, following FDR's death in 1945, this was changed and henceforth the president was limited to two four year terms. I would like to see this changed to three four year terms or 12 years. It's a tough job and almost impossible to get anything accomplished on eight years. It also puts him or her on par with the Senate. Supreme Court justices should be appointed to 20 year term.

The reason is that many of the Chief Justices lose touch with mood and direction the country is headed in. In making their decisions, it's more than just knowing the law or even the intent of the law. It's understanding the period in time in which the matter to be decided is being made and how that will affect citizens not just in the present, but 10 or 20 or 50 years down the road. The Supreme Court has made some serious blunders because they were so out of touch with times. However, they need to have the practical experience on the bench, so I would like to see the Supreme Court nominees to be at least 45 years old. That would put the expiration of their term at roughly around 65 years old. Plus, we have to face reality too. People like Ruth Ginsberg and others are getting up there in years. Not only is their familiarity with the mood of the nation impaired, but they are also at the age where they're going to have health issues, especially with the memory and judgment. It's just a fact of life. Being on the highest court in the land is a tough job. We need people who are at their peak in terms of mental acuity and overall health.

Next, we need to end gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when a given political party is allowed to design their own districts based on voter registration. This all but ensures that a given party or politician will be elected or reelected. It's like giving a criminal your password or PIN number. Most of the time, the redistricting makes no sense and groups are thrown together for no other reason than their registration. Redistricting needs to be practical. It needs to make sense based on geography and neighborhoods. The best way to do this is to have an impartial or non-partisan group draw up the district, such as by a university or college for State and local elections and the Census Bureau for national offices. We also need real campaign finance reform. What we have now makes it virtually impossible for ordinary Americans to run for office, and it greatly restricts the diversity of who is elected. By that, I mean that most elected officials, especially at the national level, are businessmen and women and lawyers. We need a cross-section of America elected---doctors, nurses, small business owners, small farmers, police officers, firefighters, high school teachers or college professors, fishermen, and so forth; people who truly know this country.

US Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said repeatedly that "money is a form of free speech". I couldn't disagree more. That would imply that the wealthy have more of say regarding this country than the poor or what's left of the middle class. From my perspective, people's opinions and input into how this country is governed should not be based on the size of their stock portfolio or bank account. Therefore, we need to limit the amount of money that can spent on a given campaign, and limit the length of the race itself like other countries have done; perhaps public funding of races up to a preset limit or free access to media for races who raise below a certain threshold. Additionally, we must reverse Citizen United, the "Frankenstein Ruling" which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

As some of you may recall, Citizens United said corporations could donate---direct and openly---what they want to a candidate's race while you and I remained capped in what we can give. It also says that corporations are entitled to the same rights as ordinary flesh and blood people, especially when it comes to the 1st Amendment and free speech. This directly ties into why Senator McConnell equates money with free speech. Corporations are not human. Corporate charters are not the same as birth certificates. Corporations are artificial legal entities; fictions of law. They do not speak for all those work there, nor do they speak for all the stakeholders or shareholders. They speak only for a executive board of directors. Lastly, we should prohibit lobbyists, who are usually employed by these same corporations, from writing or reviewing legislation aimed to benefit themselves . Elected officials and those in their employ, as well as those directly related to them, should be prohibited from taking gifts, money, "educational" trips and so forth. All contact with lobbyists should be made public.

America is an oligarchy. There can be no argument about this. It is a fact. We, the ordinary working class stiffs who made this country great, are no longer being represented. Legislation is aimed at appeasing their corporate masters. Those in Washington see us merely as "flyover country". They come to us, hat in hand, only when election time rolls around, but increasingly they need us less and less now that corporations have come out of the shadows. The corporate news media is hardly subtle about who they support. Gerrymandering makes their election or reelection almost assured. We are but a mere formality; an inconvenience...at least for the time being.

We are increasingly under surveillance by an expanding police state. We are monitored, recorded, photographed, tracked and chipped. We now have chains made of zeros and ones instead of iron, but the result is the same. Enemies and allies are manufactured; each are just as interchangeable as the other, depending on their willingness to cooperate. There are other issues we need to address such as tax reform, illegal immigration, reinvestment in our infrastructure, ending our "dumbing down" educational policy and perpetual wars for control of resources and markets in the name of "democracy" or "freedom". But, we can change this. All we have to do is ignore their attempts to divide us and act in unison; with one vision and with one voice. Divided, they win. United, we do. So which is it?

What Difference Does a Name Make?

I get emails and posts from all over the world; mostly political of course. Some are from individuals but most are from organizations pleading their cause---from both the political left and right, as well as the middle. Many of the stories are BS; inflated of some event. Some are downright false or misleadingly provide some imaginary "what if" scenario. When you write as often as I do on the subject of politics, especially global politics, it just comes with the territory. But it seems that most of emails and posts I get that are the worse at misleading comes from the political extremes. By that, I mean the ones I find most troubling in how they attempt to mislead their perspective readers. Let me give you an example, in fact, the most common example and the one which seems to be showing up the most, especially with the Presidential primaries under way and the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia.

There's been this sudden rash of "news" (very much in quotes) claiming the Scalia was "murdered" while on his hunting trip in Texas; a misconstrued report that there was a pillow over his head. It turns out that the pillow was up against the headboard above his head, not over his face. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story as the late great William Randolph Heart said (as would some more modern media outlets would still agree). It seems, as they claim, there was a "conspiracy" by a secret "Communist" or "Socialist" (the terms are used interchangeably) within or associated with the Obama Regime to silence this great arbiter of the Conservative Right. Uh, no. No conspiracy. He simply died of a heart attack in his bed. Now, as for this secret "Communist" or "Socialist" cabal, that raises another matter.

It seems that too often---all too often---the political Far Right allege that there is a "Communist" or "Socialist" plot afoot or that somehow America is being transformed in a neo-Communist (or, again, Socialist) worker's gulag. Some even allege that Obama and Company have been working hand in red glove with Russia's Putin or with China to overthrow the government. Listen folks, as much as I dislike Obama and just about everything he stands for (which is something of an oxymoron), there is no Marxist plot here. Sorry. Yes, Obama has done some really stupid things (the "Fast and Furious" blunder comes immediately to mind), I think this is more of a reflection of his lack of political and professional experience (yes, Obama had some questionable influences on his early life, not to mention a somewhat mysterious adolescence and early adulthood). That lack of "seasoning" is reflected in his refusal to stop illegal immigration and gutting ICE and the Border Patrol instead of enforcing the Will of the American People. But to be fair, Ronald Reagan set the stage when he authorized amnesty for illegals then living in the United States, and then all of his successors, including George W. Bush, repeatedly refused to do anything about illegals in this country except provide a lot of lip service until they decided to just ignore us altogether.

Then too, Obama has done just about everything he can to prod us into a boot war with Syria while doing little with regards to ISIS, Boko Harem, or even Al Qaeda (yes, Osama bin Laden was eliminated under his administration, but it was the independent actions of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff which made it happen amid Obama's tendency to delay which is why he looks to dumbfounded in the photos I suspect) and opening the doors for Moslem refugees. But again to be fair, "Dubya" was the one who opened this hornet's nest (more like Pandora's Box) when he toppled Saddam Hussein without either a long term occupation plan or contingency plan (because they didn't understand the regional politics) in case things went south. Turned out there was no weapons of mass destruction. Just a bunch of greedy Western bastards looking to control oil and gas reserves while tweaking Iran's and Russia's noses. But, none of this constitutes "Communism" or "Socialism". Just basically incompetence combined with a power grab for control of resources.

What about Benghazi? Well, that again wasn't about "Communism" or anything else except internal US politics, mishandling of intelligence, a lack of political fortitude, incompetence (again) and a cover up that appears to be nothing less than treasonous or perhaps criminal behavior (or both). In fact, none of this is any indication of "Communism" or "Socialism, but I think I know what is. The Affordable Healthcare Act or as it's more commonly known, Obamacare. It seems this one item is where this all starts. The idea is that healthcare is a "right" and that all Americans are entitled to basic health coverage. The concept isn't unique to Obama. It's not even unique to Bill Clinton's administration. Actually, national healthcare goes back decades. Even folks like Teddy Roosevelt, his cousin FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and even Richard Nixon thought some form of national healthcare was a good idea. However, none of them tried to enact it because they thought (correctly) that the political Will just wasn't there, as well as the fact that it would be a hard sell to the American Medical Association, national insurance providers, doctors, hospitals and so forth. However, in Europe and most of the developed world, some form of national healthcare exists. Most of it paid for through the government in the form of taxes, either individual and/or corporate. The US was the only industrial nation without some form of national healthcare for all its citizens. Kind of embarrassing if you think about it.

Where the Obama Regime went wrong was in both the type of healthcare it proposed and how it was enacted. The type of coverage most legislators were willing to at least consider, and would be the most easily administrated was the Single Healthcare Payer Program. This would provide a single source for insurance with different healthcare agencies opting to provide specific programs or underwriting a basic policy; additional coverage could be purchased via the marketplace depending on need and income level. Even most unions and small businesses agreed that this made the most sense. However, as we all know, that's not what we got. Secondly, the Supreme Court took the highly unusual (and some argue illegal) step of rewriting the bill brought before it. The Supreme Court is supposed to vote up or down on an issue, not rewrite it to fit the intent, which it did by redrafting it as a tax instead of leaving it as a policy proposal. As written, it was unconstitutional. As a tax, however, it was constitutional. In addition, Obama lied--blatantly and knowingly lied--to the members of Congress and more importantly, to the American People, about what the new law would allow. He wanted ACA to be his legacy. It will be his lie that will ultimately be his legacy. But is this "Socialism" or "Communism" any more than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, or unemployment? Personally, I see it as a social safety net just like these and other programs, albeit done in a backhanded way. So, just what is "Socialism" and "Communism" and is that really where we're headed?

Socialism, which is an age old philosophy, calls for the common ownership of property, including the means of production and distribution with decisions to be made equally by the common ownership, that is, democratically. Direct democracy and republican democracy are an offshoot as well since the people decide among themselves how to govern. Think of it as a business where the employees are the owners. They all participate equally in the day to day operation of the business, as well as the decision making (unless agreed by vote otherwise) along with sharing the profit...or loss...equally. It's been in use in varying degrees in Northern Europe and Scandinavia with success since the end of World War II. There is, however, private ownership of homes, cars and so forth. However, with the recent influx of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, mostly uneducated and untrained, the system throughout has begun to falter since the premise is that everyone contributes to the system. Many, if not the majority of these individuals have discovered that they can simply draw on the system without contributing anything back, so perhaps the greatest failure in the system is the lack of a common work ethic and a sense of community.

Communism, which has been discussed philosophically for more than two millennia in various forms, gained notice with the 1871 Paris Commune uprising following the fall of France's Napoleon III. However, other various attempts were made by agrarian and religious groups including some early and recent Christian sects. Nevertheless, it owes its familiarity to Germans Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels through their works, "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto". Essentially, Communism espouses a classless society where all are treated as equal in every aspect with common ownership of the means of production and distribution under worker councils or "soviets" in Russian with the ultimate goal of doing away with government altogether. What changed was it application with the success of Lenin's Bolsheviks in 1917, wherein a "dictatorship of the proletariat" was imposed in order to "aid in the transition" to a Communist society. Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, ensured that the dictatorship remained permanent and all control---economic, social and cultural---fell to the State; nothing would remain in private hands. Not home ownership, not businesses, not capital, not the media, not wage distribution and obviously, not guns or home defense; nothing. The State controlled workforce was viewed as a nationalized union managed by a single political party---the Communist Party. Even children were regarded as property of the State. Ultimately the system failed because it decayed from a lack of individualistic innovation; there was nothing to motivate productivity, quality or advances in technology, and it couldn't up with the Cold War.

Now, does either of these sound like what's happening to you? No, I didn't think so. So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with ideology which is just as bad as Communism and that is Fascism. It's origins date back to the ancient Greek Oligarchs of Athens, Rome's Caesars, other authoritarian governments. Modern Fascism came about through Italy's Benito Mussolini, who also referred to it a "Corporatism". Fascism is somewhat similar to Communism except in place of the State, corporations control government. Fascism borrows ideas from socialism and Communism such as national healthcare, unemployment, and so forth. However, unions are either outlawed or made impotent; to serve the needs to the corporation only by keeping employees on the work line and off the strike line; by making them accept whatever cuts or changes management deems necessary. With Fascism, corporations and government work hand in hand, though usually corporations have the senior hand while government serves as intermediary and manager but not always as each nation's traditions and culture is different and Fascism is nothing if not adaptable. This often includes public funding of corporations for private profits, a government/corporate "revolving door" , corporate dictate of government policies, influence or indirect control of elections and the judicial system and so forth. Essentially politicians wind up as little more than pawns or puppets and mouthpieces.

Under Fascism, we often see an increase in the militarization of law enforcement, gun control, surveillance and repression of opposing groups not to mention character assassinations, national militarization including "demonizing" other ideologies and governments as well as (justifying) direct and indirect military ventures, a perpetual "enemy" and an increase in propaganda through control of the media. Worse yet, is we tend to see an decline in wages, greater debt, and a separation of wealth. In most countries where Fascism was been applied, we see extreme wealth side by side with extreme poverty; a society of elites and one of everybody else. Both Fascism and Communism tend to had a single political apparatus. Under Communism, the party is the State which is also the powerbrokers. However, under Fascism this is not set in concrete so long each political party understand who is master. Also, capitalism, as an economic system, isn't compatible with Communism while it is with Socialism and Fascism (principal difference being in its application).

America, as most of you know, is now an Oligarchy, especially ever since the Supreme Court's error in upholding the Citizen's United ruling which determined corporations were "individuals" with the same rights as you and I, except one critical one. The Justices decided that money represents "free speech" and as such, corporations were free to donate what they like while you and I are capped. Obviously, some are more equal than others. This means corporations can essentially buy who they want openly and regardless of party affiliation. Meanwhile, we've all but lost our middle class with our largest and deepest income divide between the rich and everyone else. We have a surveillance state and a militarization of the nation's police forces, not to mention a perpetual war on "terror" and "war economy" to keep the nation's economic engine chugging along. With high unemployment and serious debt among the nation's youth (especially minorities), who also just so happen to be in the military recruitment range, we have a steady stream of available candidates for economic ventures under the guise of national security and expansion of "democracy". Meanwhile the government continues to make life easier for its corporate benefactors while chanting its populist rhetoric and all but ignoring our Founding Documents.

So, now that you have a better grasp of the definitions, where do you think America is actually headed now? The next time you read or hear someone say something is "Socialist" or "Communist" just ask yourself who benefited. You'll recognize the truth. In the end, your party affiliation doesn't matter, it's who benefits. For the diehard political partisans, drink up your blue or red Kool-Aide because as every six grader knows, blue and red makes green and that's the only color that matters.