Do the health care protesters realize that they are being deliberately manipulated for corporate and political gain?

By now many of you have probably heard about the controversy over health care reform. We've been told by such illustrious public figures like former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin that it will result in "death panels" that force people to prove their worth to society to a shadowy group of government bureaucrats. Not only is this a flat out lie, it's also really stupid to believe that the government would try to forcibly euthanize portions of its population. If it was really going to do that, you wouldn't be hearing about it.

But perhaps the worst aspect of all of this are the health care reform town hall meetings that members of Congress are holding in their districts. Completely ignorant people show up to these meetings and attempt to derail debate by shouting stupid slogans like, "Just say no!" when people try to speak. Many proponents of this argue that they are just expressing their freedom of speech. Though true, they are also disrupting everyone else's right to the same thing.

Town hall meetings are an American tradition dating back to the early days of the country. It's basically how democracy works: people express their opinions, others listen even if they have a differing viewpoint. People come to a consensus based on a reasoned debate. You'd think that this tradition would be one of the values that "everyday, concerned Americans" who show up to town halls would observe, but surprisingly it isn't. This is because these people aren't simply, "everyday, concerned Americans." They are disgruntled, mostly old and white, and mostly Republican people who are being coordinated by lobbying groups and the Republican party.

That's right. These are engineered protests. Enter "FreedomWorks," a group funded by industry and run by Dick Armey. They are at the forefront of these protests, along with corporate shill groups "Patients United" and "Conservatives for Patient Rights" are all willing participants in this. Though they like to portray their groups as "people like us," to quote Rachel Maddow, they are really fronts for Washington, D.C. based industry lobbying groups and elements of the Republican party. How did this happen?

Well, let's take a ride in the wayback machine to that far away time of the 2008 election campaign. Candidate Barack Obama utilized grassroots campaigning in order to reach the base of support that he depended on. Many of these groups saw Obama as the right man for the job, so they organized and spread the message. Obama's team capitalized on these groups and set up a website to help coordinate their efforts to reach more people.

Republicans and pro-status quo people, distraught over their loss in the last election, have been frantically searching for the reason why a candidate who came out of nowhere captured the Presidency. They saw this grassroots style campaigning as a weapon that could be turned on Obama to benefit them. "I know," one of them must have thought, "why don't we find a mass of people who don't want things to change?" "But," another one might have chimed in, "people actually seem to want a change in the health care system! Early polls are showing over 70% approval about the President's idea!" The first one might have quickly responded, "Well, why don't we just make up lies about his plan and mislead the drooling masses who only listen to Fox News and conservative radio!" And thus the strategy was born!

Now we have a multitude of lies being spread by right-wing commentators on talk radio and Fox News. People hear that Obama wants to kill grandma. They hear that government bureaucrats will get behind you and your doctor. They hear that the government will ration care meaning grandma can't get her hip replacement, or that they can't get that triple bypass needed from a lifetime of poor diet. They hear cries and accusations of "Socialism" and "Fascism" and comparisons of Obama to Adolf Hitler of the Nazi Party (Hey, socialism was in their name right?). And they get mad, very mad! Who wouldn't? Why should we let that damn socialist prevent me from my health care! We can't let them kill grandma! But the sad fact of all of this is that these are all complete falsehoods.

Now with an army of angry conservatives at their beck and call, the aforementioned "astroturf" groups spread the message that all true Americans need to come to these town halls and show their congressman that they don't want Obama's Hitlercare! According to TalkingPointsMemo, emails containing the disruptive strategy were sent out to conservative mailing lists like the Tea Party protesters (we all remember those, don't we?), and even Fox News jumped into the fray by providing the locations of all the town hall meetings -- only for Democratic congressmen though. Like the Cylons of Battlestar Galactica, they have a plan.

Their plan is to utilize tactics such as, to quote TPM, "'pack the hall... spread out' to make their numbers seem more significant, and to 'rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation...to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early.... to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda...stand up and shout and sit right back down.'" Talking points were even distributed so that the angry protesters would have something to yell about. Of course, they were all deliberately misleading.

With their devious plan set, people showed up in droves to town halls all across the country. Whether or not they had real concerns, they parroted what they heard on Fox News and from Rush Limbaugh as if it were fact, disrupting the debate and allowing few people to discuss the real issues at hand. You can find many examples of this on YouTube. Conservative mouthpieces defend these practices as "just ordinary citizens using their right to free speech." That is an outright lie being fed to us as if it were the truth.

This just goes to show you what is wrong with our country today. Corporate interests, along with the Republican party are trying to subvert the process of democracy in order to promote their own gain. The insurance industry doesn't want to lose its profits, and the Republicans just want to see President Obama fail. It's never about the good of the country. It's almost as if they don't really care about the welfare of the people they are elected to serve.

Now instead of having a reasoned debate about the issues, we have a few loudmouthed people being utilized as shocktroops by the fake grassroots organizations. The sad part is that they don't even realize they're being manipulated to serve the interests of those who don't want any change because they already make bank from the status quo. It's very scary; the absolute ignorance of some people. They do no research of their own to verify if what they are told is true. They simply listen to the right wing idea machine that plays on their fears and makes them outraged over absolute and deliberate lies.

Hopefully we can look forward to a time when people will wise up and see the groups that mislead them for what they are: selfish, greedy interests that manipulate them for their own gain. For too long fear tactics have been used to scare people into voting against their own interests.

It's up to President Obama and the Democrats to do their best to combat these lies. For their part, the White House has set up a website debunking some of the common myths. This came about after the White House asked people to email them suspicious claims about the President's health care plan. The conservative media immediately branded this an absolute breach of freedom of speech, and likening it to Big Brother. These are the same people who didn't say anything when the President strong armed his Patriot Act through Congress, which is more like Big Brother than anything else because of its provisions for warantless wiretapping on American citizens. But oh no, if you spoke out against Bush and his plans you were "anti-American." The hypocrisy of a lot of these commentators is astounding. It really shows you the depths they will go to make sure we are all sufficiently afraid.

I hope people will visit the White House's website and read the truth about what they are being told, so we can actually look forward to a bill that will solve the problems of the health care system instead of promoting the status quo.

What exactly is in the products we use?

This is a question I often ask myself. As you know, much of the food we eat is either genetically modified, sprayed with a myriad of pesticides, or subject to just plain questionable practices.

I was often told by many of my friends that the Monsanto corporation was the "Great Satan" of agribusiness, because of their unfair practices regarding their operations in developing nations, and their lawsuits over GMO's. According to one particularly incensed friend of mine, a farmer can grow his own crops and mind his own business, but if he is anywhere near a Monsanto grow operation his crops can be pollinated by GMO's. This, of course, results in Monsanto filing a lawsuit and essentially divesting the farmer of his land. Fair business, indeed.

But what really scares me about Monsanto is something I read on reddit after waking up this morning. A website called Chemical Industry Archives (the article I reference here: Dirty Secrets: Anniston in Depth) blows the lid off Monsanto's innocence claims that it had no idea of the horrible toxic effects that their products containing PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) had on the human body.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they are blatantly lying. The compilers of the website have found internal Monsanto memos dating back to the late 1930's that have been detailing the toxic effects PCB's have on organics. The company knew early on their chemical could cause "systemic toxic effects," "liver damage," and a condition known as chloracne. One would think that safety would be a prime concern in the production and application of these chemicals, but surprise surprise, it wasn't really. According to one memo posted on the website, "For a time the Aroclor operators had to bathe on leaving work and a change of work clothing was provided, but this practice was decontinued." These people are criminals for knowingly endangering the health of their workers. Why don't we see any prosecutions about these crimes?

Perhaps the most egregious and disgusting thing posted on this website was that the Navy ran its own toxicity tests on the a product marketed for hydraulics, and found it to be far "too toxic for use on its submarines." Monsanto's reply? "Since the interpretation of toxicity data is quite relative, our interpretation of facts and data would not be sufficient to change their opinions." Since when has toxicity to living beings "relative"? It scares the hell out of me knowing there are people who believe this statement. Does this mean their "interpretation" of the facts are mistruths designed to mislead the average consumer?

All of this begs the bigger question of what exactly is being put in the products we use? As consumers we enjoy warning labels and lists of ingredients in food products and such, but what does it mean when a company isn't as honest about its practices as we'd like it to be? Simple answer: Terrible things can happen. Just ask the workers with cloracne, liver problems, and even the few that died! (I encourage you to read the entire linked article).

There are plenty of examples of institutions that we trust flat out lying to us about things, and they pressure or silence scientists who try to blow the lid off questionable practices. Some prominent ones include: the Bush Administration pressuring scientists about climate change (MSNBC: Bush pressure seen on climate experts), Monsanto pressuring scientists to release more favorable conclusions (above article), the poultry industry in New Zealand hindering research on the use of antibiotics in chickens (Mike the Mad Biologist: Antibiotics and Poultry). The list goes on. Is it right that we are being endangered so that people are allowed to make more money?

Monsanto's questionable practices with PCB's draws one to ask questions about their genetically modified organisms, also known to some as a less endearing term "Frankenfood." If you have been alive in the last 15 years you have probably eaten a GMO. Many of these range from plants that emit pesticides to ward off insects, or food engineered to have more of a certain type of protein. And they're in almost everything we eat!

While much of the modern research says there are little to no risks associated with GM plants, others contend the opposite. Groups like True Food Network (truefoodnow.org) and the Organic Consumers Association (organicconsumers.org) claim that little to no research has been done on the long term effects of GM food. They cite the fact that most of the studies are done by the industry itself, or scientists affiliated with the industry, and thus cannot be trusted to be completely impartial. Does anyone see the connection with this? Monsanto downplayed the toxicity of its PCB's to their consumers in their studies, and now they state their own studies proclaiming genetically modified plants are perfectly safe for human consumption.

Perhaps we need to take a deeper look at what exactly is going on with these plants. As Monsanto has proven in the past, they can't be trusted to be completely honest with their findings. There are too many examples of interests not being completely honest about the effects of their products. Unfortunately for us, research on GM crops is highly restricted due to copyright laws. According to wikipedia, the Food and Drug Administration is sent the data compiled by the producer and then analyzes that. Why can't the FDA conduct their own tests?

But at this point it is anyone's game. Either side could be right. I just think that due to documented cases of companies lying about the effects of their products, more independent research is needed.

EDIT 8:55 PM: GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans Just found this on reddit. Yep, independent research is explicitly forbidden on GMO seeds. Therefore, we don't know for sure whether these products have terrible long term effects on living organisms or the environment. All we know is what the corporations tell us. I feel so much safer!

Why are specialized interests in this country fighting to keep our broken health care system as is?

I've had it with all of the misinformation surrounding health care. I don't claim to be an expert on it by any means, but I sure as hell think I know a bit more about it than the average yokel in this country. As I see it, for-profit health insurance is something that can only make money when people are not sick. Thus, it stands to reason that as a for-profit business, it is within many of these companies' interest to cut these costs to maintain profitability. This is exactly what happens in this country.

The cost of health care has steadily risen over the past 8 years while care has not changed at all, or has actually decreased. So we are now paying more for much less. This definitely sounds like the situation the University of California is facing, where fees are rising and quality of education is decreasing! And to the insurance companies, this is exactly how it should be! I read Wendell Potter's testimony to the Senate recently--he is a former health insurance industry executive--and was extremely appalled at what I saw. Instead of their mission being to provide care for those who pay for their service, insurance companies instead sought to drop customers who they saw as a problem--ones with preexisting conditions, or ones who got a serious illness. People who paid for this service saw their rates rise to unaffordable prices, all so they would eventually leave the service, and thus stop filing claims. This results in more money for the insurance companies to line their pockets with.

The problem with our health insurance system in this country is that companies are more concerned with their medical-loss ratio, the money it pays out to clients, than with the overall health of their customers. This goes back to the profit motive. The interesting reason being that, according to Wendell Potter, these companies were concerned with their stock prices. Wall Street firms would lower their stock prices if they did not find a way to maintain their profitability by decreasing their medical loss ratio. Doesn't the fact that Wall Street bankers are essentially controlling the insurance firms through these bullshit incentives scare you at all?

Many people are not scared because they buy into the bullshit lies the insurance companies feed them through advertising. People are told that a public option would be tantamount to the government getting between them and their doctor. People are told that "socialized medicine" in other countries is a disaster and people end up waiting terribly long to get life saving procedures done. The problem with all of this is that it's misinformation! What the insurance companies won't tell you in their advertising is that in the current system the insurance companies get between you and your doctor. Anyone who has had health insurance before knows what I'm talking about. You can only go to certain hospitals, see certain doctors, or else they will not reimburse you at all. And it's somehow better this way? It's better that a private entity accountable to no one can say where you can and can't go for treatment than the government--a publicly accountable entity? This all goes back to the Reagan-era where people were led to believe that government is terrible and ineffective and shouldn't be trusted. Do you ever wonder why this thinking came about? The Reagan tax cuts were specifically designed to cripple the government's ability to do things, thus lending proof to the credo that many conservatives love to spout.

The whole idea that government is ineffective and unable to handle a public health care option is wrong. If this were true, then why is the system of France so effective? France has the widely acknowledged best health care system in the world. The overall cost to the government is $3300, whereas the US pays over $6400 per person for an even WORSE system. The French system, according to NPR (read: NPR: Health Care Lessons from France) is a combination of private and public insurance, much like the original plan that Obama wanted. Instead of this being a disaster, like the American insurance industry would like you to believe, the people of France are very happy with their health care system. And it certainly is not the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy like it is here. I am not saying that the French system is not without flaws--nothing is perfect--however, how is it possible that our system costs nearly double what theirs does and we get significantly less?

The fact is that our system is broken. Insurance companies are lobbying for more of the same, broken, bulky system that allows them to continue siphoning more and more of our incomes away from us. Whether or not the government plan will be effective, there needs to be SOME action taken. If the insurance companies get their way, you and I will continue paying exorbitant amounts for insurance that doesn't even cover everything. If by some miracle politicians actually listen to the people of this country, perhaps we will see some sort of option that is more affordable for everyone. The only people who are satisfied with how health care is are the people who can afford it--the wealthy. Don't get the idea that I'm some wealth-hating communist, but policy in this country seems to be geared toward pleasing the wealthy in this country rather than pleasing everyone else. Why is it that the top 1% in this country account for 1/3 of all pay in the nation? Why is it that these same people are the ones who loudly complain about "socialist" programs like public health care? Isn't it time that we looked at our own finances and began to question the reasoning behind the things we are told?

Call me an idealist, but I believe that in a first world country (forgive the cold war terminology), our government should be responsible for providing some services. That's not to say there is no room for private competition--indeed the private sector is the very essence of capitalism--but what we have now is not a truly free competitive market. Insurance companies are free to raise their fees as much as they please to line their own pockets, leaving millions of Americans unable to pay for the most basic care. Why don't we have an honest debate where we can create a system where private companies exist alongside the public option, so those who can afford it can go for whatever insurance they want, but allow those who cannot afford good health care a chance to receive good quality care. Social equality is one of the basic pillars this country was founded upon. Isn't it about time we brought equality to health care? And to those concerned about the overall cost: $1 trillion to health care over ten years is not okay, but bailing out financial firms to the tune of $1 trillion who knowingly got themselves into a gigantic mess and caused a global crisis within the course of a year is okay? Okay for whom--the people, or the bankers?

I leave you with something I saw on reddit.com recently. I contend both of us support public services. If you support a public police department, a public fire department and public education, then you will understand why I support a public health care option.