Anne Wortham wrote the following article ten days after the election of Barack Obama. Her brief bio is at the end.

“No, He Can’t”By Anne Wortham | Published 11/14/2008

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival–all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician.

I would have to deny the nature of the “change” that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend.

I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration–political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that “fairness” is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to “go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice” is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the “bottom up,” and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago, irrationally chanting “Yes We Can!” Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers, and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead–and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over–and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.

The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to–”Do Something!” You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine–what little there is left–for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness

Anne Wortham bio;

Anne Wortham is Black, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University ’s Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer’s television series, “A World of Ideas.” The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas. Dr. Wortham is author of The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues. She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentrism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness.

So plain, you look at the seniors who get Social Security benefits as welfare cheats - people who simply do nothing and the tax payers support them for no good reason?

As for the breakfast program, I didn't understand you completely until you clarified your comments. Thanks for that. I believe what you're saying is that perhaps it really is a program that is run efficiently, but it just isn't fair to everyone who may need it.

Joan there's some phantom something or other going on with your computer link up, I guess. You do know to advance to the next page at the bottom of each page, don't you?

Of course I know how to advance to the next page. I'm able to read the last couple of posts, just not the 2 long ones. Go figure.

Joan

So plain, you look at the seniors who get Social Security benefits as welfare cheats - people who simply do nothing and the tax payers support them for no good reason?

Yes. That's EXACTLY what I was trying to say. If only them damn elderly would do something productive.

No. My point is, why penalize them when many would like to supplement their income (and stay active in the process)? The current system only allows them to make an insanely low amount of money before their SS check is diminished. My bigger point is, this is only one goofball flaw in SS. It's like they need to put a suggestion box on the wall. If a private business were run like this, they'd be bankrupt f-a-s-t. Because it's government run, the circus rolls on with only minimal improvement.

As for the breakfast program, I didn't understand you completely until you clarified your comments. Thanks for that. I believe what you're saying is that perhaps it really is a program that is run efficiently, but it just isn't fair to everyone who may need it.

No, that's the polar opposite of what I'm saying. Why not just send the damn money based on the number of applications (I know it's a little more complicated than that with transfer students, growing student body, etc...but you see my point)? I find stuff like that highly inefficient. In fact, I think (this is just my opinion, btw) that a great many flaws would be easy to fix, but the few in a position to fix things either: 1) don't give a crap, because they're getting paid no matter how great or dismal the program is run or 2) might like to fix things, but the tremendous effort required to make changes in such a bureaucratic climate is not worth the effort.

Gosh Joan I didn't mean to sound insulting... I just can't come up with any reason for your link with LB threads to be so fouled up. It's gotta be frustrating! I have to confess that I am the last person to ask about these things though. I'm lucky to manage simple posting. Not a computer wiz, by a long, long shot! I was simply trying to empathize. Hang in there!

I do understand the reason behind limiting the amount of money that people who are on S.S. can draw when they are still working. The huge number of babyboomers who are going to start being eligible for S.S. benefits is looming.

Perhaps the alternative suggestion that some people have made, that those with a decent retirement income in place should not draw S.S. benefits, is an alternative. I think I would be in favor of that it if were an elective process not a required one. I can't name anyone I know right off hand who would choose to participate in that act of charity though. 1) most people are too greedy and 2) why give up money that you paid in during your many years of hard work?

The problems that come with aging have never been adequately addressed and so many things need to be handled better. It is all overwhelming and very, very difficult to resolve. As I get older (um, just had a birthday) and as I watch our parents age and am called upon to resolve many issues with them, I realize that we really need to get a handle on all this before I get there. Taking away S.S. benefits might have sounded like a good idea 15 years ago, but today... don't touch the program, dude.

As for the breakfast program, I see your point. You're right, once again I wasn't understanding what you were saying. If a program isn't taking care of the problem is was designed to fix, then it isn't doing its' job, eh?

Yup, lightning may strike - I'm way too agreeable - probably that darned birthday and my continued brain and body deterioration. You know after age 30, the decaying process has begun in earnest. On that light note, guess I better get to work so I can pay my taxes and get my S.S. withholding paid in. Time is of the essence!

Yup, lightning may strike - I'm way too agreeable - probably that darned birthday and my continued brain and body deterioration.

You're being assimilated. :bored:

Help, help, somebody save me!!! Somebody start a thread on the governor of South Carolina's schenannigans so I can say something mean and crude.

Help, help, somebody save me!!! Somebody start a thread on the governor of South Carolina's schenannigans so I can say something mean and crude.

HAHAHA!! :bored:

Since you perpetuated just about all the myths about Canadian health care and in the interest of space, I offer the following more accurate portrayal of Canada's health care system:

10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted | Physicians for a National Health Program

Thanks for the link Joan. As a Canadian living in BC the parts I have knowledge about are right on.

In my own experience, this is what I know: I am paid by our medical system. They pay me on time, they don't tell me where or how to practice. I have one secretary who handles the three physicians in our office. I mean everything from patient handling to billing.

I have several American born patients who have family in the States who they are supporting financially to help pay their medical bills or who are selling off bits of the farm to pay for their cancer treatment or whatever. These are INSURED people. I was just reading in the New York Times about how many insured people are being bankrupted by their medical treatment. That just doesn't happen here. EVERYBODY is covered. Nobody is ever refused insurance for past or ongoing illnesses.

I know several American women who romanced and married Canadian men (and in every cased divorced them after a 2 -3 years) so they could get up here and have an affordable health care system in their old age.

I know two older Canadian nurses who have spent their whole working life in the US and moved back here for retirement to make sure they would have affordable health care.

I know several young nurses who have gone to work in the US because the pay is higher. There tends to be a shortage of nurses here and the nurse population is aging. There is concern that nurses are getting trained here at partial public expense only to go elsewhere. There is ongoing debate and research as to how to keep working here attractive.

I know several people who have had to wait a couple of months for hip or knee replacements. I don't know of anyone who has had to wait for anything, whether it be imaging or surgery, when the situation has been urgent.

I also lived in a rural community for awhile. Back then the nearest MRI was a two hour drive away. The plan has a provision for reimbursing or arranging for travel to be at no charge if you need attention in a different town. People from rural areas are sent to other hospitals be medical helicopter if needed, all paid for by the plan.

In our own family, my son became severely ill a few years ago. He was too ill for our local hospital and was transferred to BC Childrens Hospital. He spent a good part of that year there and had multiple surgeries. His treatment is ongoing and I've estimated the cost of all this is over a million dollars at this point. We pay the maximum family amount of $108 per month.

His surgery is very specialized. Someone suggested we see the closest surgeon who does this procedure in Oregon, for a second opinion. He told us that he would do exactly the same thing that the surgeon at Childrens would do but that there would be a 14 month wait for him. We came back and had it done in two weeks here. I forgot to take my son off the list in Portland and sure enough, 14 months later we got notice to come down for his procedure.

I was at a conference in the US a couple weeks ago and had one fellow buttonhole me and tell me about the evils of "socialized medicine" and he asked me how much it really cost. I couldn't answer him other that say it sure doesn't cost me an extra seven hundred and some dollars per month in taxes. Joan's link does give information on that.

I hope for the US that a system gets worked out where there's affordable medical coverage for all, that everyone can live with.

I had enough stress to deal with when our son was ill, I can't imagine having financial stress at that time as well. That would have been hell.

I'm going to pretend that I linked up your post Devana.

The reason I want to take credit for providing the information is because everybody who opposes my beliefs always insists that I post a link to prove what I've said. Yours works well for me!

For all the grief you hear about the government option you would think that we have a perfect system now. I have cycled back and forth between PPO and HMO for the last 18 years and in that time I never really had total choice in doctors. Sure, with the PPO I could pick my doctor but if I went out of network I paid a penalty. On HMO I have to pick a PCP within the network and I must fill out paperwork to switch doctors. When I was in the Navy, I didn’t have a choice of doctors – but I had pretty good care. In fact I suffered from a major illness while in the service and the care was top notch (and that was totally government run). My sister has TriCare and my mother has Medicare, neither are perfect systems but they both get as good or better care than most people I know on private insurance and both seem to have choices in their care. Don’t let the insurance companies fool you on this. Its they that will suffer if a government option is brought to the table not you.

Yay Kartman. I've been saying that about the insurance industry and the problem crosses over to other things besides medical. The insurance companies have a great PR machine and they have lots of influence over Congress. I could talk for days about the problems of the country brought about by our reliance on insurance companies. They have us where they want us and trust me, they are the ones who will put out false and biased information to scare people about any kind of change in our health care system that they won't benefit from.

Unfortunately I think even Obama is being influenced by them because so far he has not seriously considered single payer. I think if we look objectively we can find enough good things in the countries that have single payer to make it work here. Heck, we have our own single payer systems here that work (Medicare, Medicaide, Tricare, VA, etc.) Now I know these programs aren’t perfect, but can we seriously say that private insurance companies do it better? They don’t and they have the power to deny people that really need coverage. Obviously the Insurance industry would take a big hit and that sucks for them, (dramatic pause while I shed a tear) but they have made a ton of money in a bad way if you ask me.

I don’t get the whole socialized medicine BS. It is called “Single Payer” not “Single Hospital” or “Single Doctor”. I think everybody wants to be able to pick their own doctor, I see no reason why that ability couldn’t be written into the program.

If you are one of those people that feels sorry for the insurance industry, don’t – they will adapt. Here’s an idea… Who’s to say we couldn’t still have supplemental insurance on top of single payer? Then, if you can afford the additional coverage you can get an upgraded plan. We all get the basic package; those that pay more get more. The good insurance companies can find a way to leverage that market and strive in the new environment.

The other thing that drives me nuts is that we Americans seem to feel like we have the absolute best medical care in the world and going to single payer would endanger lives. Well I hate to break it to you folks – we don’t. If we did, we wouldn’t be ranked down in the 30s for infant mortality (Canada, the UK, and most of Europe are ahead of us) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005) . We are also 45th in life expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy . This one is interesting because it is not just about health care but it plays a major factor. If we had a system that rewards preventative medicine rather than reactive medicine I think this number would improve. Single payer could dramatically influence preventative medicine by forcing a change in this area.

Great post Kartman!! :biggrin: Spot on in every way!! :redface:

Thanks BJean!!!

Maybe we should propose a bill to Congress. We could call it the “Sensible Single Payer System”