Q & A with Michael Meo

Submitted by Nedroj on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 21:47

An open invitation has been made for voters to ask Michael Meo questions on Facebook.

Check out the Meo for Congress on Facebook. Become a fan and ask him a question.

2/11/2010 questions and answers

Ben Pixley:
What is his slogan for his campaign?

Michael Meo:
A Vote for Meo Is a Vote for Peace.


Jorden Leonard:
What is your position on the Death Penalty?  And could you comment on this article?
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Government_poll_indicates_85.6%25_of_Japanes...
I may ask a follow up.

Michael Meo:
All of us Greens, Jorden, including but not especially me, are for the abolition of the death penalty.  I don't think I can support sending people to prison for more than 30 years.  In most cases, that would be close to a life sentence, but that's pretty much the point.  I'd like to leave always some hope that the prisoner could complete the sentence.

No, I have no comment on the article.  I've read it now that you've shown it to me.

Comments

3/17/2010 Q&A

by Nedroj - 03/20/2010 - 08:33

Anonymous:
What is his platform's credo on the federal government's role in the
support and direction of scientific advancement?


Michael Meo:
It's a tough question, in part because the terms are so broad.

Federal funding of scientific research is not, unlike federal funding of the diplomatic service or federal funding of charitable programs in foreign countries, shamefully inadequate. We are not notoriously stingy in funding of science.

Most of the present federal funding of scientific research (I believe it's on the order of 3 to 1 or so) now goes to medical research. Again, I'm okay with that order of magnitude choice of priorities.

Within the pie -- terming rather lightly the careers of bright, generous people who devote their working lives to demanding and often unrewarding toil -- there are a few items I do want to change.

Stop all funding of anti-missile weapons, of biological and chemical weapons, and almost all animal experimentation. Do not fund any more space exploration using human beings as passengers. Abolish the notion of "classified" scientific research.

That's as far as I think sensible to go with an answer to such a broad question.

2/23/2010 Q&A

by Nedroj - 02/23/2010 - 01:15

A Dawn Rae:
I greatly respect your obvious support for a single-payer healthcare system. However, I wonder how you propose to achieve it when there has never been any appreciable support for such a change in our political system. Also, since single-payer is highly unlikely to even be debated in Congress (and is clearly not suppo...rted by the President), what reforms and programs would you propose enacting to make health care available to all? Thank you, I look forward to your response.

 

Michael Meo:
Dear A Dawn Rae,

Allow me to begin an answer by cautioning against the jump right into the specific mechanics of the program.  If you are to address the political viability of a health-care reform, it isn't going to stand or fall on whether the Medicare is subsidized for folks at 200 percent of poverty or at 150 percent.
Rather, the issue has to be that we as a society are going to have to change from rationing health care according to the wealth of the patient to the standard of the effectiveness of the care.  Putting half of the total resources devoted over the life of a patient into the health care provided in the last twelve months of his life is obviously an arrangement for the profitability of the health-care provider, and has little to do with the effectiveness of the care from the point of view of the patient.
We are not wed to single-payer; we are wed to equal dignity and worth for all members of our community.  once we can turn the conversation in that direction the political will to reform the system in that manner will appear.  We are not born rapacious greed-heads: we are made them by the constant drumbeat of corporate propaganda.
Short of a single-payer health plan there are the options we have already seen discussed this last legislative session.  There is the possibility of a public option, which provides a voluntary alternative to the private insurer.  There is the possibility of a limited extension of Medicare, to populations not now served.  And there well may be other options with which I am not conversant.  But the aim must always be clear and clearly stated: people are deserving of health care on account of the fact that they are PEOPLE.
Not rich people, not native-born citizens, not employed people, etc.  Just because they're people.
Cordially,

Michael Meo

PS.  Just to contest what you have asserted as a given: there has been for some time a large movement in favor of universal health care.  It was brought before Congress in the Truman Administration, in 1948.  In the last legislative session the single-payer option received some 80 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, and the public option was declared so vital, that some 35 or so Representatives said that they could not vote for a health-care reform if it lacked a "robust" public option.
So there is widespread support for the single-payer plan.  Our system of greater representation for corporate interests conceals it.

2/17/2010 Q&A Jorden

by Nedroj - 02/20/2010 - 00:38

2/17/2010 Q&A

Jorden Leonard:
Is there a Republican Congressman that you would vote for? Who and why/Why no one?

Michael Meo:
I campaigned for John Anderson for President, many years ago. He ran against the Vietnam War.
I do not know whether I had the opportunity, but I certainly would
have considered voting for Mark Hatfield. I think it would have
depended upon his opponent.