News aggregator
OUR STRANGE POLITICS: DEMOCRATS PASS REPUBLICAN BILL AND GOP HATES ITS
TAYLOR MARSH, HUFFINGTON POST - Before the vote, Robert Reich demanded that House Democrats pass the bill. Yesterday he said no one should be confused that it's progressive in the least.
"Medicare built on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal notion of government as insurer, with citizens making payments to government, and government paying out benefits. That was the central idea of Social Security, and Medicare piggybacked on Social Security.
"Obama's legislation comes from an alternative idea, begun under the Eisenhower administration and developed under Nixon, of a market for health care based on private insurers and employers... Obama applies Nixon's idea and takes it a step further by requiring all Americans to carry health insurance, and giving subsidies to those who need it."
As for the appalling way Democrats handled women's rights, Planned Parenthood simply shrugged, while NARAL and NOW sent out strong condemnation of the Obama-Stupak final deal, complete with executive order. But where were these women's groups when Stupak was rising? Expect a fundraising letter in your email inbox. Their ineptitude to manage any meaningful campaign to thwart or at least challenge the conservative Democratic minority is one reason I don't belong to any of these groups.
2010-03-23-nixonobama.jpg
The whole health care affair has made leading conservative editorial pages, written by Bill Kristol and the editors of NRO, crack under the strain, while forgetting their own history. Pushing repeal of the the health care bill, as did Rush Limbaugh, it doesn't seem Republicans are living in reality. Megan McArdle's "tyranny of the majority" is one of the more humorous responses to Speaker Pelosi's win, though I concur on her assessment of America's "toxic politics."
EJ Dionne, one of the biggest insider Dems, but also one of the only ones honest enough to write it, said it through a title on Friday: Why Democrats Are Fighting for a Republican Health Plan. A snippet is below:
Yes, Democrats have rallied behind a bill that Republicans--or at least large numbers of them--should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.
Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. This bill not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers. The plan before Congress does not call for a government "takeover" of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance.
Republicans always say they are against "socialized medicine." Not only is this bill nothing like a "single-payer" health system along Canadian or British lines. It doesn't even include the "public option" that would have allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government.
... [...] You could argue that Democrats have learned from Republicans. Some might say that Democrats have been less than true to their principles.
But there is a simpler conclusion: Democrats, including President Obama, are so anxious to get everyone health insurance that they are more than willing to try a market-based system and hope it works. It's a shame the Republicans can no longer take "yes" for an answer.
When you have Speaker Pelosi's office inviting only the boys, so called "progressives" who are insider Democrats whose only goal it is to prop up the presidency instead of focusing on strong policy, the current health care bill is what you get. Even when you go beyond the issue that Democrats willingly eroded women's rights, the fact that Democrats didn't even try to push for a public option reveals the fundamental failure of Democrats, because they ignored what the majority of the American people want.
The conservative minority was able to beat them and target women's rights in the bill by simply sticking together. The larger block of progressives who wanted a public option simply folded, as did the pro-choice caucus. Relegating the progressive brand to that of wimps, there is simply no way these people and their enablers in new media will ever best the likes of Rahm Emanuel. The reality is that congressional progressives failed utterly.
From throwing the American people into a system without any choice, providing private insurance companies with new customers, to using women's rights to get it done while progressive Democrats enabled it to happen, what Democrats have done is produce a Republican health care bill that Richard Nixon would have loved.
From Steve Pearlstein back in August 2009:
It was back in 1971 and President Nixon was concerned that he would once again have to face a Kennedy in the next year's election -- in this case a Kennedy with a proposal to extend health care to all Americans. Feeling the need to offer an alternative, Nixon asked Congress to require for the first time that all companies provide a health plan for their employees, with federal subsidies for low-income workers. Nixon was particularly intrigued by a new idea called health maintenance organizations, which held the promise of providing high-quality care at lower prices by relying on salaried physicians to manage and coordinate patient care.
At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
But it should tell you how far the country has moved to the right that the various proposals put forward by a Democratic president and Congress bear an eerie resemblance to the deal cooked up between Kennedy and Nixon, while Nixon's political heirs vilify it as nothing less than a socialist plot. [...]
Yes, Nixon would have loved Obama's Republican health care bill. Well, except maybe for the taxes.
... "even socialists like myself know you don't raise taxes in a recession." - Lawrence O'Donnell, via Joe Scarborough on Twitter
I now return Democrats and progressives to cheerleading, art provided by the White House and a fancy signing ceremony.
Taylor Marsh is a political analyst out of Washington, D.C.
More on Barack Obama_______________________________________________________
"Medicare built on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal notion of government as insurer, with citizens making payments to government, and government paying out benefits. That was the central idea of Social Security, and Medicare piggybacked on Social Security.
"Obama's legislation comes from an alternative idea, begun under the Eisenhower administration and developed under Nixon, of a market for health care based on private insurers and employers... Obama applies Nixon's idea and takes it a step further by requiring all Americans to carry health insurance, and giving subsidies to those who need it."
As for the appalling way Democrats handled women's rights, Planned Parenthood simply shrugged, while NARAL and NOW sent out strong condemnation of the Obama-Stupak final deal, complete with executive order. But where were these women's groups when Stupak was rising? Expect a fundraising letter in your email inbox. Their ineptitude to manage any meaningful campaign to thwart or at least challenge the conservative Democratic minority is one reason I don't belong to any of these groups.
2010-03-23-nixonobama.jpg
The whole health care affair has made leading conservative editorial pages, written by Bill Kristol and the editors of NRO, crack under the strain, while forgetting their own history. Pushing repeal of the the health care bill, as did Rush Limbaugh, it doesn't seem Republicans are living in reality. Megan McArdle's "tyranny of the majority" is one of the more humorous responses to Speaker Pelosi's win, though I concur on her assessment of America's "toxic politics."
EJ Dionne, one of the biggest insider Dems, but also one of the only ones honest enough to write it, said it through a title on Friday: Why Democrats Are Fighting for a Republican Health Plan. A snippet is below:
Yes, Democrats have rallied behind a bill that Republicans--or at least large numbers of them--should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.
Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. This bill not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers. The plan before Congress does not call for a government "takeover" of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance.
Republicans always say they are against "socialized medicine." Not only is this bill nothing like a "single-payer" health system along Canadian or British lines. It doesn't even include the "public option" that would have allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government.
... [...] You could argue that Democrats have learned from Republicans. Some might say that Democrats have been less than true to their principles.
But there is a simpler conclusion: Democrats, including President Obama, are so anxious to get everyone health insurance that they are more than willing to try a market-based system and hope it works. It's a shame the Republicans can no longer take "yes" for an answer.
When you have Speaker Pelosi's office inviting only the boys, so called "progressives" who are insider Democrats whose only goal it is to prop up the presidency instead of focusing on strong policy, the current health care bill is what you get. Even when you go beyond the issue that Democrats willingly eroded women's rights, the fact that Democrats didn't even try to push for a public option reveals the fundamental failure of Democrats, because they ignored what the majority of the American people want.
The conservative minority was able to beat them and target women's rights in the bill by simply sticking together. The larger block of progressives who wanted a public option simply folded, as did the pro-choice caucus. Relegating the progressive brand to that of wimps, there is simply no way these people and their enablers in new media will ever best the likes of Rahm Emanuel. The reality is that congressional progressives failed utterly.
From throwing the American people into a system without any choice, providing private insurance companies with new customers, to using women's rights to get it done while progressive Democrats enabled it to happen, what Democrats have done is produce a Republican health care bill that Richard Nixon would have loved.
From Steve Pearlstein back in August 2009:
It was back in 1971 and President Nixon was concerned that he would once again have to face a Kennedy in the next year's election -- in this case a Kennedy with a proposal to extend health care to all Americans. Feeling the need to offer an alternative, Nixon asked Congress to require for the first time that all companies provide a health plan for their employees, with federal subsidies for low-income workers. Nixon was particularly intrigued by a new idea called health maintenance organizations, which held the promise of providing high-quality care at lower prices by relying on salaried physicians to manage and coordinate patient care.
At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
But it should tell you how far the country has moved to the right that the various proposals put forward by a Democratic president and Congress bear an eerie resemblance to the deal cooked up between Kennedy and Nixon, while Nixon's political heirs vilify it as nothing less than a socialist plot. [...]
Yes, Nixon would have loved Obama's Republican health care bill. Well, except maybe for the taxes.
... "even socialists like myself know you don't raise taxes in a recession." - Lawrence O'Donnell, via Joe Scarborough on Twitter
I now return Democrats and progressives to cheerleading, art provided by the White House and a fancy signing ceremony.
Taylor Marsh is a political analyst out of Washington, D.C.
More on Barack Obama_______________________________________________________
COLD FUSION NEARLY 50 PRESENTATIONS AT AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY MEETING
PHYSORG - A potential new energy source so controversial that people once regarded it as junk science is moving closer to acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. That's the conclusion of the organizer of one of the largest scientific sessions on the topic -- "cold fusion" -- being held in San Francisco for the next two days in the Moscone Center during the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.
"Years ago, many scientists were afraid to speak about 'cold fusion' to a mainstream audience," said Jan Marwan, Ph.D., the internationally known expert who organized the symposium. . . Entitled "New Energy Technology," the symposium will include nearly 50 presentations describing the latest discoveries on the topic.
The presentations describe invention of an inexpensive new measuring device that could enable more labs to begin cold fusion research; indications that cold fusion may occur naturally in certain bacteria; progress toward a battery based on cold fusion; and a range of other topics. Marwan noted that many of the presentations suggest that cold fusion is real, with a potential to contribute to energy supplies in the 21st Century.
"Now most of the scientists are no longer afraid and most of the cold fusion researchers are attracted to the ACS meeting," Marwan said. "I've also noticed that the field is gaining new researchers from universities that had previously not pursued cold fusion research. More and more people are becoming interested in it. There's still some resistance to this field. But we just have to keep on as we have done so far, exploring cold fusion step by step, and that will make it a successful alternative energy source. With time and patience, I'm really optimistic we can do this!"
The term "cold fusion" originated in 1989 when Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons claimed achieving nuclear fusion at room temperature with a simple, inexpensive tabletop device. That claim fomented an international sensation because nuclear fusion holds potential for providing the world with a virtually limitless new source of energy. Fuel for fusion comes from ordinary seawater, and estimates indicate that 1 gallon of seawater packs the energy equivalent of 16 gallons of gasoline at 100 percent efficiency for energy production. The claim also ignited skepticism, because conventional wisdom said that achieving fusion required multi-billion-dollar fusion reactors that operate at tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.
When other scientists could not reproduce the Pons-Fleishmann results, research on cold fusion fell into disrepute. Humiliated by the scientific establishment, their reputations ruined, Pons and Fleishmann closed their labs, fled the country, and dropped out of sight. The handful of scientists who continued research avoided the term "cold fusion." Instead, they used the term "low energy nuclear reactions." Research papers at the ACS symposium openly refer to "cold fusion" and some describe cold fusion as the "Fleishmann-Pons Effect" in honor of the pioneers, Marwan noted.
"The field is now experiencing a rebirth in research efforts and interest, with evidence suggesting that cold fusion may be a reality." Marwan said. He noted, for instance, that the number of presentations on the topic at ACS National Meetings has quadrupled since 2007.
SAM SMITH, 2002 - I was attracted to the cold fusion issue because of political, rather than scientific, factors. After the initial Pons-Fleischmann experiments had proven faulty, a number of anomalies developed. Some of the media seemed to go out of its way to beat a presumed dead horse and a couple of anti-cold fusion books even appeared. The Department of Energy made it publicly clear it wanted nothing to do with the matter. The Patent Office refused to consider it.
Meanwhile, in other countries research continued, sometimes - as in Japan - with public monies, and some hardy American scientists kept plugging away, all gathering at international conferences notable for media absence. Even Toyota put money into the research.
Also in foreign lands was little suggestion that those interested in the subject belonged at Waco rather than in the lab. As one investigator put it, "In the U.S. there is a degree of envy among cold fusion researchers for their Japanese colleagues. In Japan, the debate over cold fusion is polite and scientific. Researchers are not rashly judged or branded incompetent for suggesting cold fusion could be real. Their American counterparts would like to conduct research in a similar atmosphere, without accusations and emotionalism."
The potential import of cold fusion, should it prove valid, along with the economic interests involved - including those involved in conventional energy or getting government money for other alternatives - raised the suspicion that some of the opposition might not be scientific at all. The hostility seemed to go beyond skepticism and veered towards political or public relations campaigning.
And when Jed Rothwell, who heads Cold Fusion Research Advocates, asked the editor of Scientific American why his journal had not covered the cold fusion story, he described it as "pathological science" with no merit whatsoever. But, as another reader noted, Scientific American treated the flight of the Wright Brothers the same way
WIKIPEDIA - The only photos of the [Wright Brothers] flights of 1904 -1905 were taken by the brothers. . . In 1904 Ohio beekeeping businessman Amos Root, a technology enthusiast, saw a few flights including the first circle. Articles he wrote for his beekeeping magazine were the only published eyewitness reports of the Huffman Prairie flights, except for the unimpressive early hop local newsmen saw. Root offered a report to Scientific American magazine, but the editor turned it down. As a result, the news was not widely known outside of Ohio, and was often met with skepticism. The Paris edition of the Herald Tribune headlined a 1906 article on the Wrights "FLYERS OR LIARS?"_______________________________________________________
"Years ago, many scientists were afraid to speak about 'cold fusion' to a mainstream audience," said Jan Marwan, Ph.D., the internationally known expert who organized the symposium. . . Entitled "New Energy Technology," the symposium will include nearly 50 presentations describing the latest discoveries on the topic.
The presentations describe invention of an inexpensive new measuring device that could enable more labs to begin cold fusion research; indications that cold fusion may occur naturally in certain bacteria; progress toward a battery based on cold fusion; and a range of other topics. Marwan noted that many of the presentations suggest that cold fusion is real, with a potential to contribute to energy supplies in the 21st Century.
"Now most of the scientists are no longer afraid and most of the cold fusion researchers are attracted to the ACS meeting," Marwan said. "I've also noticed that the field is gaining new researchers from universities that had previously not pursued cold fusion research. More and more people are becoming interested in it. There's still some resistance to this field. But we just have to keep on as we have done so far, exploring cold fusion step by step, and that will make it a successful alternative energy source. With time and patience, I'm really optimistic we can do this!"
The term "cold fusion" originated in 1989 when Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons claimed achieving nuclear fusion at room temperature with a simple, inexpensive tabletop device. That claim fomented an international sensation because nuclear fusion holds potential for providing the world with a virtually limitless new source of energy. Fuel for fusion comes from ordinary seawater, and estimates indicate that 1 gallon of seawater packs the energy equivalent of 16 gallons of gasoline at 100 percent efficiency for energy production. The claim also ignited skepticism, because conventional wisdom said that achieving fusion required multi-billion-dollar fusion reactors that operate at tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.
When other scientists could not reproduce the Pons-Fleishmann results, research on cold fusion fell into disrepute. Humiliated by the scientific establishment, their reputations ruined, Pons and Fleishmann closed their labs, fled the country, and dropped out of sight. The handful of scientists who continued research avoided the term "cold fusion." Instead, they used the term "low energy nuclear reactions." Research papers at the ACS symposium openly refer to "cold fusion" and some describe cold fusion as the "Fleishmann-Pons Effect" in honor of the pioneers, Marwan noted.
"The field is now experiencing a rebirth in research efforts and interest, with evidence suggesting that cold fusion may be a reality." Marwan said. He noted, for instance, that the number of presentations on the topic at ACS National Meetings has quadrupled since 2007.
SAM SMITH, 2002 - I was attracted to the cold fusion issue because of political, rather than scientific, factors. After the initial Pons-Fleischmann experiments had proven faulty, a number of anomalies developed. Some of the media seemed to go out of its way to beat a presumed dead horse and a couple of anti-cold fusion books even appeared. The Department of Energy made it publicly clear it wanted nothing to do with the matter. The Patent Office refused to consider it.
Meanwhile, in other countries research continued, sometimes - as in Japan - with public monies, and some hardy American scientists kept plugging away, all gathering at international conferences notable for media absence. Even Toyota put money into the research.
Also in foreign lands was little suggestion that those interested in the subject belonged at Waco rather than in the lab. As one investigator put it, "In the U.S. there is a degree of envy among cold fusion researchers for their Japanese colleagues. In Japan, the debate over cold fusion is polite and scientific. Researchers are not rashly judged or branded incompetent for suggesting cold fusion could be real. Their American counterparts would like to conduct research in a similar atmosphere, without accusations and emotionalism."
The potential import of cold fusion, should it prove valid, along with the economic interests involved - including those involved in conventional energy or getting government money for other alternatives - raised the suspicion that some of the opposition might not be scientific at all. The hostility seemed to go beyond skepticism and veered towards political or public relations campaigning.
And when Jed Rothwell, who heads Cold Fusion Research Advocates, asked the editor of Scientific American why his journal had not covered the cold fusion story, he described it as "pathological science" with no merit whatsoever. But, as another reader noted, Scientific American treated the flight of the Wright Brothers the same way
WIKIPEDIA - The only photos of the [Wright Brothers] flights of 1904 -1905 were taken by the brothers. . . In 1904 Ohio beekeeping businessman Amos Root, a technology enthusiast, saw a few flights including the first circle. Articles he wrote for his beekeeping magazine were the only published eyewitness reports of the Huffman Prairie flights, except for the unimpressive early hop local newsmen saw. Root offered a report to Scientific American magazine, but the editor turned it down. As a result, the news was not widely known outside of Ohio, and was often met with skepticism. The Paris edition of the Herald Tribune headlined a 1906 article on the Wrights "FLYERS OR LIARS?"_______________________________________________________
OBAMA OBSOLETUS: THE AGE OF BIPARTISANSHIP
NY TIMES - Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote. Even President Lyndon B. Johnson got just shy of half of Republicans in the House to vote for Medicare in 1965, a piece of legislation that was denounced with many of the same words used to oppose this one._______________________________________________________
THE FALSE PROMISE OF REFORM
PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM - Instead of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.
The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:
- About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.
- Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.
- Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.
- The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.
- People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.
- Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.
- The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017.
- Women's reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and for all other medical services.
It didn't have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers, could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.
Similarly, the expansion of Medicaid - a woefully underfunded program that provides substandard care for the poor - could have been done separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade its quality.
But instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today.
A genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.
By replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary, wasteful administrative costs. That's enough to cover all the uninsured and to upgrade everyone else's coverage without having to increase overall U.S. health spending by one penny.
Moreover, only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital planning._______________________________________________________
The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:
- About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.
- Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.
- Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.
- The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.
- People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.
- Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.
- The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017.
- Women's reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and for all other medical services.
It didn't have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers, could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.
Similarly, the expansion of Medicaid - a woefully underfunded program that provides substandard care for the poor - could have been done separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade its quality.
But instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today.
A genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.
By replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary, wasteful administrative costs. That's enough to cover all the uninsured and to upgrade everyone else's coverage without having to increase overall U.S. health spending by one penny.
Moreover, only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital planning._______________________________________________________
INTERNET SIGHTINGS
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how socialism in medicine is bad because the government can't do anything right.
SAM SMITH, GREAT AMERICAN POLITICAL REPAIR MANUAL, 1997 -People who complain about the welfare state remind me of the man from Virginia who went to college on the GI Bill and bought his first house with a VA loan. When a hurricane struck he got federal disaster aid. When he got sick he was treated at a veteran's hospital. When he was laid off he received unemployment insurance and then got a SBA loan to start his own business. His bank funds were protected under federal deposit insurance laws. Now he's retired and on social security and Medicare. The other day he got into his car, drove the federal interstate to the railroad station, took Amtrak to Washington and went to Capitol Hill to ask his congressman to get the government off his back._______________________________________________________
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how socialism in medicine is bad because the government can't do anything right.
SAM SMITH, GREAT AMERICAN POLITICAL REPAIR MANUAL, 1997 -People who complain about the welfare state remind me of the man from Virginia who went to college on the GI Bill and bought his first house with a VA loan. When a hurricane struck he got federal disaster aid. When he got sick he was treated at a veteran's hospital. When he was laid off he received unemployment insurance and then got a SBA loan to start his own business. His bank funds were protected under federal deposit insurance laws. Now he's retired and on social security and Medicare. The other day he got into his car, drove the federal interstate to the railroad station, took Amtrak to Washington and went to Capitol Hill to ask his congressman to get the government off his back._______________________________________________________
BANANAS GOING AT MUSEUM
WALL STREET JOURNAL - Ken Bannister is going bananas because no one wants his bananas. Over the past 38 years, Mr. Bannister has collected more than 17,000 banana-themed artifacts. He is the founder of the International Banana Club and Museum in Hesperia, Calif., in the High Desert northeast of Los Angeles.
On Jan. 8, he received a letter from the Hesperia Recreation & Parks District informing him the banana collection must go, because the district wants to bring in new blood to the city-owned space. It will be replaced by artifacts collected by the late John Swisher, a local historian. Mr. Bannister has until the end of the month to pack up his bananas.
Ken Bannister's Banana Museum holds the Guinness World Record for the "world's largest collection devoted to any one fruit." The collection includes a banana golf putter, banana beverages, and a gold-sequined "Michael Jackson banana." Mr. Bannister organizes the goods into "hard" (brass, lead, wood, plastic banana wares) and "soft" (stuffed bananas, banana beach mats, banana tents). He estimates the effort has cost him over $150,000 over the years.
There are other fruit and vegetable museums. The Carrot Museum in England boasts more than 1,000 items. The National Apple Museum of Biglerville, Pa., has a related Apple Core Band. And the Vidalia Onion Museum in Georgia will open a new 1,500 square-foot space in April. Still, the banana museum holds the Guinness Book of World Records title for the "world's largest collection devoted to any one fruit."_______________________________________________________
WHY THE QUACK CARE BILL MAY HAVE SEVERELY DAMAGED ABORTION RIGHTS
NATASHIA CHART, OPEN LEFT - The Nelson abortion provision in the Senate bill isn't status quo, goes beyond Hyde, and is very likely to end most abortion coverage in a few years, when at present, the vast majority of private plans cover it. The reason why the Nelson language is indeed such a big deal is that, like the Stupak language, any federal money is assumed to taint the entire plan, requiring that separate checks be written for abortion riders on plans that have even a single enrollee getting federal subsidies to purchase insurance. It's expensive to insurance companies in administrative costs and stigmatizing to individuals.
MORE
MORE _______________________________________________________
MORE
MORE _______________________________________________________
WHY NOTHING MAKES MUCH SENSE ANYMORE
67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist.
57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" *
24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."
From a new Harris poll reported by Daily Beast_______________________________________________________
57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" *
24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."
From a new Harris poll reported by Daily Beast_______________________________________________________
NY TIMES FEAR MONGERS AGAIN ON SOCIAL SECURITY
DEAN BAKER - Serious newspapers don't pull down ghosts from the sky to present their views to readers. However, in an article discussing the implications of the health care plan, the NYT told readers, "many have come to believe that the system [Social Security] must change or go broke, the battle Mr. Bush fought and lost in 2005."
Of course people who are familiar with the finances of the system don't believe such things. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the program can pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2044 with no changes whatsoever. Even after this date it could still pay more than 75 percent of projected benefits long into the future (a level far higher than current benefits) even if no changes were ever made.
In fact, these projections show that Social Security is on a sounder financial footing today than it has been through most of its history since it can go 34 years with no changes being made at all. This was not true at any point in the first 40 years of the program's existence._______________________________________________________
Of course people who are familiar with the finances of the system don't believe such things. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the program can pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2044 with no changes whatsoever. Even after this date it could still pay more than 75 percent of projected benefits long into the future (a level far higher than current benefits) even if no changes were ever made.
In fact, these projections show that Social Security is on a sounder financial footing today than it has been through most of its history since it can go 34 years with no changes being made at all. This was not true at any point in the first 40 years of the program's existence._______________________________________________________
LOCAL HEROES: MARRIED TO JUSTICE AND EACH OTHER
WASHINGTON POST - They won a battle to have a Trinidad neighborhood police checkpoint program struck down as illegal and forced D.C. police to release thousands of documents detailing internal policies on high-speed chases, recording interrogations and other use of police powers. And they've obtained more than $14 million in damages on behalf of protesters who were unjustly arrested by D.C. police over the years.
Nationally, they got more space for protesters along the inauguration parade route and in New York's Central Park, where demonstrators were banned in advance of the 2004 Republican convention.
All the while, they've managed to stay married._______________________________________________________
Nationally, they got more space for protesters along the inauguration parade route and in New York's Central Park, where demonstrators were banned in advance of the 2004 Republican convention.
All the while, they've managed to stay married._______________________________________________________
OBAMA OBSOLETUS
REAL CLEAR POLITICS - On the campaign trail President Obama said the "public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk" before he signs it into law. VIDEO_______________________________________________________
MEDIA GROSSLY EXAGGERATING BILL'S IMPORTANCE
Sam Smith
IT'S PROBABLY to be expected of people who spend all day quoting disingenuous public officials, but the media is grossly exaggerating the importance of the health care bill. The comparisons to Medicare and Medicaid are not only wrong, they're insulting.
There are presently about 137 million people on Medicare and Medicaid. Although the Democrats claim to be providing health care to 32 million, half that number are being order to provide themselves with health care, which the government will partially subsidize. Those to be added to Medicaid represent only 12% of those currently enrolled in these programs and even if you add those ordered to buy insurance the number is only a quarter of those benefiting from earlier programs.
Further, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post has pointed out that, "the bill wouldn't really kick in until 2014. To get a more accurate annual figure, look at a year in which the bill is fully operational. In, say, 2016, the bill's spending will be about $160 billion. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health-care spending that year will be about $3.7 trillion. In other words, the bill's spending is equivalent to about 4 percent of what we'll spend in health care in a year."_______________________________________________________
IT'S PROBABLY to be expected of people who spend all day quoting disingenuous public officials, but the media is grossly exaggerating the importance of the health care bill. The comparisons to Medicare and Medicaid are not only wrong, they're insulting.
There are presently about 137 million people on Medicare and Medicaid. Although the Democrats claim to be providing health care to 32 million, half that number are being order to provide themselves with health care, which the government will partially subsidize. Those to be added to Medicaid represent only 12% of those currently enrolled in these programs and even if you add those ordered to buy insurance the number is only a quarter of those benefiting from earlier programs.
Further, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post has pointed out that, "the bill wouldn't really kick in until 2014. To get a more accurate annual figure, look at a year in which the bill is fully operational. In, say, 2016, the bill's spending will be about $160 billion. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health-care spending that year will be about $3.7 trillion. In other words, the bill's spending is equivalent to about 4 percent of what we'll spend in health care in a year."_______________________________________________________
THE REAL CAUSE OF INFLATION
Sam Smith
Did you know the soda I bought yesterday at a convenience store cost $19.90? Or that it costs you about $13,000 to drive your car? Or that the property tax on what you thought was a modest home is $17,000?
How did I reach such figures? The same way politicians and the media have been doing in recent years: just multiple everything by ten, but don't tell any one.
It's so much more impressive, for example, to think that a healthcare bill is going to cost a trillion dollars than only one hundred billion.
Of course, if you watch carefully you discover that the use of this ploy is selective. For example, you don't see it much when estimating the cost of the Afghanistan war in which we may well be for a decade.
The ten year inflation has crept up on us quietly. Nobody told us about it. And It's dishonest and confusing, but most of all, it's extremely useful for those trying to cut the budget for something.
While you can't expect politicians to reform, it's not unreasonable to demand that the media stop multiplying budget figures by ten. Just tell us what it will cost each year.
If we don't stop this digital inflation now, the next thing we know our kids in kindergarten will all be sixty years old and the Washington Post will be running editorials on the severe problems of premature aging.
We've got enough problems with reality to the first power. Stop multiplying it by ten._______________________________________________________
Did you know the soda I bought yesterday at a convenience store cost $19.90? Or that it costs you about $13,000 to drive your car? Or that the property tax on what you thought was a modest home is $17,000?
How did I reach such figures? The same way politicians and the media have been doing in recent years: just multiple everything by ten, but don't tell any one.
It's so much more impressive, for example, to think that a healthcare bill is going to cost a trillion dollars than only one hundred billion.
Of course, if you watch carefully you discover that the use of this ploy is selective. For example, you don't see it much when estimating the cost of the Afghanistan war in which we may well be for a decade.
The ten year inflation has crept up on us quietly. Nobody told us about it. And It's dishonest and confusing, but most of all, it's extremely useful for those trying to cut the budget for something.
While you can't expect politicians to reform, it's not unreasonable to demand that the media stop multiplying budget figures by ten. Just tell us what it will cost each year.
If we don't stop this digital inflation now, the next thing we know our kids in kindergarten will all be sixty years old and the Washington Post will be running editorials on the severe problems of premature aging.
We've got enough problems with reality to the first power. Stop multiplying it by ten._______________________________________________________
OBAMA CONSIDERING USING ABU GRAB EAST FOR GITMO PRISONERS
LA TIMES - The White House is considering whether to detain international terrorism suspects at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, senior U.S. officials said, an option that would lead to another prison with the same purpose as Guantanamo Bay, which it has promised to close.
The idea, which would require approval by President Obama, already has drawn resistance from within the government. Army Gen. Stanley A. McCrystal, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and other senior officials strongly oppose it, fearing that expansion of the U.S. detention facility at Bagram air base could make the job of stabilizing the country even tougher. . .
With such a move certain to draw furious criticism by allies and human rights groups that the administration was re-creating the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, officials stressed that no final decisions have been made, and a White House spokesman declined to comment.
The idea of using Bagram emerged as the White House National Security Council solicited suggestions on how to handle detainees from the Justice Department, CIA and other government agencies. . .
Bagram remains controversial in Afghanistan because of documented cases of detainee abuse there, including two deaths, in the early months of the Afghan war. The original prison was recently replaced by a new detention facility on the U.S. base. . ._______________________________________________________
The idea, which would require approval by President Obama, already has drawn resistance from within the government. Army Gen. Stanley A. McCrystal, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and other senior officials strongly oppose it, fearing that expansion of the U.S. detention facility at Bagram air base could make the job of stabilizing the country even tougher. . .
With such a move certain to draw furious criticism by allies and human rights groups that the administration was re-creating the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, officials stressed that no final decisions have been made, and a White House spokesman declined to comment.
The idea of using Bagram emerged as the White House National Security Council solicited suggestions on how to handle detainees from the Justice Department, CIA and other government agencies. . .
Bagram remains controversial in Afghanistan because of documented cases of detainee abuse there, including two deaths, in the early months of the Afghan war. The original prison was recently replaced by a new detention facility on the U.S. base. . ._______________________________________________________
HASSAN NEMAZEE CONT'D
LLOYD GROVE, DAILY BEAST - The strange case of Hassan Nemazee is a lurid example of the human capacity for self-delusion, and a cautionary tale for all those savvy political players who take pride in their ability to size people up.
Seldom has so talented a con man flourished for so long in the confidence of the high and mighty. For two decades, Nemazee was a top fundraiser for the Democratic Party and-for the past 12 years, it turns out-a Ponzi scheme felon who stole hundreds of millions dollars of other people's money. Before he was unmasked by the FBI seven months ago, Nemazee campaigned behind the scenes to be a U.S. ambassador in the Obama administration, and personally lobbied his longtime friend, Joe Biden, to enlist his support for a high-level diplomatic post. . .
It's unclear what, if anything, came of Nemazee's conversation with Biden, or whether Biden was receptive to his old friend's entreaties. A spokesman for the vice president declined to comment on Friday. A proposed meeting about an ambassadorial appointment with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton-for whom Nemazee had raised cash during the 2008 presidential campaign-never occurred, said a well-placed source. The White House, likewise, had no comment. . .
When Barack Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate, Nemazee was "ecstatic," according to an associate, "because now he would have a direct line to the White House." He boasted that Biden was among his closest friends, and finally he would obtain that ambassadorship he'd always dreamed of. Indeed, he narrowly missed getting one in 1999, when Biden was his lead defender on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Republican senators worked to quash Nemazee's nomination to be President Clinton's ambassador to Argentina. A damaging article in Forbes magazine detailing Nemazee's sharp business practices over the years didn't help his cause.
"When his nomination failed, that was a big shock to him," says the longtime friend, who met Nemazee as a Harvard undergraduate. . .
Nemazee had been a valued friend and supporter of Biden, Al Gore, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were part of a cavalcade of powerful office-holders who dined regularly at the Park Avenue apartment. . .
He was a major supporter of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, and four years later was on John Kerry's New York finance team. For the 2006 election cycle, Nemazee signed on as finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, led by Senator Chuck Schumer. But Nemazee left abruptly, according to knowledgeable sources, after he and Schumer had an acrimonious falling out. The problem, say sources close to New York's senior senator, was that Schumer became frustrated when Nemazee failed to deliver on fundraising goals, and also suspected that he was using his title to burnish his credentials among the Democratic powers that be-and, even worse, was spending time soliciting money for Hillary Clinton_______________________________________________________
DIVERSITY TRAINING PRETTY MUCH A BUST
BOSTON GLOBE - A few social scientists are taking a hard look at [corporate diversity] programs, and, so far, what they're finding is that there's little evidence that diversity training works.
Woodrow Wilson School and the Yale University political scientist Donald Green comprehensively surveyed the literature on prejudice reduction measures and found no empirical support for the idea that diversity training programs change attitudes or behavior. Similarly, a 2008 literature review paper by Carol Kulik of the University of South Australia and Loriann Roberson of Columbia University found that, on the question of changing behavior, there were few trustworthy studies - and decidedly mixed results among those. And research by a team of sociologists on more than 800 companies over three decades has found that the best diversity training programs make little difference in who gets hired and promoted, and many programs actually decrease the number of women and minorities in management. . .
"We were increasingly frustrated by the fact that we know a lot about what kinds of disparities there are in organizations, and what kind of disadvantages women and minorities faced, but we know almost nothing about how to how to reduce them," says Alexandra Kalev, a sociologist at the University of Arizona.
Several years ago Kalev, along with Dobbin and Erin Kelly of the University of Minnesota, set out to see what works. As a measure of program success, they looked at the number of women and minorities in a company's managerial ranks . . .
The researchers found that while diversity training was by far the most popular approach, it was also the least effective at getting companies to hire and promote women and minorities. Some training programs were more effective than others: Voluntary programs were better than mandatory ones, and those that focused on the threat of bias and harassment lawsuits were worse than those that did not. But even the better programs led only to marginal changes. And those that were mandatory or discussed lawsuits - the vast majority of the programs the researchers examined - slightly reduced the number of women and minorities in management. Required training and legalistic training both make people resentful, the authors suggest, and likely to rebel against what they've heard.
What worked much better than even the best training, the researchers found, were more structural measures: minority mentoring programs, or designating an executive or a task force with specific responsibility to change promotion practices. . ._______________________________________________________
Woodrow Wilson School and the Yale University political scientist Donald Green comprehensively surveyed the literature on prejudice reduction measures and found no empirical support for the idea that diversity training programs change attitudes or behavior. Similarly, a 2008 literature review paper by Carol Kulik of the University of South Australia and Loriann Roberson of Columbia University found that, on the question of changing behavior, there were few trustworthy studies - and decidedly mixed results among those. And research by a team of sociologists on more than 800 companies over three decades has found that the best diversity training programs make little difference in who gets hired and promoted, and many programs actually decrease the number of women and minorities in management. . .
"We were increasingly frustrated by the fact that we know a lot about what kinds of disparities there are in organizations, and what kind of disadvantages women and minorities faced, but we know almost nothing about how to how to reduce them," says Alexandra Kalev, a sociologist at the University of Arizona.
Several years ago Kalev, along with Dobbin and Erin Kelly of the University of Minnesota, set out to see what works. As a measure of program success, they looked at the number of women and minorities in a company's managerial ranks . . .
The researchers found that while diversity training was by far the most popular approach, it was also the least effective at getting companies to hire and promote women and minorities. Some training programs were more effective than others: Voluntary programs were better than mandatory ones, and those that focused on the threat of bias and harassment lawsuits were worse than those that did not. But even the better programs led only to marginal changes. And those that were mandatory or discussed lawsuits - the vast majority of the programs the researchers examined - slightly reduced the number of women and minorities in management. Required training and legalistic training both make people resentful, the authors suggest, and likely to rebel against what they've heard.
What worked much better than even the best training, the researchers found, were more structural measures: minority mentoring programs, or designating an executive or a task force with specific responsibility to change promotion practices. . ._______________________________________________________
QUACK CARE BILL PASSES
Sam Smith
I ended up supporting the health care bill. Not because it was a historic measure, or the most important piece of legislation in four decades or as an icon of Obama's greatness, but for the same reason one hands over a wallet to a robber. There are times when principle takes the back seat. But when it's all over, the robber is not your hero, but still a thug.
Obama essentially said that if you want 16 million poor people covered, you have to agree to heavily subsidize the insurance industry either through your taxes or through the individual mandate. Remember that about a third of that money will go for marketing and other superfluous industry spending that might have been avoided under a public plan.
The Maine Owl put it well: "The health bill neither is the Armageddon that the Republicans claim, nor the greatest social legislation since Civil Rights and Medicare in the 1960s. Rather, it's a warmed over version of Republican Bob Dole's individual private insurance mandate proposal from 1994. It is what Barack Obama campaigned against versus Hillary Clinton and later John McCain in 2008."
I can't recall a major piece of Democratic legislation that was so coated with corruption, intellectual dishonesty, cynicism and political disloyalty by those pushing it. Obama and the Democrats have offered us a quack cure - full of corrupt, ineffective and even unconstitutional provisions - neatly moderated by some good provisions. And we'll be years straightening it all out.
The liberal groupies at Move On and the like didn't notice or weren't bothered by all this, but much of America was, and because neither side was being honest, the public predictably floundered. The irony is that the Tea Party that the liberals love to hate built itself in no small part on the indefensible way in which the Democrats have behaved on health care. Thus, we are not only getting a badly designed bill but a future in which the right will thrive even more than it already has.
WHAT'S GOOD
Center On Budget Policy Priorities: The plan would expand Medicaid up to 133 percent of the poverty line for all children and adults younger than 65 who are lawfully residing in the United States and not eligible for Medicare. This would mean that millions of low-income parents, as well non-disabled low-income adults who do not have dependent children (and who are generally ineligible for Medicaid today except in a small number of states with waivers), would become newly eligible for health coverage through Medicaid. Medicaid is the most cost-effective way to provide comprehensive and affordable coverage to people with very low incomes and thereby ensure that the low-income uninsured gain coverage.
Reuters - Within the first year of enactment Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick.
Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
In 2011, Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
In 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.
In 2012, The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.
In 2012, The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.
In 2014, State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.
In 2014, Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
In 2014, Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
Crooks & Liars: Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states. Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
WHAT'S BAD
There is a huge subsidy for health insurers, paid for out of either taxes or required purchase of health insurance.
The bill doesn't take insurance and medical cost inflation into adequate account. For example, between 2000 and 2007, health insurance went up 100%. Under such a rise, the policy subsidies would become less valuable. Congress tends to lag badly in correcting such situations.
Major provisions of the bill don't got into effect for four to nine years. This is a considerable con, because it allows politicians to say they've passed something that may not go into effect until they are either out of office or, as with the president, safely in his second term. As a result they don't have to take responsibility for any failure or unanticipated cost.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, it will open the door to major new intrusions by the federal government into individual freedom of choice.
Many healthy people may prefer to pay fines than to purchase health insurance. Others would have no choice. Just because you're making a middle class wage doesn't mean you can afford all your expenses. What effect this will have - including on health insurance costs - is unclear but it's not good
Medicare will be hurt one way or another, probably most deeply by cuts recommended by an appointed budget commission with unconstitutionally broad powers.
Because of the delay in programs, the election of a Republican Congress or Senate could drastically change things. As the LA Times pointed out: "Insurance industry experts say there is no way to fully gauge the effect because of its extended time frame. Four years from now, they say, Congress and the White House could have new occupants who may try again to reshape the healthcare landscape."
There will be cuts to the Medicare Advantage plans that could reduce enrollment by as much as one third.
The bill does not deal with state actions. For example, budget cuts in Arizona may slash $385 from the state's Medicaid program and end Kids Care for 39,000 poor children. Writes Casey Newton in Arizona Central: "Programs benefiting low income individuals and families, such as Medicaid and CHIP, are politically vulnerable to the whims of conservatives wielding budget cleavers. Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona has just provided us with a prime example of that. Yet popular programs benefiting everyone, such as Medicare, are relatively impenetrable to the weapons of the conservatives. Suppose Congress had included single payer in their deliberations and eventually decided that the benefits were too great to pass up ,and so enacted an improved Medicare program that covered everyone. Gov. Brewer and her ilk on the state level would be powerless to stop it. "
One of the big sleepers in the bill is the plan to "institute efficiencies" in Medicare programs. In fact, Medicare is far more efficient than any private insurance plan in the country. Consider this snippet from CBPP: "The legislation would reduce annual payment updates to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospices, ambulatory surgical centers, and certain other providers to account for improvements in economy-wide productivity. It would also reduce payments to home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, and inpatient rehabilitation facilities." And just what will happen to service and its availability? Remember: one person's efficiency is another's lack of service._______________________________________________________
I ended up supporting the health care bill. Not because it was a historic measure, or the most important piece of legislation in four decades or as an icon of Obama's greatness, but for the same reason one hands over a wallet to a robber. There are times when principle takes the back seat. But when it's all over, the robber is not your hero, but still a thug.
Obama essentially said that if you want 16 million poor people covered, you have to agree to heavily subsidize the insurance industry either through your taxes or through the individual mandate. Remember that about a third of that money will go for marketing and other superfluous industry spending that might have been avoided under a public plan.
The Maine Owl put it well: "The health bill neither is the Armageddon that the Republicans claim, nor the greatest social legislation since Civil Rights and Medicare in the 1960s. Rather, it's a warmed over version of Republican Bob Dole's individual private insurance mandate proposal from 1994. It is what Barack Obama campaigned against versus Hillary Clinton and later John McCain in 2008."
I can't recall a major piece of Democratic legislation that was so coated with corruption, intellectual dishonesty, cynicism and political disloyalty by those pushing it. Obama and the Democrats have offered us a quack cure - full of corrupt, ineffective and even unconstitutional provisions - neatly moderated by some good provisions. And we'll be years straightening it all out.
The liberal groupies at Move On and the like didn't notice or weren't bothered by all this, but much of America was, and because neither side was being honest, the public predictably floundered. The irony is that the Tea Party that the liberals love to hate built itself in no small part on the indefensible way in which the Democrats have behaved on health care. Thus, we are not only getting a badly designed bill but a future in which the right will thrive even more than it already has.
WHAT'S GOOD
Center On Budget Policy Priorities: The plan would expand Medicaid up to 133 percent of the poverty line for all children and adults younger than 65 who are lawfully residing in the United States and not eligible for Medicare. This would mean that millions of low-income parents, as well non-disabled low-income adults who do not have dependent children (and who are generally ineligible for Medicaid today except in a small number of states with waivers), would become newly eligible for health coverage through Medicaid. Medicaid is the most cost-effective way to provide comprehensive and affordable coverage to people with very low incomes and thereby ensure that the low-income uninsured gain coverage.
Reuters - Within the first year of enactment Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick.
Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
In 2011, Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
In 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.
In 2012, The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.
In 2012, The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.
In 2014, State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.
In 2014, Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
In 2014, Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
Crooks & Liars: Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states. Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
WHAT'S BAD
There is a huge subsidy for health insurers, paid for out of either taxes or required purchase of health insurance.
The bill doesn't take insurance and medical cost inflation into adequate account. For example, between 2000 and 2007, health insurance went up 100%. Under such a rise, the policy subsidies would become less valuable. Congress tends to lag badly in correcting such situations.
Major provisions of the bill don't got into effect for four to nine years. This is a considerable con, because it allows politicians to say they've passed something that may not go into effect until they are either out of office or, as with the president, safely in his second term. As a result they don't have to take responsibility for any failure or unanticipated cost.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, it will open the door to major new intrusions by the federal government into individual freedom of choice.
Many healthy people may prefer to pay fines than to purchase health insurance. Others would have no choice. Just because you're making a middle class wage doesn't mean you can afford all your expenses. What effect this will have - including on health insurance costs - is unclear but it's not good
Medicare will be hurt one way or another, probably most deeply by cuts recommended by an appointed budget commission with unconstitutionally broad powers.
Because of the delay in programs, the election of a Republican Congress or Senate could drastically change things. As the LA Times pointed out: "Insurance industry experts say there is no way to fully gauge the effect because of its extended time frame. Four years from now, they say, Congress and the White House could have new occupants who may try again to reshape the healthcare landscape."
There will be cuts to the Medicare Advantage plans that could reduce enrollment by as much as one third.
The bill does not deal with state actions. For example, budget cuts in Arizona may slash $385 from the state's Medicaid program and end Kids Care for 39,000 poor children. Writes Casey Newton in Arizona Central: "Programs benefiting low income individuals and families, such as Medicaid and CHIP, are politically vulnerable to the whims of conservatives wielding budget cleavers. Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona has just provided us with a prime example of that. Yet popular programs benefiting everyone, such as Medicare, are relatively impenetrable to the weapons of the conservatives. Suppose Congress had included single payer in their deliberations and eventually decided that the benefits were too great to pass up ,and so enacted an improved Medicare program that covered everyone. Gov. Brewer and her ilk on the state level would be powerless to stop it. "
One of the big sleepers in the bill is the plan to "institute efficiencies" in Medicare programs. In fact, Medicare is far more efficient than any private insurance plan in the country. Consider this snippet from CBPP: "The legislation would reduce annual payment updates to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospices, ambulatory surgical centers, and certain other providers to account for improvements in economy-wide productivity. It would also reduce payments to home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, and inpatient rehabilitation facilities." And just what will happen to service and its availability? Remember: one person's efficiency is another's lack of service._______________________________________________________
NY TIMES ADMITS IT SCREWED UP ON ACORN STORIES
ROBERT PARRY, COMMON DREAMS - The New York Times admits, sort of, that it got duped by right-wing propagandists who appear to have succeeded in a plot to destroy ACORN, an organization that has aided and defended the poor and powerless across the United States for four decades.
In an op-ed column Sunday, the Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt said he has reviewed the available information and concluded that some key points of the right-wing video presentation were false or misleading, including the claim that right-wing media activist James O'Keefe showed up at ACORN offices dressed in a pimp costume before getting legal advice on setting up a brothel.
"O'Keefe almost certainly did not go into the Acorn offices in the outlandish costume - fur coat, goggle-like sunglasses, walking stick and broad-brimmed hat - in which he appeared at the beginning and end of most of his videos," Hoyt wrote, adding that the Times was considering a correction regarding its earlier reporting that had accepted this misleading point.
Hoyt also acknowledged that perhaps the most damning part of the ACORN sting story was wrong: ACORN staffers did not go along with a plan to use under-aged Salvadoran girls as prostitutes. Indeed, the staffers may have thought they were helping to protect the girls.
After reviewing transcripts provided by a conservative organization, Hoyt accepted a criticism of the Times made by the liberal media critics at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, that the Times' earlier reporting on the video gave the impression that O'Keefe and his supposed girlfriend were going to exploit the girls as prostitutes. FAIR said the fuller transcript suggests that the ACORN staffers thought the couple was trying "to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp."
"That's right," Hoyt wrote, regarding FAIR's characterization of the child-prostitute point.
However, Hoyt, who earlier had chastised the Times for not jumping on the ACORN scandal faster, insisted that the ACORN employees still deserved criticism for not objecting to other apparent illegalities in O'Keefe's fictitious schemes. Hoyt said the ACORN workers should have protested any plans regarding a brothel, noting that one ACORN worker blithely warned, "Don't get caught, ‘cause it is against the law."
In other words, Hoyt isn't ready to admit that he joined the Times in a rush to judgment and thus helped destroy ACORN, which has seen its funding dry up, has shuttered many of its offices, and is expected to file for bankruptcy soon.
The ACORN case also underscores how vulnerable liberal and leftist groups are to the Right's enormous media power. One environmental activist told me recently that every progressive organization in Washington lives in fear that one mis-dotted "I"or one mis-crossed "T" could mean the end.
The massive right-wing media - stretching from magazines, newspapers and books to radio, TV and the Internet - also gives the Right the capability of stampeding the mainstream press against some disfavored politician or even against another media outlet that digs up unwelcomed information._______________________________________________________
In an op-ed column Sunday, the Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt said he has reviewed the available information and concluded that some key points of the right-wing video presentation were false or misleading, including the claim that right-wing media activist James O'Keefe showed up at ACORN offices dressed in a pimp costume before getting legal advice on setting up a brothel.
"O'Keefe almost certainly did not go into the Acorn offices in the outlandish costume - fur coat, goggle-like sunglasses, walking stick and broad-brimmed hat - in which he appeared at the beginning and end of most of his videos," Hoyt wrote, adding that the Times was considering a correction regarding its earlier reporting that had accepted this misleading point.
Hoyt also acknowledged that perhaps the most damning part of the ACORN sting story was wrong: ACORN staffers did not go along with a plan to use under-aged Salvadoran girls as prostitutes. Indeed, the staffers may have thought they were helping to protect the girls.
After reviewing transcripts provided by a conservative organization, Hoyt accepted a criticism of the Times made by the liberal media critics at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, that the Times' earlier reporting on the video gave the impression that O'Keefe and his supposed girlfriend were going to exploit the girls as prostitutes. FAIR said the fuller transcript suggests that the ACORN staffers thought the couple was trying "to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp."
"That's right," Hoyt wrote, regarding FAIR's characterization of the child-prostitute point.
However, Hoyt, who earlier had chastised the Times for not jumping on the ACORN scandal faster, insisted that the ACORN employees still deserved criticism for not objecting to other apparent illegalities in O'Keefe's fictitious schemes. Hoyt said the ACORN workers should have protested any plans regarding a brothel, noting that one ACORN worker blithely warned, "Don't get caught, ‘cause it is against the law."
In other words, Hoyt isn't ready to admit that he joined the Times in a rush to judgment and thus helped destroy ACORN, which has seen its funding dry up, has shuttered many of its offices, and is expected to file for bankruptcy soon.
The ACORN case also underscores how vulnerable liberal and leftist groups are to the Right's enormous media power. One environmental activist told me recently that every progressive organization in Washington lives in fear that one mis-dotted "I"or one mis-crossed "T" could mean the end.
The massive right-wing media - stretching from magazines, newspapers and books to radio, TV and the Internet - also gives the Right the capability of stampeding the mainstream press against some disfavored politician or even against another media outlet that digs up unwelcomed information._______________________________________________________
TASER TORTURE OF THE WEEK
TIMES ARGUS, BARRE VT – Some city councilors and a handful of residents Tuesday night suggested revising a policy that governs the police department's use of Tasers, and raised questions about a local officer's decision to repeatedly use his stun gun to subdue a 58-year-old homeless woman who suffers from a mental illness.
During a lengthy discussion, councilors, who received their first official briefing on the incident that occurred last Wednesday morning in the parking lot of the Cumberland Farms on North Main Street, did not shrink from their decision to authorize the acquisition of Tasers last year. However, some told Police Chief Timothy Bombardier that the events that played out last week were not quite what they had in mind when they approved the purchase and adopted the policy outlining how officers should use the newly acquired devices.
Some councilors questioned why Cpl. Henry Duhaime chose not to call for backup before deciding to use his Taser on an arguably defiant, but not outwardly aggressive woman that he repeatedly asked to leave the parking lot of the convenience store before placing her under arrest.
According to newly released documents, Sgt. Bob Miller was parked just up the road on the corner of Second Street. Miller could see Duhaime's marked SUV, but not Duhaime or Ann Osborn, the woman he was attempting to take into custody.
According to reports, Miller responded to the scene when he heard Osborn's screams after having been tased. . .
In the use-of-force report he filed in the wake of the incident, Duhaime outlined his repeated attempts to persuade Osborn to leave the property, explained how she crossed her arms defiantly immediately before he placed her under arrest for unlawful trespass.
According to Duhaime's report, he asked the woman, whom Bombardier said is still being treated for mental issues, to put her arms behind her back twice before warning her she would be Tased if she didn't comply.
Osborn kept her arms crossed, according to the report, prompting Duhaime to unholster his Taser. As had previously been reported, Osborn responded by saying: "Give me a thrill." Duhaime then fired the Taser, but claimed the probes did not penetrate Osborn's jacket and the woman doubled over laughing.
According to the report, that's when things escalated.
"I could see that this was not getting any results so I pulled out the cartridge and went for a drive stun to Osborn's left thigh," Duhaime wrote in the report that was presented to the council. "This did have some affect and she screamed a little bit and went down on her buttocks, in the shrub area, next to the store at which time the Taser slipped off her thigh."
According to Duhaime's account that is when Osborn, who was struggling to get up, "took a swing" at his knee and missed.
"Before Osborn could get up I was able to apply a second drive stun to her right thigh," he wrote. "This again kept her down and she began to scream. I advised her to roll over and place her hands behind her back, which she did and the Taser came off her leg losing contact again.
"Now Osborn was still screaming without the Taser being on her, and would still not put her hands behind her back," he continued. "I again applied the drive stun to the back of her left thigh. Osborn finally complied, put her hands behind her back at which time I was able to get the handcuffs on her and take her into custody."
Bombardier told councilors Duhaime did shout "Taser, Taser, Taser" as required by the policy and, he believed was appropriately used the weapon to subdue and "actively resistant" subject.
That said, Bombardier conceded there were some issues that deserved review. Among them, he said, was the less-than-effective use of the Taser and a need to consider training in identifying and handling subjects with mental issues._______________________________________________________
During a lengthy discussion, councilors, who received their first official briefing on the incident that occurred last Wednesday morning in the parking lot of the Cumberland Farms on North Main Street, did not shrink from their decision to authorize the acquisition of Tasers last year. However, some told Police Chief Timothy Bombardier that the events that played out last week were not quite what they had in mind when they approved the purchase and adopted the policy outlining how officers should use the newly acquired devices.
Some councilors questioned why Cpl. Henry Duhaime chose not to call for backup before deciding to use his Taser on an arguably defiant, but not outwardly aggressive woman that he repeatedly asked to leave the parking lot of the convenience store before placing her under arrest.
According to newly released documents, Sgt. Bob Miller was parked just up the road on the corner of Second Street. Miller could see Duhaime's marked SUV, but not Duhaime or Ann Osborn, the woman he was attempting to take into custody.
According to reports, Miller responded to the scene when he heard Osborn's screams after having been tased. . .
In the use-of-force report he filed in the wake of the incident, Duhaime outlined his repeated attempts to persuade Osborn to leave the property, explained how she crossed her arms defiantly immediately before he placed her under arrest for unlawful trespass.
According to Duhaime's report, he asked the woman, whom Bombardier said is still being treated for mental issues, to put her arms behind her back twice before warning her she would be Tased if she didn't comply.
Osborn kept her arms crossed, according to the report, prompting Duhaime to unholster his Taser. As had previously been reported, Osborn responded by saying: "Give me a thrill." Duhaime then fired the Taser, but claimed the probes did not penetrate Osborn's jacket and the woman doubled over laughing.
According to the report, that's when things escalated.
"I could see that this was not getting any results so I pulled out the cartridge and went for a drive stun to Osborn's left thigh," Duhaime wrote in the report that was presented to the council. "This did have some affect and she screamed a little bit and went down on her buttocks, in the shrub area, next to the store at which time the Taser slipped off her thigh."
According to Duhaime's account that is when Osborn, who was struggling to get up, "took a swing" at his knee and missed.
"Before Osborn could get up I was able to apply a second drive stun to her right thigh," he wrote. "This again kept her down and she began to scream. I advised her to roll over and place her hands behind her back, which she did and the Taser came off her leg losing contact again.
"Now Osborn was still screaming without the Taser being on her, and would still not put her hands behind her back," he continued. "I again applied the drive stun to the back of her left thigh. Osborn finally complied, put her hands behind her back at which time I was able to get the handcuffs on her and take her into custody."
Bombardier told councilors Duhaime did shout "Taser, Taser, Taser" as required by the policy and, he believed was appropriately used the weapon to subdue and "actively resistant" subject.
That said, Bombardier conceded there were some issues that deserved review. Among them, he said, was the less-than-effective use of the Taser and a need to consider training in identifying and handling subjects with mental issues._______________________________________________________
NUCLEAR POWER: THE BATTLE AHEAD
GALLUP - Americans' support for the use of nuclear power has inched up to 62%, establishing a new high.
A majority of Americans have typically favored using nuclear power to provide electricity for the United States since Gallup began asking about this topic in 1994. Support has edged up in the last two years, eclipsing 60% this year for the first time. In addition, 28% of Americans now say they "strongly favor" nuclear power, also the highest Gallup has measured since the question was first asked in 1994.
This year's results, from a March 4-7 Gallup poll, came after President Obama announced federal government loan guarantees to build the first nuclear power plants in the United States in three decades.
Obama's support for nuclear power apparently hasn't done much to change how Democrats view the issue, as a slim majority of 51% favor it, virtually unchanged from last year. Most of the increased support for nuclear energy over the past three years has come among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, who have consistently been more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to favor the use of nuclear energy._______________________________________________________
A majority of Americans have typically favored using nuclear power to provide electricity for the United States since Gallup began asking about this topic in 1994. Support has edged up in the last two years, eclipsing 60% this year for the first time. In addition, 28% of Americans now say they "strongly favor" nuclear power, also the highest Gallup has measured since the question was first asked in 1994.
This year's results, from a March 4-7 Gallup poll, came after President Obama announced federal government loan guarantees to build the first nuclear power plants in the United States in three decades.
Obama's support for nuclear power apparently hasn't done much to change how Democrats view the issue, as a slim majority of 51% favor it, virtually unchanged from last year. Most of the increased support for nuclear energy over the past three years has come among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, who have consistently been more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to favor the use of nuclear energy._______________________________________________________
