Discussing Liberally Salt Lake City

.
The original title of this proposal when it was posted on 31 December 2007 was “‘Face The Nation’ – NYC Mayor Bloomberg for President” (the original proposal had received 365 “views” by Mar 2nd when it was morphed to encompass Ralph Nader’s announcement).

The original proposal had been based on Mayor Bloomberg’s well-publicized plans to run for President in 2008 with mega-spending from his own personal fortune that would have dwarfed that of both major-party candidates combined.

It had been widely reported that his running would be a “slam dunk” if the major-party nominees would be the two front-runners as recently as late December – Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton – which Bloomberg believed would have left 40% “dis-enfranchised” independent voters in the middle allowing him to win.

Since it had also been widely reported that Bloomberg was not interested in running unless he thought he could win, I suspended my suggestion vis-à-vis consideration of this proposal for the Feb 14th selection of the topic for the Mar 13th meeting.

This past week (Feb. 24 – 29) has seen two major events vis-à-vis third-party candidates: (1) the announcement by Mayor Bloomberg that he will NOT run for President in 2008, and (2) the announcement of Consumer-Advocate Ralph Nader on “Meet the Press” last Sunday that he WILL.

It should be noted that many liberals blame Ralph Nader for the election of George Bush over Al Gore in 2000 – when Al Gore received 48.4007% of the popular vote to 47.8878% for George Bush. Ralph Nader received 2.7113% and “Others” received 0.9982%. (NB: the Presidency is actually decided by the Electoral College vote, but Nader’s slim popular vote tipped the balance vis-à-vis enough EC votes to affect the outcome.)

The 2008 Presidential race will narrow considerably before election day. Two reasons for my prediction =

First, as noted in the “Suggested Answers to the Quiz for Mar 13th” the 2008 Presidential race is likely to be dominated by headlines/news regarding the Military Tribunal of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and our nominee will be busy with effectively defending KSM – including defending the nominee’s position (Barack and Hillary agree) of refusing to “water board” the likes of KSM under any circumstances despite the long-standing decision of the World Court in litigation between the I.R.A. and Britain that “water boarding” is NOT torture and defending his/her position that the law permitting wire-tapping of conversations between the likes of KSM and his operatives in the U.S. should NOT be renewed (it recently expired) – against the background of Osama bin Laden’s fatwa to nuke 10 million Americans and the belief of Sen Fgn Rel Chair and recent Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, his two predecessors (Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sam Nunn (D-GA)) and the Chair and Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton) that American cities will be destroyed by terrorist nuclear blasts in the near future.

Second, no Democratic Presidential Candidate since 1964 has garnered more than 50.0811% of the popular vote – Clinton/1996 = 49.2351% (Perot had 8.3980%); Clinton/1992 = 43.0072% (Perot had 18.9074%); and Carter/1976 = 50.0811%. (As noted above, Gore/2000 = 48.4007% .)

As the race tightens and perhaps even (heaven help us) begins to tilt, it might be worthwhile to study what makes Ralph run – why he and so many voters are enraged after voting for “change” for the last 40 years only to see “change” sabotaged by the “campaign contributions” (bribes) of key Senators and Congresspersons (please see the materials on the bulletin board for Feb 14th on the topic of "The Best Gov Money Can Buy - Bribery and Extortion").

And why Nader believes that neither Obama nor Clinton is even proposing “change”!!!

We may laugh at Nader, but we shouldn’t underestimate the rage of the voters and how many of them might protest “more of the same” by voting for Nader.

I will post shortly at the end of this section the transcript from “Meet the Press” on Feb 24 containing Nader’s announcement of his candidacy and Tim Russert’s interview of him concerning his reasons for running.

*********************************************************
The original 31 December 2007 Proposal = “‘Face The Nation’ – NYC Mayor Bloomberg for President”

Yesterday (Dec. 30), Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation” all but predicted that NYC Mike Bloomberg will shortly become an independent candidate for President in 2008 (please see the transcript of Bob Schieffer’s comments below).

As my fourth suggestion for Feb. 14th, we might study the potential benefits of a Bloomberg Presidency.

After all, despite criticizing Hillary Clinton for accepting campaign contributions from special interests, Barack Obama and John Edwards have virtually the same proposals as Hillary – most notably all three basing their health-care proposals on requiring health insurance companies to offer insurance to the 47 million uninsured and then arguing with each other about whether people would actually buy the insurance (Barack Obama defends himself from attacks by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton on the grounds that his plan does not even include a “mandate” requiring today’s 47 million uninsured to buy the insurance by pointing out that the “mandates” that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have proposed requiring the 47 million uninsured to buy the insurance will be no more effective than the “mandates” of most states that all drivers buy auto insurance!!!)!!!

So why should we believe any of them would actually do anything about our Apartheid educational system (our topic last Nov. 8th) , or about moving to a nuclear/hydrogen economy to solve global warming and provide energy independence (our topic last Oct. 11th) – if they can’t even propose a decent solution to universal health care (our topic last Aug. 2nd) when, among other things, we saw documented in Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” that (A) the big problem with health insurance companies that Clinton/Obama/Edwards insist on using as the centerpiece of their proposals is that the business they really seem to be in is the business of disallowing claims, and (B) a life-and-death problem with multiple insurers was illustrated by the case of the mother whose child WAS TAKEN TO THE WRONG HOSPITAL BY THE AMBULANCE AND HER CHILD DIED BEFORE THEY COULD THEN REACH THE HOSPITAL THAT WOULD ACCEPT THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE!!!

The obvious advantage of an independent candidate who is wealthy enough to finance his own campaigns, as Bloomberg did for NYC Mayor and has expressed an eagerness to do for President, is that the independent candidate can actually do what the people want since s/he will not be a puppet beholden to campaign contributors!!!

*****
Background Facts

When Mike Bloomberg ended his brief membership in the Republican Party last summer (he was a life-long Democratic who ran for NYC Mayor as a Republican), he was lionized in the national media as the first person in modern U.S. history who could be elected President as an independent candidate.

Three salient points in the media feasting =

FIRST, as a multi-multi-billionaire who financed his own campaign for NYC Mayor, he has made no secret of the fact that he would like to be President and would not hesitate to spend as much of his fortune as necessary to finance his own campaign.

SECOND, since he financed his own campaigns for NYC mayor, he was not beholden to any special interest groups because he had accepted their campaign contributions. As a successful businessperson, he quickly achieved a reputation as a “problem solver” as NYC Mayor and achieved overwhelming re-election as the Republican candidate in an overwhelmingly Democratic city.

THIRD, since he would be willing to finance his own campaign for President, he could do the same thing on a national level.

*****
20th Century Independent Candidates –

During every Presidential election, there are always a dozen or more minor candidates that nobody notices.

There were probably only four independent candidates of any significance –

(1) Alabama Governor George Wallace, though only because he was a notorious segregationist who generated a lot of publicity. Although he garnered a significant percentage of the popular vote in several of his Presidential campaigns, they had no effect on the outcomes.

(2) Former President Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1909) who was dissatisfied with the performance of his hand-picked successor Pres. William Howard Taft (1909-1913). Accordingly, Roosevelt ran as in independent in 1912 as head of the so-called “Bull Moose Party.” Roosevelt only succeeded in splitting the Republican vote, permitting former Princeton U President Woodrow Wilson to slip in with only 41.8% of the vote. (Trivia Item – William Howard Taft later served as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court).

(3) Businessperson Ross Perot split the Republican vote in 1992, capturing 18.9% of the popular vote thereby allowing Bill Clinton to slip in with 43.0%.

(4) Consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s final run for the Presidency in 2000 was discouraged by most national Democratic Party leaders on the grounds that it would only defeat Al Gore. Nader insisted on the grounds that Gore was not addressing important issues. Nader received 2.71% of the popular vote while Gore had a 48.40% plurality but lost the Electoral-College vote.



**************************************************
CBS “Face the Nation” transcript – December 30, 2007

Bob Schieffer –

Finally today, we’ll all be watching Iowa and New Hampshire in the next couple of weeks but here is a tip.

January 7th, check out what happens at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. Former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren have invited a bi-partisan group of senators, governors and party leaders to stop what they call “partisan polarization” that they feel is eroding America’s power and place in the world.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will be there, which prompts the obvious question: “Is this the kick-off for a Bloomberg campaign to run for President as an independent???”

The organizers tell me “no” but the group they’ve assembled would make a fine “brain trust” for any candidate and they are not happy with either party.

Those expected to attend include Republicans Bill Brock, Bill Cohen, Jack Danforth, Chuck Hagel, Jim Leach, Christie Todd Whitman and Susan Eisenhower.

Joining Boren and Nunn are fellow Democrats Alan Dixon, Bob Graham, Gary Hart, Edward Perkins and Chuck Rollins.

To quote Nunn and Boren: “The country faces a gathering storm of challenges at home and abroad that are not being met, or even discussed in a serious way by either party. Unless the next President is able to form a government with the best people regardless of party,” they believe, “the national consensus needed to resolve the nation’s problems will be virtually impossible.”

On January 7th, the day before the New Hampshire primary, most of the attention will be focused there, but another story may be just beginning in Norman, Oklahoma.

That’s our broadcast, we hope you’ll join us next week when we sit down in New Hampshire with Senator John McCain. See you then.”

*******************
Editorial Notes:

David Boren – President of the U/Oklahoma 1994-present, Democratic U.S. Senator (OK) 1979-94, Governor of Oklahoma 1975-79. IN JUNE 2007, ROBERT NOVAK REPORTED THAT BOREN HAD MET WITH BLOOMBERG TO DISCUSS RUNING FOR PRESIDENT AS AN INDEPENDENT JUST AFTER BLOOMBERG HAD ENDED HIS BRIEF/TEMPORARY MEMBERSHIP IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (HE HAD BEEN A LIFE-LONG DEMOCRAT)

Sam Nunn – Democratic U.S. Senator (GA) 1972-97 where he chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Co-Chairs with Richard Lugar (Nunn’s Republican successor as Sen Fgn Rel Chair) the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which finances the destruction of Soviet nuclear warheads (over 6,000 and counting). ON AUGUST 3, 2007, NUNN ANNOUNCED THAT HE HAD HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH BLOOMBERG ABOUT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

*****

Bill Brock – Republican U.S. Senator (TN) 1971-77, Pres. Reagan’s US Trade Representative 1981-85 and Secretary of Labor 1985-87, Chairman of the Republican National Committee 1977-81.

William Cohen – Republican U.S. Senator (ME) 1979-97, Pres. Clinton’s Secretary of Defense 1997-2001.

Jack Danforth – Republican U.S. Senator (MO) 1976-95, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 2004-5.

Chuck Hagel – Republican U.S. Senator (NB) 1997-present (not running for re-election in 2008), frequent and most vociferous Senate Republican critic of the Iraq War.

Jim Leach – Republican Congressman (IA) 1977-2007, currently the John L. Weinberg Visiting Prof. at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and incoming Interim Director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Christie Todd Whitman – Republican Governor of NJ 1994-2001, Head of the Environmental Protection Agency 2001-2003.

Susan Eisenhower – Ike’s granddaughter, a Resident Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Founder & Chair of the Center for Political and Strategic Studies (a Washington DC “think tank”), President of Eisenhower Group Inc. (a consulting company providing political and economic risk analysis to Fortune 500 companies), frequent author and expert on Russia and European Security.

*****

Alan Dixon – Democratic U.S. Senator (IL) 1981-93.

Bob Graham – Democratic Presidential Candidate 2004, U.S. Senator (FL) 1987-2005, Governor of Florida 1979-87.

Gary Hart – Democratic Presidential Candidate 1984 & 1988 (when he was the front-runner before challenging the press corps to investigate rumors of his sexual escapades if they didn’t believe his denials (a risky strategy since the rumors turned out to be true) – making the theretofore private sex lives of politicians (think Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc.) “fair game” for public reporting), Democratic U.S. Senator (CO) 1975-87.

Ed Perkins – Career Diplomat since 1967, served as President Clinton’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Chuck Rollins – I have no idea who he is (perhaps I misunderstood Bob Schieffer’s pronunciation when transcribing this name for the transcript above -- he may have meant Jack Rollins who is a well-known liberal blogger).

I’ve been wrestling for four days (it is now Thurs evening, Jan 3rd) with the issue of whether to say anything regarding Barack Obama’s most recent stance with respect to his refusal to include in his health-care proposal a “mandate” that everyone purchase the health-care insurance that would be provided under his proposal.

The reason for wrestling is that Obama’s most recent stance is a relatively minor point with respect to the foregoing proposal of studying the benefits of an independent candidacy of Michael Bloomberg.

However, after thinking “long and hard” about whether to include any comments, it became obvious that the issue of Barack Obama’s naïveté or disingenuousness or lack of comprehension on such an important issue as whether his health-care proposal would be universal as he continues to assert – does speak to the issue of whether we need an independent candidate who will understand the problem and will not duck it.

As can be seen from the official “Meet the Press” transcript from last Sunday (Dec. 30), Tim Russert asks Barack Obama “in terms of candor” how he can be running a campaign ad in Iowa that claims his health-care proposal “covers everyone” when there is no “mandate” that everyone purchase the health-care insurance that would be available under his proposal.

Although Barack Obama had been under attack on this point for an extended period, he still flailed around on Sunday morning while providing no realistic answer, saying (as can be seen from the transcript below) –

“…My belief is that the real problem is people can't afford healthcare, and that if we could make it affordable, they will purchase it… If it turns out that there are still people left over who are not purchasing healthcare, one way of avoiding them waiting till they get sick is to charge a penalty if they try to sign up later so that they have an incentive to sign up immediately… what happens then is we are not going around trying to fine people who can't afford healthcare, and that's what's happening in Massachusetts right now. They've already had to exempt 20 percent of the uninsured, and you're reading stories about people who didn't have healthcare, still can't afford the premiums on the subsidized healthcare, but now are also paying a fine. That I don't think is providing a relief to the American people. We need to make health care affordable…”

As a viewer of “Meet the Press” since long before Tim Russert took over the program, I have never seen Russert “pull his punches” as he did by not pinning down Barack Obama on this point. Presumably out of pity that Barack Obama would further embarrass himself.

After all, Barack Obama’s first argument is a naïve assertion that everyone will buy the health insurance without a “mandate”!!! Even though he had been defending himself against attacks from Clinton and Edwards that his failure to include a “mandate” meant coverage would NOT be universal by arguing that the reason for his failure to include a mandate is that mandates by the states for drivers to purchase auto insurance had NOT been very effective so the Clinton and Edwards proposals would NOT be universal either!!!

Then Barack Obama appears to contradict himself again by saying (as quoted above): “…one way of avoiding them waiting till they get sick (to purchase health insurance) is to charge a penalty if they try to sign up later”!!!

Why is he only appearing to contradict himself???

Because he doesn’t say whether he would impose such fines!!! Appearing to back off quickly when Russert called the fines a “quasi-mandate.”

At that point, a jumble of words spilled out of Barack Obama’s mouth which didn’t explain what he is going to do about people who do not purchase his health insurance.

Is he going to impose fines??? Or is he not going to impose fines??? Or is there yet some other “rabbit” lurking in his hat???

Since Barack Obama has not inkled that there may be another “rabbit” lurking in his hat, it is interesting to examine his quandary over whether or not to impose fines in terms of “Elementary Game Theory” which is universally employed by experts in such situations.

If no fine is imposed, then everyone that Barack Obama is naively hoping will purchase his proposed health insurance will refrain from doing so until they need it. A “rough cut” analysis of how much such health “insurance” would cost if nobody purchases it until it is needed would mean that its initial premium would equal the average cost of the first illness that finally prompts each citizen to purchase that “insurance.”

This would mean that if an individual encounters an illness that costs less the average cost of the first illness that finally prompts others to purchase the “insurance” then it would make more sense for that individual to simply pay the smaller cost of her/his illness and wait for an illness whose cost does exceed the average cost of the first illness that finally prompts others to purchase the “insurance.”

Unless there is a government subsidy to anchor this whole “insurance” scheme, it can readily be seen that no such insurance, in theory, will ever be purchased unless some poor chump “starts the ball rolling” by being the first to make the irrational decision to purchase the “insurance” at a price that exceeds the cost of her/his illness (in order to cover insurance-company administrative expenses and profit as well as the cost of the illness)!!!

And once such a chump appears, the cost of the “insurance” will rapidly escalate because nobody whose first illness costs less than that amount will purchase it (choosing instead to simply pay the smaller cost of the illness). Obviously, purchases of such “insurance” by only those whose first illness exceeds the cost of that “insurance” will mean the price of such “insurance” will rapidly escalate to cover the claims, all of which exceed that price.

And this does not even consider how the fines would “dig a hole” that is much deeper in terms of “game theory”!!!

No wonder Tim Russert let poor Barack Obama “off the hook” before he embarrassed himself further.

At least Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are smart and honest enough to admit that a “mandate” is required, and then to grapple with Obama’s original criticism that “mandates” to purchase health insurance will probably be no more effective than have been the “mandates” of the various states to purchase auto insurance.

Though now we have “warped around” to the original subject – whether there is needed an independent candidate who will scrap the whole idea of involving the insurance industry because of their so-called “campaign contributions” and, instead, provide truly universal health care.


******************************************************************************
Meet the Press Transcript – 30 Dec 2007 – Excerpt comprising the last half of page 5, the last page of the Official Transcript


MR. RUSSERT: In terms of candor, you're running a political ad in Iowa and elsewhere about healthcare. And this is what the ad says. Here's the Obama ad. Let's watch.

(Videotape)

SEN. OBAMA: I've got a plan to cut costs and cover everyone.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Cover everyone." Every analysis of your healthcare plan says there are 15 million Americans who would not be automatically covered because you don't call for a mandate.

SEN. OBAMA: But, but, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me just give you a chance to respond. Ron Brownstein, who's objective on this, wrote this for the National Journal, and then we'll come back and talk about it. He says this: "Obama faces his own contortions. He commendably calls for building a broad healthcare consensus that includes the insurance industry. But in the states, the individual mandate has been critical in persuading insurers to accept reform, including the requirement" "they no longer reject applicants with pre-existing health problems. If such a requirement isn't tied to a mandate, insurers correctly note, the uninsured can wait until they are sick to buy coverage, which" would "inflate costs for everyone else. By seeking guaranteed access without an individual mandate, Obama is virtually ensuring war with the insurance companies that he's pledged to engage."

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, here's the philosophical debate that's going on. First of all, every objective observer says Edwards, Clinton, myself, we basically have the same plan. We do have a philosophical difference. They both believe the problem is the government is not forcing adults to get healthcare. My belief is that the real problem is people can't afford healthcare, and that if we could make it affordable, they will purchase it. Now, they assert that there're going to be all these people left out who are avoiding buying healthcare. My attitude is, we are going to make sure that we reduce costs for families who don't have health care, but also people who do have healthcare and are desperately needing some price relief. And we are going to reduce costs by about $2500 per family. If it turns out that there are still people left over who are not purchasing healthcare, one way of avoiding them waiting till they get sick is to charge a penalty if they try to sign up later so that they have an incentive to sign up immediately.

MR. RUSSERT: Which is a quasi-mandate.

SEN. OBAMA: But--well, no, it's not a quasi-mandate because what happens then is we are not going around trying to fine people who can't afford healthcare, and that's what's happening in Massachusetts right now. They've already had to exempt 20 percent of the uninsured, and you're reading stories about people who didn't have healthcare, still can't afford the premiums on the subsidized healthcare, but now are also paying a fine. That I don't think is providing a relief to the American people. We need to make health care affordable. That's what my plan does. And The Washington Post itself said, for the Clinton campaign to try to find an individual who wanted healthcare and could not get it under the Obama administration would be very difficult because that person probably does not exist. If you want healthcare under my plan, you will be able to get it, it will be affordable, and it will be of the high quality.

MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, you related a conversation that you had with your wife, Michelle, that if you didn't run--win this time for president, you wouldn't run again.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, no, what my wife said is, "We're not doing this again." And...

MR. RUSSERT: Is she right?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the point she was making, I think, was an interesting one, which is, she said, one of the things that we bring to this race is we're not that far away from normal. You know, it wasn't that long ago that we were living in a small condo and it was getting too small for our kids, that we were trying to figure out how to save money for our children's college education and paying off student loans. That, I think, gives us some insight into what ordinary Americans are going through right now. Eight years from now, she isn't so sure that we won't be in a different orbit, and we won't have that same feeling for what people are going through.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you don't win this time, would you run again?

SEN. OBAMA: Oh, Tim, we haven't even cast the--we haven't even had the first caucus in Iowa.

MR. RUSSERT: Keeping that door open, huh?

SEN. OBAMA: I, I intend to win this time, that's why I'm running.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, thanks very much for joining us and sharing your views.

SEN. OBAMA: Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: And we'll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: Continuing coverage from Iowa all week on MSNBC, the "Today" show and "NBC Nightly News." We'll be back live next week from New Hampshire, two days before the New Hampshire primary. New Year's Day, watch those Buffalo Sabres, world's largest outdoor hockey game, on here on NBC. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS. Happy new year, everyone, and thanks to our friends here at WHO in Iowa.

Since I “bit the bullet” and commented on Barack Obama’s refusal to include in his health-care plan a “mandate” that all of the 47 million uninsured purchase the health-care insurance that will be offered, it appears necessary to provide a few additional comments on the devastating “elementary game theory” implications of this failure.

From a reading of Barack Obama’s current proposal, including both the description from his official web site that appears below and from the actual text of the proposal which can be accessed via the link at the end of the description (but is not reproduced below for the sake of brevity), economies would come from several sources:

FIRST, he would reverse the Bush Administration policy of saddling Americans with 100% of research & development expenditures, which is reflected in permitting drug companies to sell outside the U.S. at reduced prices that do not include a research cost element. Barack Obama would permit Americans to obtain their drugs abroad (think purchasing via the internet) whenever drug companies attempt to discount elsewhere. (Interesting Question – to the extent that drugs are made available to poor countries at reduced prices that do not reflect research costs, does Barack Obama appreciate the full implications of this elimination of “foreign aid for poor countries” that this policy represents, or would he sort out the countries and have a list of countries from which Americans would be permitted to purchase drugs???)

SECOND, he would reduce the costs associated with health care (hospitals, doctors, etc.), in effect claiming that his experts are better than the existing insurance-company experts in reducing or controlling such costs. However, when it comes to imposing a national requirement that hospital and physician records be computerized and that they be computerized in a uniform manner, he does have a point that the federal government can impose such a law while the insurance companies would be prevented by anti-trust law from colluding with each other to impose such a requirement.

THIRD, he would reduce the administrative costs and profits of health-insurance companies by increased competition.

*****

In terms of the “elementary game theory” analysis set forth in the preceding posting, the first two items will have no impact because those cost reductions will benefit both the insured and the uninsured. Leaving intact the “elementary game theory” problems of nobody purchasing the health insurance until an illness is encountered whose cost exceeds the premium – and the quickly sky-rocketing premium level as the insurance is purchased only when illnesses are encountered whose cost exceeds the premium.

The third item would also have no impact on the “elementary game theory” analysis despite the fact that it does reduce a cost for individuals opting for coverage at the outset, but has no cost-savings for individuals correctly opting to wait to purchase coverage until an illness is encountered whose cost exceeds the premium.

This probably explains why both Tim Russert and Barack Obama “stepped back from the brink” and Russert let Barack Obama “off the hook.”

Because the only way out of the problem (unless one “assumes it away” by assuming massive ignorance or stupidity on the part of the public) is to provide a massive subsidy.

Indeed, that is what is done in the Medicare Program for which “senior citizens” are charged premiums approaching $2 thousand/year/person for non-drug medical expenses (and premiums of approx. $600/year/person for drug expenses). These expenses greatly exceed the premiums with the difference funded from current social security & medicare taxes (aka “self-employment tax” in the case of business owners) – since the social security (and medicare) taxes have been used since social security was enacted under Franklin Roosevelt to subsidize current benefits rather than fund the future benefits of the current workers paying the taxes (WITH THE CURRENT EXCESS OF SUCH TAXES OVER CURRENT BENEFITS USED TO REDUCE THE GENERAL DEFICIT RATHER THAN BEING INVESTED IN A CONVENTIONAL-STYLE PENSION PLAN – THE POLS CALL THE CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF EXCESS SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES THE “SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND” BECAUSE THEY HAVE ISSUED TO THEMSELVES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE CUMULATIVE EXCESS – BUT THIS IS A MERE “FIG LEAF” BECAUSE ISSUING TO YOURSELF YOUR OWN I.O.U.’s IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, A REAL “TRUST FUND”!!!).

In the mass of words Barack Obama utters after Tim Russert lets him “off the hook” on whether he would impose fines for failure to purchase the insurance, Barack Obama admits that under Massachusetts’ “universal” plan, 20% of the uninsured had to be exempted and there are still many citizens who cannot afford the premiums and are being fined!!! And he opines that exempting 20% is unacceptable and imposing fines on even more citizens is not “universal” coverage.

So what is the magnitude of the “elephant in the room” that Barack Obama does NOT want to discuss??? The amount of the governmental subsidy that would be required to make his plan work!!!

One can only guess.

But let’s, for the fun of it, make some educated guesses.

The text of Barack Obama’s own health care plan begins with the statement: “The U.S. spends over $2 trillion on medical care every year…”

The 47 million uninsured are 15.61% of the total U.S. population estimated by the C.I.A. as 301 million as of last July (https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... nt/us.html - Google’s number 1 item for searching “U.S. population”).

If more than $2 trillion/year is spent on 301 million Americans, then on a pro-rata basis more than $312 billion/year is the share of the 47 million uninsured.

Which means that covering nationally the 20% that had to be exempted in Massachusetts would “ball park” at $62.4 billion/year, PLUS AN UNDISCLOSED ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR THE ADDITIONAL NATIONAL CITIZENRY THAT BARACK OBAMA ADMITS IS BEING FINED ON THE MASSACHUSETTS LEVEL.

THOUGH THIS IGNORES THE “ELEMENTARY GAME THEORY” PRINCIPLE THAT IF BARACK OBAMA FAILS TO EVEN IMPOSE ANY FINES, THE OTHER 80% OF THE 47 MILLION UNINSURED WILL MAKE THE RATIONAL DECISION TO REFUSE TO PURCHASE MEDICAL INSURANCE UNTIL THEY ENCOUNTER AN ILLNESS THAT EXCEEDS THE PROHIBITIVELY-HIGH COST OF THE INSURANCE.

UNLESS, OF COURSE, BARACK OBAMA SUBSIDIZES THAT COST BY PAYING MUCH IF NOT VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE $312 BILLION/YEAR OF HEALTH-CARE COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE 47 MILLION UNINSURED.

AND THIS DOES NOT EVEN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE POLITICAL PRESSURE (THINK “CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS”) AS EMPLOYERS TRY TO SHIFT THE REMAINDER OF THE “MORE THAN $2 TRILLION/YEAR” OF MEDICAL COSTS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Perhaps Tim Russert and Barack Obama are smarter than I give them credit for, because they may indeed see this coming and don’t want to alarm us. But wouldn’t it be nicer if they treated us with some respect that we are also smart enough that we don’t have to be tricked into a process that will ultimately result in universal health care??? And, if they trusted us and we made the right decision, could be achieved much sooner with much less silliness!!!

Though I doubt that Tim Russert and Barack Obama deserve such credit. After all, if Barack Obama achieves the nomination, all of the above will come out anyway in the course of the general election campaign between him and the Republican candidate (and, perhaps, Michael Bloomberg). When that happens, Democrats will be saddled with a candidate who looks foolish despite the fact that he might have thought he was being smart.


************************************************************************
From “www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/” as of January 4, 2008
PLAN FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA

“We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, May 29, 2007

At a Glance

· Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All

· Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System

· Fight for New Initiatives

Speak your mind and help set the policies that will guide this campaign and change the country.

· Present your ideas

· Discuss with others

The Problem

Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans — including nearly 9 million children — lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.

Health care costs are skyrocketing: : Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.

Too little is spent on prevention and public health: The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.

Barack Obama's Plan

QUALITY, AFFORDABLE AND PORTABLE COVERAGE FOR ALL

A. Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

A-1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

A-2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.


A-3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

A-4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.


A-5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.

A-6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.


A-7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.

A-8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

B. National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

C. Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

D. Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.

E. Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.

F. Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.
LOWER COSTS BY MODERNIZING THE U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
A. Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.

B. Helping Patients:

B-1 Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.

B-2. Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.

B-3. Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.

C. Ensuring Providers Deliver Quality Care:

C-1. Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.

C-2. Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHBP will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on outcome measures.

C-3. Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.

C-4. Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.

C-5. Reform medical malpractice. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.

D. Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.

E. Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.

E-1. Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.

E-2. Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.

FIGHT FOR NEW INITIATIVES

A. Advance the Biomedical Research Field: As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.

B. Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.

C-1. Support Americans with Disabilities: As a former civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.

C-2. Barack Obama is also committed to ensuring that disabled Americans receive Medicaid and Medicare benefits in a low-cost, effective and timely manner. Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare, Obama worked with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the department of health and human services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.

D. Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.

E. Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.

F. Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.

G-1. Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

G-2. More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.

Barack Obama's Record

A. Health Insurance: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.

B. Women's Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT BARACK'S PLAN

Read the Plan (pdf link)
Read the Frequently-Asked Q and A (pdf link)
Read the Speech (pdf link)

.
Just an update on Bloomberg’s potential candidacy from “Meet the Press” last Sunday. The following is Page 5 of the “Meet the Press” transcript featuring –

Tim Russert – “Meet the Press” Moderator
Tom Brokaw – NBC News
Doris Kearns Goodwin – Presidential Historian
Jon Meacham – Editor of Newsweek Magazine
Peggy Noonan – Wall St. Journal Columnist
Michele Norris – NPR’s “All Things Considered” Hostess

MR. RUSSERT: Now, we are in New York, and so we have to talk about the mayor of New York. This was Michael Bloomberg yesterday in Texas with one Lance Armstrong, who's thinking about a political future. And where did Bloomberg then go? California, with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California. Those who talk to Mike Bloomberg tell me that if it was a Huckabee-Clinton race, it would be "enticing" because he would see a broad center. He, he...

MR. MEACHAM: (Unintelligible).

MR. RUSSERT: He doesn't want to be a spoiler, he doesn't want to be Ross Perot and get 19 percent of the vote. He wants to find a way to get 38 to 40 percent of the popular vote, which would translate into 271 electoral votes. And he would run on the issue of competence, that he can take on controversial issues like gun control, immigration, tell the truth. Jon Meacham, you've talked to him.

MR. MEACHAM: I have. Kevin Sheekey, his Mark Hanna, thinks that 19 percent that Perot got is the floor, not the ceiling. My personal view is that if the right nominees were in place, which in his view would be the wrong nominees, is that his daughters would have to handcuff him to the hot water heater in the basement to keep him from running.

MR. RUSSERT: Who would they be, the nominees?

MR. MEACHAM: I think Clinton-Giuliani means that Bloomberg--you wouldn't want to be between Bloomberg and the microphone if those two emerge as the nominee.

MR. RUSSERT: An all-New York race.

MR. MEACHAM: An all-New York race. He told us a couple months ago that he would spend a billion dollars, again, something we haven't even contemplated, to pay per ballot access. You'll notice he lunched last week with a ballot access person in Texas. That is something to keep a very close eye on.

MS. NORRIS: He also had that high profile lunch with Barack Obama. Is his decision Clinton centric?

MR. MEACHAM: He has a lot of high profile lunches. And...

MS. NORRIS: So I shouldn't read too much into that.

MR. MEACHAM: ...the day--the day he left the Republican Party, he lunched with Nancy Reagan. So this is a very smart man.

MR. RUSSERT: In our history, can independents really win the Electoral College?

MS. GOODWIN: I mean, I think there's always this hope that that's going to happen, and never stronger than Teddy Roosevelt. I mean, when he ran on Progressive Party against his old buddy Taft, and against Woodrow Wilson, he got a large percentage of the vote. He won the primaries--interestingly, that's when primaries started. You know, before that time the bosses and the delegates are being picked by the state legislatures and by the people that are in power. And he had the first set of direct primaries, he did very well. But even then it was impossible to break the hold of the Republican Party. If Teddy Roosevelt, hugely popular, having once been president, having the ideas at that time that mattered, couldn't break through against Taft, I think it's really hard.

MR. BROKAW: The other thing is, about Teddy Roosevelt, is he was a national figure, and Mike Bloomberg...

MS. GOODWIN: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MR. BROKAW: ...gets a lot of attention, but he gets it at both ends of the country, primarily. I mean, a lot of this election is going to be in the Rocky Mountain West, in Colorado and Arizona and Nevada and Montana and Wyoming, where he is little or not known at all. I mean, he has been a great mayor, there's no question about that. He not only has the hunger, but he has the ATM card at the ready, you know, he can put it and it punches out. But this is, this is a steep climb. But this has been an odd year. I--let me just say one other thing if I can, Tim, about the landscape at the moment. A couple senior Republicans said to me recently they're astonished that no one really has a delegate hunting operation going on yet. Because they think that it could go all the way to the convention. And there's no foundation for going out and assembling delegates. I mean, wouldn't it be great if we did have two contested conventions this time?

MR. RUSSERT: Peggy Noonan, the 102nd ballot. Huh?

MS. NOONAN: Oh, man. Ohio passes. All of that stuff you really have to...

MR. MEACHAM: Can I say, on Sunday morning, from Tom's lips to God's ears.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, one year from today we'll be inaugurating a new president. I was going to ask you who that's going to be, but I guess we're out of time.

MS. NOONAN: Thank God.

MR. RUSSERT: Unless someone wants to say. Anybody want to predict? No.
We'll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: This Thursday, the Republicans debate in Florida. Brian Williams and I will be there to moderate, ask tough questions of the Republican candidates for president. A critical debate, 9 p.m., MSNBC, this Thursday night. The Florida primary will be a week from Tuesday.
That's all for today. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday it is MEET THE PRESS.

.
“Meet the Press” transcript for Feb. 24, 2008

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Many Democrats accuse this man of draining votes from Al Gore, which helped elect George W. Bush in 2000. Will he run again as an independent candidate for president in 2008? We will find out this morning. Our guest, Mr. Ralph Nader.

Then, The New York Times vs. John McCain.

(Sound-tracks of 3 brief “teaser” Videotapes omitted)

MR. RUSSERT: New polls in Ohio and Texas, and the very latest NBC News delegate count. Insights and analysis from David Brooks of The New York Times, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michele Norris of NPR's "All Things Considered" and Chuck Todd of NBC News.

But first, in 2000 and 2004, to the angst of many Democrats, Ralph Nader ran for president of the United States as a third party candidate. Will he run again this year? He's with us to announce his decision.

Ralph Nader, welcome.

MR. RALPH NADER: Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you run for president as an independent in 2008?

MR. NADER: Let me put it in context, to make it a little more palatable to people who have closed minds. Twenty-four percent of the American people are satisfied with the state of the country, according to Gallup. That's about the lowest ranking ever. Sixty-one percent think both major parties are failing. And, according to Frank Luntz's poll, a Republican, 80 percent would consider voting for a independent this year. Now, you take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut, shut out, marginalized, disrespected and you go from Iraq to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts, getting a decent energy bill through, and you have to ask yourself, as a citizen, should we elaborate the issues that the two are not talking about? And the--all, all the candidates--McCain, Obama and Clinton--are against single payer health insurance, full Medicare for all. I'm for it, as well as millions of Americans and 59 percent of physicians in a forthcoming poll this April. People don't like Pentagon waste, a bloated military budget, all the reports in the press and in the GAO reports. A wasteful defense is a weak defense. It takes away taxpayer money that can go to the necessities of the American people. That's off the table to Obama and Clinton and McCain.

The issue of labor law reform, repealing the notorious Taft-Hartley Act that keeps workers who are now more defenseless than ever against corporate globalization from organizing to defend their interests. Cracking down on corporate crime. The media--the mainstream media repeatedly indicating how trillions of dollars have been drained and fleeced and looted from millions of workers and investors who don't have many rights these days, and pensioners. You know, when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, you--one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great issues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president.

MR. RUSSERT: As you know, Ralph Nader, they'll be Democrats all across the country who are going to find this very disturbing news, and they'll point again to 2000. This was the vote count. Al Gore winning the popular vote, but you've got 2.7 percent, nearly three million votes, in 2000. Then Florida, Florida, Florida. As you remember, George Bush won Florida by 537 votes. You've got 97,488. Democrat after Democrat says to this day, Ralph Nader, if your name had not been on that ballot, Al Gore would've carried Florida. Exit polls show he would've carried Nader voters 2-to-1. Gore would've been president and not George Bush. You, Ralph Nader are responsible for what has happened the last seven years.

MR. NADER: Not, not George Bush? Not the Democrats in Congress? Not the voters who voted for George Bush? But there were Democrats in Florida, 250,000 of them. You know, I wish we'd have Al Gore on this program someday Tim and ask him, "Why did you not become president in 2000?" And I think what he's going to tell you is he thought he did win Florida, but it was taken from him before, during and after the election from Tallahassee. Katherine Bush--you know the secretary of the state...

MR. RUSSERT: Katherine Harris.

MR. NADER: Harris, rather, and Jeb Bush, all the way to that terribly politicized Supreme Court decision. But the, the political bigotry that's involved here is that we shouldn't enter the electoral arena? We, all of us who, who, who think that the country needs an infusion of freedom, democracy, choice, dissent should just sit on the sidelines and watch the two parties own all the voters and turn the government over to big business? What's really important here is, if you want to look at it analytically, is there--Mr. Gore would, would tell you if he won Tennessee, anything else being equal, he would've been president. It's his home state. If he won Arkansas, everything else being equal, he would've been president. The mayor of Miami sabotaged the Democrats because of a grudge, didn't bring thousands of votes out. Quarter of a million Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. There is all kinds of thievery in Florida.

So why do they blame the Greens? Why do they blame the people all over the country who are trying to have a progressive platform, not just the environment. What was their crime? Why, why, why isn't there tolerance for candidates' rights the way there is a building tolerance over the last 50 years for voter rights? Because without voter rights, candidate rights don't mean much. And without candidate rights--more voices and choices--voter rights don't mean much. I--I'm amazed at the liberal intelligencia here. They are analytic and they deal with all kinds of variables, but when it comes to 2000 election, it's just one variable.

And I might add that Solon Simmons and other scholars--he teaches at George Mason--have shown that by pushing Gore to take more progressive stands, he got more votes than the votes he allegedly--were withdrawn from for the Green party. Twenty-five percent of my vote, according to a Democratic pollster, exit poll, would've gone to Bush. Thirty-nine percent would've gone to Gore and the rest would've stayed home. Every major--every third party in Florida got more votes than the 537 vote gap. So let's get over it and try to have a diverse multiple choice, multiple party democracy the way they have in Western Europe and Canada. This bit of, of spoiler is really very astonishing. These are the two parties who've spoiled our electoral system, money, they can't even count the votes, they steal--the Republicans steal the votes, and the Democrats knock third party candidates off the ballot. That's their specialty these days.

MR. RUSSERT: Barack Obama was asked about your announcement...

MR. NADER: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: ...which you're going to--just made this morning on MEET THE PRESS and yesterday.

MR. NADER: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: This is what Obama had to say. Let's watch.

(Videotape)

SEN. OBAMA: He had called me, and I think reached out to my campaign--it--my sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, things are not substantive. He seems to have a, a pretty high opinion of, of his, his own work. In many ways, he is a heroic figure, and I don't mean to diminish him. But I do think there's a sense now that, you know, if, if somebody's not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you, you must be lacking in some way.

(End videotape)

MR. NADER: Well, first of all, compare my Web site, votenader.org, and all the issues that Mr. Obama and Senator Clinton and Mr. McCain are not addressing that are supported by a majority of the American people. A majority of the American people support these issues. They want foreign and military policy not to just be an aggressive military situation.

But Senator Obama is a person of substance. He's also the first liberal evangelist in a long time. He's run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself. And I give you the example, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a real off the table issue for the candidates. So don't touch that, even though it's central to our security and to, to the situation in the Middle East. He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran--during the state Senate. Now he's, he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli. He's not taking a leadership position in supporting the Israeli peace movement, which represents former Cabinet ministers, people in the Knesset, former generals, former security officials, in addition to mayors and leading intellectuals. One would think he would at least say, "Let's have a hearing for the Israeli peace movement in the Congress," so we don't just have a monotone support of the Israeli government's attitude toward the Palestinians and their illegal occupation of Palestine.

MR. RUSSERT: But would you prefer, as an American citizen, to have Barack Obama or John McCain as president?

MR. NADER: What I prefer as an American citizen?

MR. RUSSERT: Yes.

MR. NADER: You're asking me? I'm running for president, for heaven's sake.

MR. RUSSERT: But as a citizen.

MR. NADER: I would prefer that the American people organize, that whoever is in president--is president, they give that person backbone.

MR. RUSSERT: How would you feel, however, if Ralph Nader's presence on the ballot tilted Florida or Ohio to John McCain and McCain became president, and Barack Obama, the first African-American who had been nominated by the Democratic Party--this is hypothetical--did not become a president and people turned to you and said, "Nader, you've done it again"?

MR. NADER: Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication that he's the candidate of perpetual war, perpetual intervention overseas? You think they're going to vote for a Republican like McCain, who allies himself with the criminal, recidivistic regime of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the most multipliable impeachable presidency in American history? Many leading members of the bar, including the former head of the American Bar Association, Michael Greco, absolutely dismayed over the violations of the Constitution, our federal laws, the criminal, illegal war in Iraq and the occupation? There's no way. That's why we have to take this opportunity to have a much broader debate on the issues that relate to the American people, as, as, as a fellow in Long Island said recently, Mr. Sloane, he said, "These parties aren't speaking to me. They're not speaking to my problems, to my family's problems."

MR. RUSSERT: But you do see differences between Barack Obama and John McCain on the war, on tax cuts, on the environment, on a lot of issues?

MR. NADER: Yeah. There are differences, obviously. The question is not whether their differences verbally or what they put on their Web site, the question is what is their record? Senator Obama's record has not been a challenging one. He's not been a Senator Wellstone or Senator Abourezk or Senator Metzenbaum by any means. He has leaned, if anything, more toward the pro-corporate side of, of policymaking. The issue is, do they have the moral courage? Do they have the fortitude to stand up against the corporate powers and get things done? Yes, get things done for the American people?

1950, President Truman proposed universal health care. We still don't have it. We have the worst tax system, perverse incentives that rewards the speculators on Wall Street. Why aren't we taxing speculation on Wall Street instead of heavily taxing human labor and sales taxing necessities like food and appliances and furniture and clothing? There's no debate on this. William Hartung, the independent military analyst, wrote an article the other day saying there's no debate on the bloated military budget, on how best to defend this country without breaking the federal budget and putting huge deficits on the backs of our children and their grandchildren. We need to shift the power from the few to the many. And always in American history, every social justice movement was a shift of power from the few to the many. Maybe the slogan should be "Power to the babies."

MR. RUSSERT: On Wednesday it's your birthday. Happy birthday.

MR. NADER: Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: You'll be 74 years old. You would be the oldest man ever elected president of the United States. You're older than John McCain.

MR. NADER: Thank you very much, Tim. I really like that.

MR. RUSSERT: It's an issue that has been discussed about John McCain, and I'm presenting it to you.

MR. NADER: First of all, I thought David Letterman was very unfair in the way he made fun of John McCain's age. Very, very--I mean, really overboard. I mean, humor has no limits, obviously. But second, someone once said the only true aging is the erosion of one's ideals, and I want the people out there just to look at our Web site and see how exciting it's going to be. I've been assured by my computer/Internet literate associates--I grew up in the Underwood typewriter age, you know--that this is going to be the most exciting, informative, participatory Web site of any presidential campaign, votenader.org. And on that Web site now, Tim, is a declaration that we will receive no money from commercial interests, no money from political action committees, only from individuals. And I'll take it from any individuals--Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, independent, Green party. And, and we are very frugal. They've labeled me Mr. Frugal, my, my associates. We know how to use it. None of this huge waste on political consultants who have really messed up Hillary Clinton's campaign.

MR. RUSSERT: You heard Barack Obama say that in many ways, you're a heroic figure. You were first on MEET THE PRESS in 1966, you said that you would never run for elective office back then. This is your third run for the presidency. Are you concerned now, when people look back at Ralph Nader, they'll consider him the Wendell Willkie of his generation, someone who kept running and running for president with no chance of winning, which will diminish the legacy that you tried to carve out as a consumer advocate.

MR. NADER: No, Tim. My concern doesn't proceed from that. I came to Washington over 40 years ago to help improve my country and, and started a lot of citizen groups who did that. That was a time you had a hearing in Congress, regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration would be more responsive--Auto Safety Agency, EPA. That's a time Nixon, because he heard the rumble of the people, and he was the last president to really fear liberals enough to change his position, signed OSHA, signed EPA, had a health plan that he didn't really believe in, had a minimum income plan to abolish poverty, and then it started. Around 1979, the doors started closing on the citizen groups. So my concern, Tim, comes from, to give you statistics quickly, 58,000 workers who die every year from work-related diseases and trauma on the job; 65,000 people according to EPA who die from air pollution; over 100,000 people who die from adverse effects of medicines; 250 people a day who die from hospital-induced infections; and all the fraud, waste and abuse that's eating at the heart of the family budget, aggravating them. They can't get answers to their questions. They're thrown into huge debt. Now they're losing their houses while White House--while Wall Street speculators laugh all the way to the bank. That's where my concern comes from. And I hope it's shared by a lot of people around the country. I hope a lot of people will be gathered around the country to establish Congress watchdogs in every district, a thousand people--we want to hear from very congressional district--to show the American people how easy it is to turn the Congress around if people are organized. Fifteen hundred corporations get their way by--from a majority of 535 members of Congress. We're millions of people out there, and we simply have to, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, and the state of our nation in the world, we have to mobilize in that manner, and that's what that, that Web site is all about. It's not just a Web site. It's a gathering center, votenader.org.

MR. RUSSERT: Ralph Nader, we thank you very much for joining us, making your announcement and sharing your views.

MR. NADER: Thank you very much, Tim. Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, John McCain fights back against The New York Times. And Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they debated Thursday, and they're getting ready to debate again this Tuesday in Cleveland, Ohio. Our roundtable is next--David Brooks, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michele Norris, and Chuck Todd--only on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

.
I didn't see the "John Adams" series that aired recently on HBO, though I have DVR'd it in case "things get slow" this summer.

However, Jesse Ventura (former Independent Governor of Minnesota) made an interesting point about "John Adams" this past Friday evening (5/2/2008)!!!
He was Jay Leno's second featured guest on the "Tonight Show."

Jay asked Jesse whether, since he had just expressed disapproval of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (in that order), he would consider running for President.

Turning to Sally Fields (Jay's first featured guest who had moved over to make room for Jesse), Jesse asked Sally whether she had watched "John Adams"!!!

When Sally answered affirmatively, Jesse asked Sally whether she had noticed the view of our "Founding Fathers" toward a two-party system as expressed on "John Adams"!!!

To which Sally replied affirmatively -- that the "Founding Fathers" believed that a two-party system would lead to disaster!!!

Turning triumphantly back to Jay, Jesse said that he intends to run for President in 2012 BUT AS AN INDEPENDENT!!!

My only question = Did Sally Fields really watch "John Adams" and notice on her own the attitutde of the "Founding Fathers" toward a two-party system, or did Jesse Ventura "put her up to" claiming that she had???

And my only observation is that perhaps there is a great deal of wisdom in encouraging multiple parties. After all, quite a bit has been written about how Barack Obama is in the lead for the Democratic-Party nomination because he won so many caucuses - courtesy of the anti-war wing of the party which, in each state, caucused instead of holding a peace march that month (who else would have the patience to put up with a caucus???). And now, in the Pennsylvania Debate, Barack Obama has said he will go to war with Iran if that is necessary to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons!!! And yesterday (5/5/2008) on "Meet the Press" he has "signed on" for an "American troop surge" in Afghanistan in order to reverse the tide there!!! If we had multiple parties and Barack Obama were the nominee (or contending for the nomination) of the Peace Party, perhaps he would feel a greater obligation for maintaining his integrity as a peace candidate!!!