An Acceptance of the Vague to Satisfy an Insatiable Quest for Hope

"It's time for a change." "A change is on its way." "A change we can believe in."
It may just be me, is this code decipherable by anyone else.
We hear nothing from any of those before us except plan and change. Whether it is a plan of no outline to change health care or a plan to change foreign relations, it is never really ever spelled out for any of us.
Do we know how any of our candidates intend to achieve anything they claim to bring to the table? No. Do we care? If you are among the masses who cling to the well-spoken yet vague nature of Barack Obama's campaign, then clearly not.
That is not to say those of you following the Clinton camp find yourselves in a better boat, because you are also losing yourself under the vague campaign jargon, nor is this to promote the Republican party, which is having enough trouble within itself.
Let us take in this first installment of my "Quest for Hope" series these words of Senator Obama, who seems to be capitalizing on your general acceptance of empty promises based on his constantly rising support numbers.
Barack Obama, in the typical campaign kiss-ass maneuver, praised the efforts of John Edwards to get big business out of Washington and claimed them to be an effort of his campaign as well, yet Obama's health care efforts will do nothing more than use government funds in another welfare-esque system to help the poor purchase health care from .. get this .. Corporations. Corporate Health Care providers still find themselves at the head of the table in this plan of attack.
Clinton's plan, though opening the Congressional Health Care plan to the masses, still finds itself leaving the Corporate sector to come out victoriously.
In a nation where the middle class continues to grow more and more obsolete as we move toward a society of the poor and the elite, and a nation finding itself already in the midst of recession with a $1.5 trillion infrastructure deficit and borrowing money from Communist China, can we really afford to take on yet another welfare endeavor that will only seem to make the rich that much richer?
I am a firm supporter of welfare and helping those who need it, but in a period where big business and a broke government are constantly tightening the qualifications for such programs, or even programs like pell grants and higher education lending, and the people who need it cannot get it, how much faith can be put into these "health care subsidies" to truly help those of us on the razor-thin line between qualifying and not-qualifying?
I hate to agree with Michael Moore, but if neither candidate sees the clear flaw in their plans, neither of them need to be in the oval office.
The cost of health care and insurance and medicines is becoming the single greatest cause of poverty and a leading cause of the debt problem of American citizens, and in a list of nation's with quality health care for its citizens, in a nation that spends a greater percentage of its gross domestic product on health care than any other, the United States ranks 37th. The world's only remaining "superpower", yet we are 37th in the world in terms of health care for citizens.
Canada, Great Britain and even the Castro run Communist nation of Cuba all provide what actual qualifies as "Universal Health Care."
This idea of health care across the map is satisfied through a government run health-care system. Every citizen in one of these countries can go to any hospital for any reason and the government picks up the check.
There is no denial for certain sicknesses or accidents, pre-existing conditions are of no concern, family history, sexually transmitted, whatever. Listen to this part carefully, EVERYONE GETS HELPED, FREE, NO MATTER WHAT.
Why do both of the plans before us not offer something like this? Does the phrase "Corporate America" ring a bell? That is the answer.
Somehow our democratic system lost focus and began to fail us, the normal people, and cater to the elite and big business. The Republicans and the Health Care Providers bash both ideas of "universal health care" claiming that they will require a specific hospital or doctor and take away all of your choices in the matters of health care. Of these claims, false. The only downfall to our Democratic Party candidates' plans fall in a dependence still on Corporate America and a hope that they can get costs down and what not.
Does it not seem a valid argument that a candidate so aimed at "getting big business out of Washington" would be more likely to eliminate the middleman in the Corporate providers?
The concept puzzles me as well.
If the welfare-esque subsidies are to be derived from an increase in taxes on the wealthy and by other various means, would that not lay the ground work to initiate a true "universal health care" package, government run?
This plan would collect such flak from both sides. Both depend on these corporations and their charitable donations..cough cough buy-offs cough..for campaigns and whatnot.
The easiest complaint to combat would be the first one, that there is no money in the budget to finance it. If we can find billions for wars we shouldn't be in, we can surely come up with money to provide substantial care for our own people. Of the 2007 federal budget, 16% of it was for the Medicare program, that is $440 billion. The medicaid program spend roughly $295 billion. That is $800 billion dollars a year, constantly rising, that could provide some of the funding for this. Add in the money projected from said tax hikes on the wealthy and it should just about cover itself.
They would also try to convince people that taxes were to follow. Chances are that a minimal tax would be necessary to take care of our people. Instead of taking medicare and medicaid money from your check each week, the same amount would channel into the national health care program. I wouldn't project more than maybe a few percent increase in the amount withheld, if that much. But think logically about this. No more insurance cuts from your paychecks. No more co-pays because the policy you already pay too much for still sucks. No more denials. No more costly health-care driving you to the brink of or all the way to poverty. Would a 1-3% increase in the amount withheld already for medicare and medicaid combined be so bad considering the amount of good it would do the nation as a whole. I think it would be overshadowed by the idea that we could all get..and stay..healthy. That we can have our medicine provided to us, no more settling for generics or simply picking-and-choosing which prescriptions to fill for affordability reasions.
If you provided for all, the medicare and medicaid programs would become obsolete. If the elderly were free of the burden of medical costs, perhaps the depletion of the social security system could ease itself, because could it not be assumed that a healthier nation of people would be able and willing to work beyond 65, pay more in, save the benefits of the program for their later years, replenish a failing effort?
More working=more tax revenue, more tax revenue=assistance to a depleting infrastructure.
This is an all around economic and way of life stimulus package. No it doesn't come in the form of a completely unnecessary stimulus check to blind the masses to a nation filled with problems, but it comes with so much more, including increased financial stability.
No expenses on health care levels out to additional spending money to put back into a fledgling economy.
Clearly the candidates, both sides, do not want "universal health care." That is like super-gluing the lid to the cookie jar closed, cutting yourself off from the cookies. Corporate interests=money for politicians.
Beg, plead, send whatever letter to whoever you think will listen.
America needs a true, solid, iron-clad "universal health care" system. Stop settling for this vague masking of their blatant disregard for public interest in exchange for corporate ones.
We've got needs, why do we continue to vote for those who show no interest? Those who've clearly lost sight of them?