Hillary Wants to Take My Money?
So, take this news with the tiniest bit of salt, but according to WorldNetDaily if Hillary becomes the next President of the United State (a very real possibility at this point) she may impose “mechanisms. . . going after people’s wages, [and] automatic enrollment” for health insurance. Essentially she may, at some point, wish to begin garnishing the wages of people who can’t willingly afford health insurance themselves. Eek. . .
Now before I continue, there are a few things I should note:
- WorldNetDaily is an arguably conservative journalist website. They even have banner ads on their page smearing Hillary Clinton.
- The exact phrases being quoted in this article are cut and edited in such a way as to leave out very meaningful information.
- There isn’t really enough information as pertaining to pricing and amount of insurance to justify any sort of real opposition to this plan just yet.
- I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, so please don’t label me as such for my speculations (you see what I just did there?) on this particular topic.
Ok, so back onto the subject at hand: Hillary wants to take my money to give me health insurance. If you think about it in passing, it makes a lot of sense. The government needs healthy people, healthy people need medical attention, medical attention requires money (i.e. insurance). However, if you were to look at the people in our country who essentially can’t afford health insurance now, I think you’d also see how disastrous it would be to begin garnishing their wages to give them it. I have first hand experience at being poorer than poor. Every single penny counts when you are living on a tight budget and sometimes you just have to rely on home remedies and hope when you get sick. It’s a sad state, and as a socialist (my political affiliation, please don’t burn me at the cross) I fully believe in universal healthcare being paid with taxes. Anyways, I digress. Again, let me reiterate, as coming from somebody who has been in this situation, garnishing the wages of the poor is not the right answer to this problem.
Like I said above, I don’t have all the information concerning the proposed solution to healthcare for Americans. This plan may very well be the best solution to keep the conservatives happy while at the same time giving most citizens healthcare. However, when looking at the equation right now, there are still far too many variables that would make this solution viable, and were they to hand it off to me I’d throw the entire idea out the window. I just don’t see any realistic way of getting this plan to work. . .
Prove me wrong, Hillary.
A Brief History of Iraq
This was written during a political discussion by myself. It explains, at least in part, why I think we are stuck in what can only be called a quagmire. Thanks for reading.
Iraq’s history is at part to blame for what is happening today, although rest assured America now deserves a good portion of that as well (or if you are a neocon you can call the blame our ‘accomplishment’). In any case there is a long history of why Iraq has been a bloody, violent nation and I will highlight them here.
After WWI the Ottoman Empire was disbanded, gutted, and basically left for dead. It was a dead state and further proof that Empires were a thing of the past. In accordance with the Sykes-Pico agreement, France and Britain began carving up the Ottoman Empire’s land to further their colonialistic dreams. Two “peace” conferences would take place over the course of two years to figure out exactly what they should do. France, Britain, and the U.S. all partook in the peace conferences.
During the first conference the three negotiators began discussing what was going to happen. France and Britain, wanting to colonize the area where as the U.S. wanted to let them govern themselves without any intervention (I know its surprising). It was decided that a peace accord would go out to these haphazard lands and do a poll of what the people wanted: freedom, or colonialism. The results were to be decided at the next peace conference in exactly one year.
As the second peace conference came around all three delegates once again got together in Paris. The peace accord that was sent out came back with the results. Unsurprisingly, the results heavily favored that of the people wanting to be free, and not just mere colonies. This, however, was unnacceptable to Britain and France. The U.S. not wanting to have any hand in what the other two nations were doing withdrew completely from the peace conferences. The delagates from Britain and France had then drawn out the borders for their new “colonies” on the back of a napkin (literally). France got what is today considered Palestine, Israel, and a good chunk of Syria, where as Britain got a small part of northern Syria as well as Iraq.
Under British colonialism now, Iraq would serve as a ‘hub’ for British needs in the Middle East. The British quickly did away with the tribes that previously ruled the area and established a monarchy. The monarchical figure they chose to “lead” Iraq was named King Faisal I, who was a Sunni Muslim. King Faisal was in charge from around 1920-ish to 1933 when he had a heart attack. Much of his reign was plagued with rebellions, especially by the Kurds to the noth. In 1921 the Shiites rebelled against the monarchy. In 1922, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1930, 1931 the Kurds rebelled. In 1930 the Christian Assyriands rebelled. All rebellions were ruthlessly put down, with the British backing the state with their own troops. After Faisal I died, his son Ghazi took the throne only to be killed 6 years later in a car accident. However, in 1936 a coup de tat would change the power once again.
Bakr Sidqi overthrew the monarchy in Iraq and ruled it as a nationalist. He was part of a growing trend along with Nasser of Egypt, in Arab Nationalism. Bakr was eventually assassinated in Mosul and his rule would be yet again replaced by somebody who was well favored by the British. This person would be Al-Saeed (aka the Happy One). Al-Saeed was a blind follower of British rule. He relied on them heavily to crush rebellions and rule the empire. Unfortunately after WWII the British had to withdraw most of their troops and only kept a consulate in Baghdad from which they could rule. Iraq no longer had British troops to squish the rebellions and Al-Saeed had to rely on his own troops to do it. As dissent grew more and more fierce among the people there would eventually be one successful coup that overthrew his rule. In 1963, under Abd Al Salam ‘Arif, the Baathist party took control of Iraq.
Al Salam ‘Arif was a minor player in the control of Iraq, him and his party was eventually filtered out of the Iraqi political system within a few months of taking control. Al Salam simply was not powerful enough to hold onto the country. In 1968, a bloodless coup de tat brough to power the Baathist general Ahmad Hassan Al-Bakr, whose cousin and right hand man happened to be Sadam Hussein. Hussein, emerging as a political figurehead, eventually got enough power to overthrow his cousin and sieze power of the country in 1979.
Hussein was responsible for ruling Iraq until 2003. During his reign he used many biological and chemical weapons against Iran as well as the Kurdish population to the north. The U.N. and more specifically the U.S. knowing that he had used and was continuing to use biological and chemical weapons, cast a vote in favor of Iraq to not issue any sanctions that may have stopped Iraq from using illegal weapons. The U.S. favored them using gas and chemicals to kill Irani soldiers, the Kurds just happened to be test subjects for Hussein’s new gas bombs and missles. The U.N. and every nation within that cast a vote to allow Iraq to use those weapons (including Britain and the U.S.) are in part to blame for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Kurdish men women and children.
In 2003 the U.S. fully invaded Iraq and removed Sadam from power. The war is currently still raging and the U.S. backed president of Iraq has a very unstable hold over the country. He, much like Al-Saeed who relied on the British troops, relies very much on American troops to put down the rebellions, erm insurgents. The U.S., much like the British did, is building the world’s largest embassy in Baghdad. It will be designed to hold 3000 people (the average embassy holds about 200-300). The U.S. officials will run Iraq from the embassy. The U.S. has also begun to enter into a 25 year “treaty” with Iraq that will allow the U.S. to keep its troops there indefinetely.
Iraq will not be a free country. They will have mock freedom, much like they did when the British ruled them. It will be a farse, and a sham. More than likely, the President of Iraq will get pushed out of power during a coup de tat by a general of the current military. Such are the things that happen when you set up fake governments.
I hope you enjoyed the history behind Iraq.
