CNBC'S HOSTS - NICE GUYS & THE MEANIES

The stock market seems to have no bottom, with stock prices going down several hundred points per day. Today was no exception. The DJIA fell over 400 points. Thus this might be an appropriate time to describe some of the people who populate CNBC's market coverage.

1. Pete Najarian, a panelist on Fast Money - a loud-mouth who believes his points are stronger when he yells them. Pete always tries to recommend options. Of course, he and his brother John Najarian own and operate a retail options firm. Nice tie-in, right?

2. Joe Kernen, one of the hosts of Squawk on The Street - not too nice a person. Always takes the side against labor unions, Democrats, and against government intervention except when that intervention will safeguard the value of his own 401(k), as in the 700 billion+ bailout of Wall Street banks.

3. Michelle Cabruso Cabrera - a tough girl from NYC. She smiles too much. Her politics are suspect - she always seems to side with the Republican shills like CNBC's reporter Charlie Gasparino, The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore and CNBC's house idiot Larry Kudlow.

4. Jim Cramer, host of Mad Money - about the only bright spot in today's blog lineup. Cramer frequently gets his stock picks bashed after he recommends them, but this might be the result of his enemies on the street shorting precisely those stocks he selects. But Cramer has been right on the general direction of this market - DOWN. Cramer has been urging his viewers over the past year to lighten up on their stock portfolios. And Cramer has been right to stress that without assistance for besieged homeowners in danger of foreclosure, the market will tank and everyone's 401(k) will be decimated.

More in later posts.

STOP TALK ABOUT "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" - WE NEED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS

I could not believe what I was hearing and watching on CNBC's Fast Money this past week. One of the guest traders, John Najarian, was commenting on Barach Obama's win in Iowa, consoling himself that at least Obama's health care plan did not constitute "socialized medicine" the way the plans of the other Democrats did (i.e., plans of Clinton and Edwards).

As if requiring all persons to be covered by health insurance constituted "socialized medicine." Perhaps the trader would like to see the 40 million+ Americans without any health insurance grow to 100 million. And like Bush, the trader probably would urge such uninsured to stop whining and resort to the emergency room when they need immediate care.

The term "socialized medicine" is loaded with historical baggage going all the way back at least to the Republicans' objections to FDR's proposal for Social Security retirement income. When the government provides SS retirement income to people generally over the age of 65, some conservative critics like Najarian would call this "socialized medicine." Imagine the hardship for the older population without social security income!

Consider Medicare, the program providing health insurance for seniors over 65. Even today, George W. Bush and his Republican supporters have tried to overturn the government's involvement in Medicare by substituting and subsidizing private insurance providers, conspiring to have them take the place of government. Fortunately, Bush's efforts have gone nowhere.

Medicare of course provides health insurance to those over 65. Now when the Democrats come out with plans to extend the same coverage to those under 65, the reactionaries scream and cry "socialized medicine." But if most people value Medicare as a good way to provide health coverage to those 65 and over, why is it bad to do the same thing for younger people? Why in fact would such health insurance for the young constitute "socialized medicine"?

Why shouldn't the government be involved with health insurance? What is so bad about that? What then does the "socialized" in "socialized medicine" really mean? What is the alternative to not providing universal health coverage? Can American society afford to abandon those children and under-65 adults who struggle with health crises simply because they cannot afford proper insurance?

I don't think so. And I wish that Fast Money on CNBC would require that anyone like Najarian who spouts about "socialized medicine" explain why universal health insurance should not be enacted as a priority of the next administration.