The Obama-Clinton Ticket

“It’s just a matter of common sense!”
This was heard from one of the “conservative” talk radio hosts in reference to making decisions on our country’s leadership and the measures that need to be taken to straighten things out. When thinking about the need to bring about economic stability and global respect, an Obama-Clinton ticket makes some sense.

Obama definitely has demonstrated the type of leadership we need in our president, the ability to bring hope to nation mired in “politics as usual” with its greed, elitism and behind the scenes deal-making. But Hillary Clinton has intelligence and abilities that would support a strong president.

Is this the “dream ticket” that our country can support, across all supposed boundaries of race, color, political party, gender, age, regional politics, etc.?

We’ll see…..

9/11 Facts?

(NOTE: If this is your first visit to this site, I invite you to read the Editor Profile, Guidelines/Disclaimer and Objective for this web log by clicking on these sections under “Pages” on the right side. It may be helpful, as well, to read the first entry, “Introduction,” and check out the “Links” to get the general sense of the web log content. Also remember to Register (bottom right side) and that the comment section is at the bottom of each web log entry.) 

I’ve already stated that I wouldn’t post conspiracy theory materials and I’ve waited on the 9/11 stories until more scholarly information could be found and presented rationally.  It is also my intent to not point fingers at those who perpetrated this act, since this does not help us obtain our goal: peaceful revolution and regime change through public education, one-to-one if necessary, until we can make the leadership changes that will return America to the high level of respect it once held and to a true constitutional democracy instead of domestic tyranny.

To that end, I offer the following for your consideration:

C-Span Airing Of L.A. Conference Shows Mainstreaming Of 9/11 Truth
Fresh injection of credibility advances movement

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | July 28 2006

A decision that many of us were waiting on with baited breath – C-Span’s scheduling of the American Scholars Symposium highlights – infused the 9/11 truth movement with a fresh injection of credibility and exposure to more mainstream audiences.

The panel featured incredible presentations by 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, and Terrorism Expert Webster Tarpley.

C-Span viewers witnessed what many consider to be the most hard hitting conference to date including the most professional and credible speakers ever assembled.

Many have expressed a degree of frustration that some quarters of the 9/11 truth movement are not as bold in their stance when drawing conclusions about 9/11 evidence as is necessary to make an impact. The American Scholars Symposium was crystal clear in its summation that 9/11 represents an inside job carried out by criminal elements within the US government. The deliberate implosion of the twin towers and Building 7 allied with the reversal of routine air defense procedures leave no other explanation than the fact that the attack was a self-inflicted wound.

Preaching to the choir is a method best left in the past and the C-Span airing is a positive step towards reaching out and educating those who remain in the dark about the staggering volume of evidence which clearly indicates that the official story behind 9/11 is a fraud.

The distinction, background and high esteem of the speakers at the conference, coupled with C-Span’s notable reputation as a bellwether of the mainstream body politic, provided for a perfect symbiosis to advance the credibility and critical acclaim of the 9/11 truth movement as something far weightier and more influential than a cadre of conspiracy theorists – a label still peddled by fading elements of the blowhard establishment press.

It is vital that you focus your educational efforts solely on those who are still unaware of cover-up pertaining to 9/11.


9/11 Symposium: Professor Steven Jones
Professor Steven Jones gives an illustrated keynote speech about the role of incendiary devices used in the destruction of the twin towers and Building 7. Jones has often been cited as the torch carrier for a newly defined 9/11 movement characterized by science, common sense and credibility.

9/11 Symposium: Lt. Col. Bob Bowman
In this presentation Bowman discusses the ignorance surrounding the events of 9/11 and its aftermath and details the NORAD cover-up surrounding intercept procedures that were not properly executed on that day – drawing from his own experience as an Air Force pilot and his Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Cal-Tech.

9/11 Symposium: Professor Jim Fetzer
Fetzer details the implausible collapse of the twin towers according to the melting point of steel in comparison with the temperature of jet fuel. This 78-minute high quality presentation also covers the controversy at the Pentagon in depth with slides to accompany the discussion.

William Rodriguez: 9/11 Hero
Rodriguez passionately engages the audience and discusses the relentless media circus that followed him in the days after 9/11 and his eyewitness accounts of explosions in the underground basement levels of the towers

Thank you,



 From the Editor: Garrison is one of my personal favorites, particularly his NPR series, “A Prairie Home Companion.”  While he writes about one particular political party, our problem is much broader – spanning a corrupt leadership in both major parties and major agencies, e.g. CIA, NSA, FDA, NIH, etc.  Only concerned and alert citizens will be able to make the necessary changes.


Note to Republicans: The party’s over
Ineptness has ruined the GOP
Garrison Keillor       


People who live in mud huts should not throw mud, especially if it comes from their own roofs. As Scripture says, don’t point to the speck in your neighbor’s eye when you have a piece of kindling in your own.

I see by the papers that the Republicans want to make an issue of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the congressional races this fall: Would you want a San Francisco woman to be speaker of the House? Will the lectern be repainted in lavender stripes with a disco ball overhead? Will she be borne into the chamber by male dancers with glistening torsos and wearing pink tutus? After all, in the unique world view of old elephants, San Francisco is a code word for g-a-y, and after assembling a record of government lies, incompetence and disaster, the party in power hopes that the fear of g-a-y-s will pull it through in November.

Running against Pelosi, a woman who comes from a district where there are known gay persons, is a nice trick, but it does draw attention to the large, shambling galoot who is House speaker now, Tom DeLay’s enabler for years, a man who, judging by his public utterances, is about as smart as most high school wrestling coaches. For the past year, Dennis Hastert has been two heartbeats from the presidency. He is a man who seems content just to have a car and driver and three square meals a day. He has succeeded in turning Congress into a branch of the executive branch. If Mr. Hastert becomes the poster boy for the Republican Party, this does not speak well for them as the Party of Ideas.

People who want to take a swing at San Francisco should think twice. Yes, the Irish coffee at Fisherman’s Wharf is overpriced, and the bus tour of Haight-Ashbury is disappointing (Where are the hippies?), but the Bay Area is the cradle of the computer and software industry, which continues to create jobs for our children. The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco, Texas. There may be a reason for this. Creative people thrive in a climate of openness and tolerance, since some great ideas start out sounding ridiculous. Creativity is a key to economic progress. Authoritarianism is stifling. I don’t believe that Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard were gay, but what’s important is: In San Francisco, it doesn’t matter so much. When the cultural Sturmbannfuhrers try to marshal everyone into straight lines, it has consequences for the economic future of this country.

Meanwhile, the Current Occupant goes on impersonating a president. Somewhere in the quiet, leafy recesses of the Bush family, somebody is thinking, “Wrong son. Should’ve tried the smart one.” Five years in office and he doesn’t have a grip on it yet. You stand him up next to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at a news conference and the comparison is not kind to Our Guy. Historians are starting to place him at or near the bottom of the list. And one of the basic assumptions of American culture is falling apart: the competence of Republicans.

You might not have always liked Republicans, but you could count on them to manage the bank. They might be lousy tippers, act snooty, talk through their noses, wear spats and splash mud on you as they race their Pierce-Arrows through the village, but you knew they could do the math. To see them produce a ninny and then follow him loyally into the swamp for five years is disconcerting, like seeing the Rolling Stones take up lite jazz. So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the Republicans can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid.

It is painful to look at your father and realize the old man should not be allowed to manage his own money anymore. This is the discovery the country has made about the party in power. They are inept. The checkbook needs to be taken away. They will rant, they will screech, they will wave their canes at you and call you all sorts of names, but you have to do what you have to do.

The Modern Neros

Thank you, Thom Hartmann.  The article below is a rational summary of the current world situation.  I differ with the sense, probably not intended, that this is a relatively new phenomenon. I believe that we are experiencing a re-creation of world affairs that have repeated themselves century after century.  The Roman Empire never fell, it just changed names.  And the leaders’ names have just changed a bit as well.  Instead of Nero, Caesar, Alexander, etc. we now have the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bush (I and II), Reagan, and Clinton.  (Not so impressive, name wise, I’ll admit, but no less dangerous, arrogant or greedy.)     So I would add “Nerocracy” to the new dictionary along with “corporatocracy.”
After reading this article and other submissions to this and other sites, as well as numerous relevant books, you may have a number of reactions – anger, fear, *hopelessness, depression, disgust, for example; or you may feel inspired to action.  What specific action may not be clear and within a few days of “normal” life, the “feeling” may just go away. 
If, however, the feeling remains and is fortified by ongoing information received from reliable sources, you may be among those who want a *”Manual for Change.”  What can us common folk do to get our democracy back, have a true voice in running our government and create a relative modicum of balance, compassion and cooperation in the world? 
Think about it.  We’ll discuss it further……
(*Thanks to Leah and Janet for your “words.”)
Monday, February 27, 2006  
Published on Monday, February 27, 2006 by

When Americans No Longer Own America

by Thom Hartmann
The Dubai Ports World deal is waking Americans up to a painful reality: So-called “conservatives” and “flat world” globalists have bankrupted our nation for their own bag of silver, and in the process are selling off America.

Through a combination of the “Fast Track” authority pushed for by Reagan and GHW Bush, sweetheart trade deals involving “most favored nation status” for dictatorships like China, and Clinton pushing us into NAFTA and the WTO (via GATT), we’ve abandoned the principles of tariff-based trade that built American industry and kept us strong for over 200 years.

The old concept was that if there was a dollar’s worth of labor in a pair of shoes made in the USA, and somebody wanted to import shoes from China where there may only be ten cents worth of labor in those shoes, we’d level the playing field for labor by putting a 90-cent import tariff on each pair of shoes. Companies could choose to make their products here or overseas, but the ultimate cost of labor would be the same.

Then came the flat-worlders, led by misguided true believers and promoted by multinational corporations. Do away with those tariffs, they said, because they “restrain trade.” Let everything in, and tax nothing. The result has been an explosion of cheap goods coming into our nation, and the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs and thousands of manufacturing companies. Entire industry sectors have been wiped out.

These policies have kneecapped the American middle class. Our nation’s largest employer has gone from being the unionized General Motors to the poverty-wages Wal-Mart. Americans have gone from having a net savings rate around 10 percent in the 1970s to a minus .5 percent in 2005 – meaning that they’re going into debt or selling off their assets just to maintain their lifestyle.

At the same time, federal policy has been to do the same thing at a national level. Because our so-called “free trade” policies have left us with an over $700 billion annual trade deficit, other countries are sitting on huge piles of the dollars we gave them to buy their stuff (via Wal-Mart and other “low cost” retailers). But we no longer manufacture anything they want to buy with those dollars.

So instead of buying our manufactured goods, they are doing what we used to do with Third World nations – they are buying us, the USA, chunk by chunk. In particular, they want to buy things in America that will continue to produce profits, and then to take those profits overseas where they’re invested to make other nations strong. The “things” they’re buying are, by and large, corporations, utilities, and natural resources.

Back in the pre-Reagan days, American companies made profits that were distributed among Americans. They used their profits to build more factories, or diversify into other businesses. The profits stayed in America.

Today, foreigners awash with our consumer dollars are on a two-decades-long buying spree. The UK’s BP bought Amoco for $48 billion – now Amoco’s profits go to England. Deutsche Telekom bought VoiceStream Wireless, so their profits go to Germany, which is where most of the profits from Random House, Allied Signal, Chrysler, Doubleday, Cyprus Amax’s US Coal Mining Operations, GTE/Sylvania, and Westinghouse’s Power Generation profits go as well. Ralston Purina’s profits go to Switzerland, along with Gerber’s; TransAmerica’s profits go to The Netherlands, while John Hancock Insurance’s profits go to Canada. Even American Bankers Insurance Group is owned now by Fortis AG in Belgium.

Foreign companies are buying up our water systems, our power generating systems, our mines, and our few remaining factories. All because “flat world” so-called “free trade” policies have turned us from a nation of wealthy producers into a nation of indebted consumers, leaving the world awash in dollars that are most easily used to buy off big chunks of America. As notes, US Government statistics indicate the following percentages of foreign ownership of American industry:

· Sound recording industries – 97%
· Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage – 79%
· Motion picture and sound recording industries – 75%
· Metal ore mining – 65%
· Motion picture and video industries – 64%
· Wineries and distilleries – 64%
· Database, directory, and other publishers – 63%
· Book publishers – 63%
· Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product – 62%
· Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment – 57%
· Rubber product – 53%
· Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing – 53%
· Plastics and rubber products manufacturing – 52%
· Plastics product – 51%
· Other insurance related activities – 51%
· Boiler, tank, and shipping container – 50%
· Glass and glass product – 48%
· Coal mining – 48%
· Sugar and confectionery product – 48%
· Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying – 47%
· Advertising and related services – 41%
· Pharmaceutical and medicine – 40%
· Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products – 40%
· Securities brokerage – 38%
· Other general purpose machinery – 37%
· Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media – 36%
· Support activities for mining – 36%
· Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation – 32%
· Chemical manufacturing – 30%
· Industrial machinery – 30%
· Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities – 30%
· Other food – 29%
· Motor vehicles and parts – 29%
· Machinery manufacturing – 28%
· Other electrical equipment and component – 28%
· Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities – 27%
· Architectural, engineering, and related services – 26%
· Credit card issuing and other consumer credit – 26%
· Petroleum refineries (including integrated) – 25%
· Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments – 25%
· Petroleum and coal products manufacturing – 25%
· Transportation equipment manufacturing – 25%
· Commercial and service industry machinery – 25%
· Basic chemical – 24%
· Investment banking and securities dealing – 24%
· Semiconductor and other electronic component – 23%
· Paint, coating, and adhesive – 22%
· Printing and related support activities – 21%
· Chemical product and preparation – 20%
· Iron, steel mills, and steel products – 20%
· Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery – 20%
· Publishing industries – 20%
· Medical equipment and supplies – 20%

Thus it shouldn’t surprise us that the cons have sold off our ports as well, and will defend it to the bitter end. They truly believe that a “New World Order” with multinational corporations in charge instead of sovereign governments will be the answer to the problem of world instability. And therefore they must do away with quaint things like unions, a healthy middle class, and, ultimately, democracy.

The “security” implications of turning our ports over to the UAE are just the latest nail in what the cons hope will be the coffin of American democracy and the American middle class. Today’s conservatives believe in rule by inherited wealth and an internationalist corporate elite, and things like a politically aroused citizenry and a healthy democracy are pesky distractions.

Everything today is driven by profits for multinationals, supported by the lawmaking power of the WTO. Thus, parts for our missiles are now made in China, a country that last year threatened us with nuclear weapons. Our oil comes from a country that birthed a Wahabist movement that ultimately led to 14 Saudi citizens flying jetliners into the World Trade buildings and the Pentagon. Germans now own the Chrysler auto assembly lines that turned out tanks to use against Germany in WWII. And the price of labor in America is being held down by over ten million illegal workers, a situation that was impossible twenty-five years ago when unions were the first bulwark against dilution of the American labor force.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III in the Declaration of Independence, “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation…” he just as easily could have been writing of the World Trade Organization, which now has the legal authority to force the United States to overturn laws passed at both local, state, and federal levels with dictates devised by tribunals made up of representatives of multinational corporations. If Dubai loses in the American Congress, their next stop will almost certainly be the WTO.

As Simon Romero and Heather Timmons noted in The New York Times on 24 February 2006, “the international shipping business has evolved in recent years to include many more containers with consumer goods, in addition to old-fashioned bulk commodities, and that has helped lift profit margins to 30 percent, from the single digits. These smartly managed foreign operators now manage about 80 percent of port terminals in the United States.”

And those 30 percent profits from American port operations now going to Great Britain will probably soon go to the United Arab Emirates, a nation with tight interconnections to both the Bush administration and the Bush family.

Ultimately, it’s not about security — it’s about money. In the multinational corporatocracy’s “flat world,” money trumps the national good, community concerns, labor interests, and the environment. NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO tribunals can – and regularly do – strike down local and national laws. Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” are replaced by Antonin Scalia’s “Rights of Corporate Persons.”

Profits even trump the desire for good enough port security to avoid disasters that may lead to war. After all, as Judith Miller wrote in The New York Times on January 30, 1991, quoting a local in Saudi Arabia: “War is good for business.”

Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author of over a dozen books and the host of a nationally syndicated noon-3pm ET daily progressive talk show syndicated by Air America Radio. His most recent books are “What Would Jefferson Do?” and Ultimate Sacrifice.

Why Do We Let Government Corruption and Health “Non-Systems” Continue?

[Let me first of all apologize to anyone who is offended by the words to follow.   And the first one I forgive is myself, because I am no different than many other people.  It just took time and life changes to make me understand that I could no longer sit back and be quiet about certain situations and that I could not live with an “Us vs.Them” philosophy.]

As I receive positive feedback to the information posted on this site, the question came to me: “If so many people agree that we have corrupt “non-systems” that need reforming, why do we then let it continue?”

One answer came to me.   Mostly, we are all talking to ourselves, that is, “preaching to the choir.”

I know that some people voted for Bush because of his responses and appearance during the debates.  (Note 1:  Overnight polls showed that Kerry and Edwards had “won” the debates by wide margins.  Note 2: How many people realize that the debates are not “real” but staged, much like the scripted “reality shows” on TV that so many people are enamored with.)

I also have heard that many people voted for Bush because he was a “born-again christian.” (Some pastors even brought up the issue that he was the only one to vote for if you valued your “eternal soul,” or something to that effect.)

I know there are people who take the stance that “Nothing you can say will change my mind.”  But I also know there are others who are willing to take in new evidence and base decisions on reason.  One has to ask, for example,  whether any “christian” would kill innocent people rather than engage in dialogue and negotiation to achieve a modicum of peace without killing; but the history of christianity is replete with episodes of great harm done in its name, e.g, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Another consideration is that to profess to be a fundamental Christian would mean you would have to follow the bible literally, e.g., kill or torture anyone who didn’t “follow the Word of God,” etc. and you would be considered a very bad person by society.  (Do you remember that the biblical Jesus condoned slavery?)   Does all that sound familiar?  The Jihadists are simply following the literal principles of their bible, which says that they will be rewarded for killing us and dying as martyrs because we have not followed the rules of their particular religious dogma.

So, correct information has to get to those people who need it in order to make rational decisions.  Perhaps we can add more names to our email distribution list with this web log site and other pertinent information – names that “we’re not sure of where they stand on these issues” or perhaps those that we are afraid of imposing ourselves on.  We might be surprised with the result.  And without it, reform will just not be possible.  You won’t “lose friends” if it is presented gently and with genuine concern for their feelings.  Remember, many people believe that they are “right” and nothing you say or do will change that.  But simply by changing ourselves, we can have a positive effect.

Those involved in “book clubs” might suggest some books that could bring up interesting conversation and open doors to personal change. (See suggested books on the right side, for example.)  The authors of those books would also make excellent guests on radio talk shows.

On the health “Non-System” reform issue, letters of support to legislators are extremely important.  The first measure to work on is SB 840 (Sen. Kuehl), which will soon have its accompanying bill to address the financing issue.  Californians can locate their legislators and also get information on the progress of bills at  Of course, there’s always the need to let the governor know how you feel on an issue, because even when it does pass this year, he can still veto it. 

It’s important for non-Californians to support this system, because when it’s successful here, the concept will spread to other states, as well.  I don’t believe we’ll have a rational plan at the national level until we get the government corruption issue addressed.

I met a doctor recently and casually began discussing both reform issues.  He gave me another insight.  Americans enjoy television and television is a mind-numbing drug, and the people watching the programs are probably believing what they see and hear.  Many are entertained by current information on Paris Hilton or who is divorcing whom or having whose baby, etc.  This is just a fact and probably won’t be changed until they have their own personal experience to make them open up and want to change.  But they are still our brothers and sisters and maybe under different circumstances will hear something that will change their lives, thus changing all of our lives.

There is also the issue I brought up earlier about the many numbers of people who are just busy staying alive and keeping one step ahead of the collection agency. Or they are going to school to improve themselves and just get caught up in the necessities of daily living.  They couldn’t care less about these reform issues because they believe, incorrectly, that they  “aren’t affecting me directly.”   The correct information should be at least offered to everyone in a way that is understandable and even discussed with those adults who can’t read, so that they can make rational decisions.


Now for the forgiveness and possibility of  personal change part…

I was raised a roman catholic, but developed a deep skepticism about religion and dogma in general early in life.  My wife and I were active in the charismatic renewal within the church itself, as well as Genesis II (eventually banned by the catholic church, I believe) and other well-meaning  programs. I considered myself a bible scholar, even to the point that I believed there is a “God” who created the world and everything in it. Among other judgments, I had “righteous anger” against the practice of homosexuality as being “offensive to God.”  I’m not making any excuses for these types of beliefs.  It’s just the way it was at the time, and it was part of my life lesson.

One of my classes in college was “Comparative Religions,” co-taught by a Georgetown University trained Jesuit priest and the protestant theologian who began the “God is Dead” philosophy.  This continued to open my mind drastically, as did my classes in ethics, philosophy and psychology.

I was trained in the military service to kill people in many ways for the “good of my country” (I rather enjoyed this…) without questioning the morality of it.  And I was trained to electronically spy on the “enemy.” (I REALLY enjoyed this part.)  Imagine what the technology is today compared to what we had in the late 60’s and try to believe that the NSA cannot track your calls and emails.  The NSA measures its computers in “acres.”  The first Cray Supercomputer was built for NSA and they received all the upgrades, etc.  NSA recruits the finest mathematical minds and analysts available from the best universities.  I simply laugh when told that we are not “illegally eavesdropping on Americans,” or the spin that even if it is illegal, it is “necessary to protect America from “terrorist activities.” (See again the comments from John Perkins in his book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and at the web site noted to the right.)  The humorous part is that al-Qaeda is highly unlikely to communicate entirely through these standard methods.  They are not a single country or source to spy on.  This is a religious imperative built on “cells” of individuals all over the world.

If you’re wondering what this all has to do with the reform issues,  I’m just saying that people can change, and it just takes ordinary people changing to help end our ignorance and apathy, so that we can transform America, which will eventually have an effect on the rest of the world.

Thank you,




This is the second one of the CHIRA series (CHIRA – Part II) referencing my response to a letter from California State Senator Jeff Denham, which indicates that State legislative leaders (or their staff) are not necessarily aware of pertinent information, and certainly the general population generally are even less well informed if they do not take the effort to investigate the issue fully.

For Californians, this is the year to make a difference by letting your legislators know how you feel.  For non-Californians, you may want to pass information along to your friends in California, and maybe you can use some of the ideas in your own state.

I have no belief that we will ever have a rational National Health Plan because of the corruption of our federal government (the other subject of this web log 🙂, but we may get enough states headed in the right direction to have a very positive effect.

Thank you.
—–Original Message—–
 Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:50 AM
To: Senator Denham
Subject: RE: Senate Bill 840
Senator Denham:
I appreciate your response to my letter, although I deeply disagree with your position on SB 840.  There is no other rational approach to eliminating unnecessary costs, duplicated and wasteful public and private sector bureaucracies and medical care rationed according to the vagaries of employment, insurability and economic status. A “massive new state bureaucracy” would not be necessary.  The current taxes and insurance premiums are more than sufficient to provide better administration and medical coverage.  I speak from over 30 years of experience working within the health care industry and from the personal experience of having to pay over $1700 a month to a for-profit insuror for high deductible medical insurance coverage for me and my wife.
The general population has not sufficiently investigated this approach to health care delivery and, unfortunately, it is difficult to break through the vast amount of misinformation that is spread about a universal coverage single payer system.  Were they to truly evaluate the facts, there would be overwhelming support for this delivery system. 
I sincerely hope that you will look in more detail at SB 840 and revise your position on its value to California and, as a model, to the rest of the nation. I am forwarding for your consideration a link to a Medscape editoral site with my published comments on SB 840:   The letter is one of those published in response to Dr. Lundberg’s editorial on health system reform.   
Thank you.
—–Original Message—–
From: Senator Denham [mailto:Senator.Denham@SEN.CA.GOV]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:52 PM
Subject: RE: Senate Bill 840
Thank you for your letter regarding Senate Bill 840, relating to Universal Health Care for the State of California.  I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
I understand your concerns regarding the issue of health care access, however, I do not believe a universal health system is the answer.  The cost of setting up a massive new state bureaucracy to run a state universal health care system would be prohibitive, particularly given the state’s current fiscal situation. It would undoubtedly force new or increased taxes on Californians.  Additionally, there are serious questions concerns about the impacts such a system would have on the quality and delivery of health care services.
The voters spoke to the issue of government-mandated healthcare coverage when they defeated Proposition 72 in the November 2004 election.  It was clear that the majority of Californians did not support a healthcare system that would fundamentally restructure healthcare in California and result in broad social and economic changes.
These issues come up regularly, and I will keep your views in mind when approaching such matters.  Please know that I support fiscally responsible programs that aim to improve health coverage for California’s residents.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me.  While we may not agree on this particular issue, I am sure there are many others we do agree on.  Should you need any information or assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Senator, 12th District