Pumas and Greens

Saturday: The forgotten « The Confluence: "...I may be wrong here but you appear to be a fan of the Green party. PUMAs are not Greens. They are Democrats or former Democrats. We’re not interested in Green party dynamics. Sorry. Your candidates so far have been a little fringey. Nader and McKinney come to mind. Going to the Greens would be little different than voting for Obama. In Obama’s case, the ideologues are zealously screaming for CHANGE!, whatever that’s supposed to mean, while with the Greens, the ideologues are zealously screaming for dumping everything in the current system that many Americans now rely on, like corporations for jobs and gas powered engines and stuff like that. The point of the PUMA movement is that change doesn’t happen by ideology alone. The ideologues can’t simply grab the reins of power and impose their vision of the world on the rest of us. They have to be able to work hard and sometimes with their enemies. I don’t see that either the Greens or Obamarama have abandoned their belief in magical thinking. I object to parties composed of people who demand an unattainable degree of purity from human beings. I’m a rational person. I think most PUMAs are..."

I am for the obliteration of the current "system," but the dismantling must be done slowly and carefully-- no moderate wants death and destruction. The current system can be made satisfactory by slow, steady reform. The best place to begin? Universal Health Care. We don't have any candidate advocating for it. Even the ones who claim to still want the insurance companies, the people who make money by denying coverage, in the middle of things. Can someone explain to me why we need insurance companies in health coverage? (And don't say the "guberment will screw it up" because Medicaid and Medicare work fairly well, as does the VA, even though it is woefully underfunded.)