Possibly the least understood position in the U.S. Government is that of Surgeon General. As head of the Public Health Service, the holder of that position automatically holds the rank of Rear Admiral, a result of the service having initially been formed to serve the needs of members of the Merchant Marine. (I was once asked why the Surgeon General always came from the Navy.) It was expanded to help prevent the spread of communicable diseases such as smallpox.
One of the great achievements of the Public Health Service was stamping out Malaria as a deadly plague in the United States. Until the mid-1900’s Malaria was endemic in the entire Eastern US, particularly in the South, and killed thousands of people every year. Yes, in this country. The Public Health Service mounted a campaign to eradicate the mosquitoes that spread the disease, and in less than five years had eliminated that disease as a threat. Today Malaria is occasionally contracted, but only rarely, and is almost never fatal. That effort resulted in the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, which is part of the Public Health Service today.
I have no doubt that Dr. Regina Benjamin is an outstanding doctor and a wonderful person, one greatly to be admired. All of the writing about her makes much of her background in the delivery of healthcare to individuals, and it is profoundly admirable. However, none of what I have read relates to her qualification as Surgeon General.
Public Health Service is not about delivery of health care to individuals; it’s not about delivery of health care at all. Public Health Service is about maintaining the systems which underlay the state of the public’s ability to remain in an overall condition of good health. It’s about monitoring the spread of communicable diseases and studying ways to stop that spread. It’s about looking at water delivery systems and evaluating the ways in which those systems are affecting the overall health of the communities they serve; not just one water system, but the water systems of all of the communities in the nation. To name just a few.
The Public Health Service is the agency which takes the information about issues affecting the health of a community that is discovered in one place, and disseminates that information to all other communities which might be affected by it. The PHS has to communicate not only the problem, but the cause of the problem and solutions to the problem, and they have to put that information into a package that is understandable and useful.
We certainly need doctors like Dr. Regina Benjamin, in fact we need more of them than we have, and we need to recognize what they contribute. But we also need those who rise above the individual and do the “big picture” work of protecting the community as a whole, and the characteristics of those two people may be entirely different.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
SCOTUS Hearings (updated)
Okay, two people have now asked me why I am not writing anything about the Sotomayer hearings. The first reason is that she is not going to say anything even remotely interesting; she is going to say all of the neutral meaningless legal mumbo jumbo she has been briefed to say that will get her confirmed. Do I need to say that the Senators will be mindnumingly boring? They will never actually ask a real question, but will do a lot of posturing and will make speeches with question marks on the end. The most boring person in the universe is a United States Senator.
Update: Thursday, 7:15am
Pundit, after news commentator, after pundit is prating about how the Republican Senators questioning Sotomayor are shooting themselves in their feet. Their blatant racist posturing, it is claimed, is costing them votes in the Latino and other minority communities and will cost them heavily in the upcoming 2010 primary and general elections.
They are wrong on several counts. First, those communities are not watching these hearings, and so are not hearing all of the racist posturing. The only people who have the faintest interest in these hearings are the pundits and news commentators, and those Senators don't care about those dozen or so votes, which aren't in their states anyway. If the pundits and news commentators write about the racist posturing, the general public will see the headline, yawn, and turn to the sports page.
In any case, this is 2009. If any of the general voting public did see or read about the racist posturing now, they will have completely forgotten about it by Fall of 2010. The only thing about which the American people have less interest than soccor is politics.
Update: Thursday, 7:15am
Pundit, after news commentator, after pundit is prating about how the Republican Senators questioning Sotomayor are shooting themselves in their feet. Their blatant racist posturing, it is claimed, is costing them votes in the Latino and other minority communities and will cost them heavily in the upcoming 2010 primary and general elections.
They are wrong on several counts. First, those communities are not watching these hearings, and so are not hearing all of the racist posturing. The only people who have the faintest interest in these hearings are the pundits and news commentators, and those Senators don't care about those dozen or so votes, which aren't in their states anyway. If the pundits and news commentators write about the racist posturing, the general public will see the headline, yawn, and turn to the sports page.
In any case, this is 2009. If any of the general voting public did see or read about the racist posturing now, they will have completely forgotten about it by Fall of 2010. The only thing about which the American people have less interest than soccor is politics.
Gasp: Signing Statements
The Democratic Congress is in a massive snit with President Obama over signing statements. You may recall that George W. Bush used signing statements with great profligacy to thwart the will of Congress, and now Obama is doing the same thing. Well, forget the profligacy part, he's done it twice, but Congress is nonetheless in a major case of the vapours over it.
Seems Obama promised to contribute $108 billion to the IMF, which turned out to be a little rash since he had not yet asked Congress about it. Congress reluctantly said okay (they don't like the IMF), but said that he had to impose some restrictions on the money. He signed the bill, but in a signing statement said he wasn't bound by the limitations.
Congress was so massively pissed off that the House passed a new bill overriding his signing statement by a vote of 492-2 429-2 last week. I'm not sure, but I don't think that's ever been done before. They also sent him a letter that if he uses one of those atrocious signing statements again they will cut off the funds in question altogether, which would be just a little bit embarrassing for the President.
What is interesting to me is that George W. undoubtedly used a whole herd of signing statements with this same Democratic-controlled Congress, and we never heard a whimper. But let President Obama, a member of their own party, do it and they are in a state of righteous indignation like some sort of jilted bride.
Congress is just plain weird.
Seems Obama promised to contribute $108 billion to the IMF, which turned out to be a little rash since he had not yet asked Congress about it. Congress reluctantly said okay (they don't like the IMF), but said that he had to impose some restrictions on the money. He signed the bill, but in a signing statement said he wasn't bound by the limitations.
Congress was so massively pissed off that the House passed a new bill overriding his signing statement by a vote of 492-2 429-2 last week. I'm not sure, but I don't think that's ever been done before. They also sent him a letter that if he uses one of those atrocious signing statements again they will cut off the funds in question altogether, which would be just a little bit embarrassing for the President.
What is interesting to me is that George W. undoubtedly used a whole herd of signing statements with this same Democratic-controlled Congress, and we never heard a whimper. But let President Obama, a member of their own party, do it and they are in a state of righteous indignation like some sort of jilted bride.
Congress is just plain weird.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
On Becoming Liberal
My sister once asked me when I had turned into a Liberal, and I realized the other day that I always have been. I always called myself a Republican (conservative), but when you asked me about any single issue I very often held a more or less liberal position on it. I finally realized that when your individual positions are more often liberal than conservative, on a 4:1 ratio or so, you are a liberal.
I kept my life simple, of course, by limiting topics of discussion to those on which I held a conservative view. I think it was Ronald that finally made that untenable. Maybe it was George the 1st.
I kept my life simple, of course, by limiting topics of discussion to those on which I held a conservative view. I think it was Ronald that finally made that untenable. Maybe it was George the 1st.
Reason for Selling a Kidney
Andrew Sullivan published a letter from a reader today regarding the legalization of selling kidneys, a topic that is apparently becoming a hot one these days. (Yikes, the economy really is bad.) Buried in the letter was this little gem, "...as I think about a loved one whom I lost last year, I would have gladly sold one of my own kidneys, if this would have helped pay for better medical treatment for him."
Maybe "healthcare reform" needs to be more than insurance extension?
Maybe "healthcare reform" needs to be more than insurance extension?
Monday, July 13, 2009
We Need Real Reform
If you waited to pay into a retirement system until you were ready to retire, the premium would be ridiculous. You would have to pay a premium every year amounting to a living wage to pay for a benefit that you could live on. You solve that problem by paying into that insurance early in life, at a low rate for your entire life, and allowing that money to accumulate so that it can pay the benefit when you are in need of it.
Health “insurance” is priced, however, as if each year stood on its own. Your premiums are based each year on how much is expected to be paid out on your behalf that year, and if too much payout is anticipated you are denied coverage.
In part, that’s because insurance is an individual responsibility and young people, feeling the “invincibility of youth” don’t sign up for it. That leaves insurance companies bearing the burden of paying out for the unhealthy and elderly without the benefit of receiving the premiums for the young and healthy who would not be incurring costs. Mandating insurance would seem to correct this imbalance, but there are flaws in that argument.
One such flaw is that we are still looking at individual years and, with many insurance companies competing for profit, the system is all too easily gamed. Premiums can be adjusted to attract the young and healthy and drive off older people, for instance. Individuals can also game the system by shopping insurers as they age or as health conditions change.
And, gamed or not, as long as the insurance is based on individual years, the older and less healthy the age group becomes the more the cost of insurance rises. That’s why Medicare was created; private insurance premiums were unaffordable to that age group. Our existing system had utterly failed that portion of our population.
Extending the existing system of health insurance to people who do not have it is not “fundamental reform.”
One form of actual reform would be to instigate a system of health insurance modeled on retirement; you obtain health insurance at birth, at a fixed premium adjusted only for inflation, and you maintain that same insurance for life. In your youth you are paying more than you receive, and the insurance company “stores” your money and uses it for investment, just as is done with life insurance and retirement funding today. As you age the money is paid back in the form of “no deductible, no copay” payment for medical services.
Would that work? I have no idea, but this is the kind of thing we should be looking for; not just an extension of our existing system, but real reform.
When your plan isn't working, do something different.
Health “insurance” is priced, however, as if each year stood on its own. Your premiums are based each year on how much is expected to be paid out on your behalf that year, and if too much payout is anticipated you are denied coverage.
In part, that’s because insurance is an individual responsibility and young people, feeling the “invincibility of youth” don’t sign up for it. That leaves insurance companies bearing the burden of paying out for the unhealthy and elderly without the benefit of receiving the premiums for the young and healthy who would not be incurring costs. Mandating insurance would seem to correct this imbalance, but there are flaws in that argument.
One such flaw is that we are still looking at individual years and, with many insurance companies competing for profit, the system is all too easily gamed. Premiums can be adjusted to attract the young and healthy and drive off older people, for instance. Individuals can also game the system by shopping insurers as they age or as health conditions change.
And, gamed or not, as long as the insurance is based on individual years, the older and less healthy the age group becomes the more the cost of insurance rises. That’s why Medicare was created; private insurance premiums were unaffordable to that age group. Our existing system had utterly failed that portion of our population.
Extending the existing system of health insurance to people who do not have it is not “fundamental reform.”
One form of actual reform would be to instigate a system of health insurance modeled on retirement; you obtain health insurance at birth, at a fixed premium adjusted only for inflation, and you maintain that same insurance for life. In your youth you are paying more than you receive, and the insurance company “stores” your money and uses it for investment, just as is done with life insurance and retirement funding today. As you age the money is paid back in the form of “no deductible, no copay” payment for medical services.
Would that work? I have no idea, but this is the kind of thing we should be looking for; not just an extension of our existing system, but real reform.
When your plan isn't working, do something different.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Slow Stimulus (clarified)
No, I am not a Republican claiming "Unemployment is still high, therefore the stimulus did not work and Obama is a bum."
What I am being critical of is that more than six million jobs are needed immediately, and Obama and Democrats are patting themselves on their collective back for passing a bill that creates jobs in two years.
When criticised for the ongoing slowness in the economy, they tell people who are still jobless to "be patient" because they are creating some jobs right away and, for reasons which are purely political and self-serving, some jobs two years down the road.
What I am being critical of is that more than six million jobs are needed immediately, and Obama and Democrats are patting themselves on their collective back for passing a bill that creates jobs in two years.
When criticised for the ongoing slowness in the economy, they tell people who are still jobless to "be patient" because they are creating some jobs right away and, for reasons which are purely political and self-serving, some jobs two years down the road.
Slow Stimulus (updated)
If I’m in an emergency room and my heart stops I certainly hope that the doctor in charge doesn’t decide to apply an "Obama stimulus" to restart it.
I don’t think that one volt applied for 200 minutes would do much good.
The $787 billion stimulus was a misnomer to begin with, of course, since 42% of it was trivial tax cuts that were about as simulative as a picture of Alaska’s Ted Stevens to a teenaged girl. The part of it that was job creative was seemingly designed to create jobs over a period of several years, which is social policy not stimulus.
From the San Francisco Chronicle today,
Six months after passage of the stimulus bill the process of applying for, making “preliminary applications” for, $80 billion of that money, for high speed rail projects, is still in process. Not only has that money not yet been spent, not only is that money not yet creating jobs, we do not yet know where it will be spent. The high speed rail projects are not only not yet off of the drawing board, they are not yet on the drawing board.
That is social policy, not economic stimulus, and it is tying up funds that could have been used as stimulus. It is holding out a promise of jobs at some indefinite date in the future, and could have been used to provide jobs now, which was the purported purpose of the stimulus bill.
Not only did Obama allow Congress to craft this sham of a “stimulus bill,” but he praised it as a “signal accomplishment” and is continuing to do so to this day.
Republicans made a mockery of the high speed rail issue, but it was valid criticism and they should have addressed it in a more serious way instead of making jokes about it and allowing the supporters of the bill to disregard their jokes.
The fact is that Congress did load this bill with issues like the high speed rail that were social policy and with items that were just plain pork; all of which diluted its ability to create immediate jobs and stimulate the economy. The concomitant fact is that Obama failed to call Congress out for doing that, and instead praised and signed a bill that made a mockery of its purported purpose.
And now, when then inevitable weakness of the bill is being manifested, we are told to “be patient” because the wise leaders in Washington know better than we do.
Update, 9:30am: In a Washington Post article today Obama is quoted as saying, "As I made clear at the time it was passed, the recovery act was not designed to work in four months -- it was designed to work over two years."
Why would one craft such a plan? With more than six million people out of work, and hundreds of thousands losing jobs every month, why would you deliberately design a plan that waited two full years to create jobs? Is there some value that Mr. Obama sees in people staying jobless for two years?
I have said it before and I will say it again. When FDR was confronted with a host of jobless people he didn't address social policy; he didn't address some long-term social needs; he didn't call for something on the order of an interstate highway project. He cared about the people who were out of work and he demanded projects that would put them to work immediately. It wasn't about the projects, it was about putting paychecks in the hands of people who needed to feed their families.
Obama doesn't give a damn about the jobless; he cares about his projects.
I don’t think that one volt applied for 200 minutes would do much good.
The $787 billion stimulus was a misnomer to begin with, of course, since 42% of it was trivial tax cuts that were about as simulative as a picture of Alaska’s Ted Stevens to a teenaged girl. The part of it that was job creative was seemingly designed to create jobs over a period of several years, which is social policy not stimulus.
From the San Francisco Chronicle today,
High-speed rail projects are slower going. Caltrans met the Friday deadline to submit preliminary applications for $22.3 billion in passenger and high-speed rail projects in three main corridors: San Francisco-San Jose (which includes improvements to San Francisco's Transbay Terminal), Los Angeles-Anaheim and the Central Valley.
Six months after passage of the stimulus bill the process of applying for, making “preliminary applications” for, $80 billion of that money, for high speed rail projects, is still in process. Not only has that money not yet been spent, not only is that money not yet creating jobs, we do not yet know where it will be spent. The high speed rail projects are not only not yet off of the drawing board, they are not yet on the drawing board.
That is social policy, not economic stimulus, and it is tying up funds that could have been used as stimulus. It is holding out a promise of jobs at some indefinite date in the future, and could have been used to provide jobs now, which was the purported purpose of the stimulus bill.
Not only did Obama allow Congress to craft this sham of a “stimulus bill,” but he praised it as a “signal accomplishment” and is continuing to do so to this day.
Republicans made a mockery of the high speed rail issue, but it was valid criticism and they should have addressed it in a more serious way instead of making jokes about it and allowing the supporters of the bill to disregard their jokes.
The fact is that Congress did load this bill with issues like the high speed rail that were social policy and with items that were just plain pork; all of which diluted its ability to create immediate jobs and stimulate the economy. The concomitant fact is that Obama failed to call Congress out for doing that, and instead praised and signed a bill that made a mockery of its purported purpose.
And now, when then inevitable weakness of the bill is being manifested, we are told to “be patient” because the wise leaders in Washington know better than we do.
Update, 9:30am: In a Washington Post article today Obama is quoted as saying, "As I made clear at the time it was passed, the recovery act was not designed to work in four months -- it was designed to work over two years."
Why would one craft such a plan? With more than six million people out of work, and hundreds of thousands losing jobs every month, why would you deliberately design a plan that waited two full years to create jobs? Is there some value that Mr. Obama sees in people staying jobless for two years?
I have said it before and I will say it again. When FDR was confronted with a host of jobless people he didn't address social policy; he didn't address some long-term social needs; he didn't call for something on the order of an interstate highway project. He cared about the people who were out of work and he demanded projects that would put them to work immediately. It wasn't about the projects, it was about putting paychecks in the hands of people who needed to feed their families.
Obama doesn't give a damn about the jobless; he cares about his projects.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Obama Visits Africa
This scene struck me as something special. Everyone looked really happy, including the President. This is a quite beautiful moment, and it made me feel good to watch it.I do feel the need to comment that when Obama met the Pope the media was all over the paper that the Pope gave Obama about abortion, on which the two of them disagree. Only one person commented on an even longer paper that the Pope also gave to him regarding economic matters, on which the Pope thinks Obama is doing a lot of the right things.
Obama's Preventive Detention
Deborah Pearlstein, posting at Balkininization on the subject of the Obama Administration’s “preventive detention” policy, uses a simile where, in a modern day equivalent to an earlier war, “the U.S. Army takes into its custody a Nazi soldier implicated in the murder and rape of civilians.” He is tried for those crimes but the witnesses fail to appear and he is acquitted. Ms Pearlstein addresses the claim that he could continue to be held as a Prisoner of War despite the acquittal of those crimes.
I have trouble following her conclusion, which apparently depends on the legitimacy of the AUMF for some reason, but the argument itself illustrates to me the difficulty with the whole “War on Terror” fallacy, which General Counsel Johnson claims as justification for holding the Guantanamo detainees indefinitely; they are prisoners of the war on terror.
First we had the “war on drugs,” which is absurd enough. Drugs don’t shoot back, so how does that war work, anyway? Now we have a “war” against an emotion. Maybe this is a solution to our crowded courts; once you capture a murderer you can dispense with all of the collection of evidence and juries and stuff, just declare war on him and hold him forever as a prisoner of war.
The people we are holding in Guantanamo have not been captured in uniform and, almost without exception, have not been taken anywhere near a battlefield. The trials in question are not for crimes unrelated to the basic reason for their detention, the trials are central to their detention. It’s not a case that we’re holding them as terrorists and, having been found not guilty of rape and murder we can continue to hold them as terrorists.
We are holding them because they have been charged with being terrorists, which they claim they are not. We are putting them on trial to prove that they are terrorists, and claiming that having failed to prove our case, with the court having found them not guilty of being terrorists, that we can continue to detain them indefinitely anyway.
Detaining them indefinitely because, apparently, we’re afraid of them.
I have trouble following her conclusion, which apparently depends on the legitimacy of the AUMF for some reason, but the argument itself illustrates to me the difficulty with the whole “War on Terror” fallacy, which General Counsel Johnson claims as justification for holding the Guantanamo detainees indefinitely; they are prisoners of the war on terror.
First we had the “war on drugs,” which is absurd enough. Drugs don’t shoot back, so how does that war work, anyway? Now we have a “war” against an emotion. Maybe this is a solution to our crowded courts; once you capture a murderer you can dispense with all of the collection of evidence and juries and stuff, just declare war on him and hold him forever as a prisoner of war.
The people we are holding in Guantanamo have not been captured in uniform and, almost without exception, have not been taken anywhere near a battlefield. The trials in question are not for crimes unrelated to the basic reason for their detention, the trials are central to their detention. It’s not a case that we’re holding them as terrorists and, having been found not guilty of rape and murder we can continue to hold them as terrorists.
We are holding them because they have been charged with being terrorists, which they claim they are not. We are putting them on trial to prove that they are terrorists, and claiming that having failed to prove our case, with the court having found them not guilty of being terrorists, that we can continue to detain them indefinitely anyway.
Detaining them indefinitely because, apparently, we’re afraid of them.
Friday, July 10, 2009
1000 Posts
Molly is unimpressed by being the subject of my 1000th post; doing what she does best. Click on the picture to "biggify" it.First post was Aug 10, 2006. In that year I averaged 12 posts per month; in 2007, 18 per month; in 2008 (an election year) 35 per month. So far this year I am on a pace of 47 per month. I'm not entirely sure I like the trend.
Strange Bankruptcy
Virtually every headline I can find refers to GM “emerging from” or “exiting” bankruptcy, and in the articles that I have read that theme is continued; that GM has set a record for a major corporation exiting from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The exception is this article in the Business section of the NY Times, which bears the rather cryptic headline, “With Sale of Its Good Assets, G.M. Tries for a Fresh Start.”
Parenthetically, my reaction to the headline was sort of, "Wtf, you're going to get a fresh start by selling your good assets?"
The normal Chapter 11 proceeding is that a business puts itself under the protection and direction of a judge for however long it takes to reorganize the company. Financing is examined, contracts are renegotiated, business plans are evaluated, product lines are evaluated for profitability... Loans may have their terms extended and or interests rates reduced, for instance. It may be determined that a product is not profitable and should be dropped.
Did all of that happen for General Motors in a couple of weeks? In a word, no. Longer answer, oh hell no. Here’s what the Times tells us,
In other words, GM went into bankruptcy, sold all of its good stuff to a newly formed company and is remaining in bankruptcy. The new company will be renamed GM, so I’m assuming that the GM which is still in bankruptcy will be dissolved, its bad assets sold for whatever they will bring to pay off the holders of the debt, and the rest of its debt just written off. The money that was gotten from the sale of the good assets will presumably be used to pay the debt as well, of course.
I don’t know if this was a good deal or not, as this is certainly not my area of expertise, but there is suspiciously little commentary about a process that is really unusual. What I am pretty sure of is that a curve ball is hanging over the plate and the media is not swinging at it, and that always makes me suspicious. I am also quite sure that all of the statements about “GM exits from bankruptcy” are not accurate.
They should read, “GM is dead. Long live GM.”
Parenthetically, my reaction to the headline was sort of, "Wtf, you're going to get a fresh start by selling your good assets?"
The normal Chapter 11 proceeding is that a business puts itself under the protection and direction of a judge for however long it takes to reorganize the company. Financing is examined, contracts are renegotiated, business plans are evaluated, product lines are evaluated for profitability... Loans may have their terms extended and or interests rates reduced, for instance. It may be determined that a product is not profitable and should be dropped.
Did all of that happen for General Motors in a couple of weeks? In a word, no. Longer answer, oh hell no. Here’s what the Times tells us,
“Earlier, G.M. and the government completed the legal paperwork needed to put the company’s most desirable assets, including brands like Chevrolet, Cadillac and GMC, into the new company — now named Vehicle Acquisition Company but soon to be renamed the General Motors Company. The federal government will hold nearly 61 percent of the new company, with the Canadian government, a health care trust for the United Auto Workers union and bondholders owning the balance.”
In other words, GM went into bankruptcy, sold all of its good stuff to a newly formed company and is remaining in bankruptcy. The new company will be renamed GM, so I’m assuming that the GM which is still in bankruptcy will be dissolved, its bad assets sold for whatever they will bring to pay off the holders of the debt, and the rest of its debt just written off. The money that was gotten from the sale of the good assets will presumably be used to pay the debt as well, of course.
I don’t know if this was a good deal or not, as this is certainly not my area of expertise, but there is suspiciously little commentary about a process that is really unusual. What I am pretty sure of is that a curve ball is hanging over the plate and the media is not swinging at it, and that always makes me suspicious. I am also quite sure that all of the statements about “GM exits from bankruptcy” are not accurate.
They should read, “GM is dead. Long live GM.”
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Insanity Posing as Reform
During the discussions of bailing out the auto manufacturers, much was made of the need for healthcare reform due to the burden that was placed on American manufacturers by having to provide healthcare for their employees. (Actually they provide health insurance, which is by no means the same thing, but...) American manufacturers are at a disadvantage, it was claimed, because they are competing in the world economy with the manufacturers of other nations who do not have that burden. We need to have healthcare reform, and we need it immediately, to take that unfair burden off of the backs of our manufacturers.
Now we are proposing a “healthcare reform” plan that has an “employer mandate.” What is that? It is a clause that requires all businesses with 25 or more employees to provide health insurance to their employees.
How insane has this discussion become? First we need healthcare reform to relieve employers of a terrible burden, and then we propose a package of reform that will impose that burden on all sizeable employers who do not already bear it.
We’ve already had a Nobel Prize winner get all heated up in the NY Times about how we spend too much on healthcare, twice as much as any other nation in the world, and then propose in that same editorial, adoption of reform package that does nothing to address that excessive cost, actually increases it, and label that package as “fundamental reform.”
He even touts that package as being a bargain because it only increases expenditure by a mere $1.3 trillion, saying that such an amount is “less than 4 percent of the $33 trillion the U.S. government predicts we’ll spend on health care over the next decade.”
I’m hoping that, with the “Swedish thingy” and all, he knows he’s conning his readers, and that he realizes that the $1.3 trillion is government spending, while the “we” in that $33 trillion is not government; it’s the American people, American businesses and government, with the latter being a rather small part of it. So adding $1.3 trillion to government spending is not quite the, “Gee whizz, it’s easy to trim 4% off our current spending to offset that” which he so disingenuously presents.
Meanwhile, single-payer, and the various hybrids of single-payer and national insurance that are used with great success by other civilized nations, are not even allowed into the discussion.
We are truly governed by idiots and are being advised by morons.
Which is an easy, cool, but inaccurate conclusion. The reality is that the discussion has been so thoroughly sidetracked by the corporate health insurance and pharmaceutical industries that any meaningful conversation in the political arena or in the corporate-owned media has become utterly impossible. And that means that any "fundamental reform" of the manner in which health care is delivered in this nation is doomed.
Now we are proposing a “healthcare reform” plan that has an “employer mandate.” What is that? It is a clause that requires all businesses with 25 or more employees to provide health insurance to their employees.
How insane has this discussion become? First we need healthcare reform to relieve employers of a terrible burden, and then we propose a package of reform that will impose that burden on all sizeable employers who do not already bear it.
We’ve already had a Nobel Prize winner get all heated up in the NY Times about how we spend too much on healthcare, twice as much as any other nation in the world, and then propose in that same editorial, adoption of reform package that does nothing to address that excessive cost, actually increases it, and label that package as “fundamental reform.”
He even touts that package as being a bargain because it only increases expenditure by a mere $1.3 trillion, saying that such an amount is “less than 4 percent of the $33 trillion the U.S. government predicts we’ll spend on health care over the next decade.”
I’m hoping that, with the “Swedish thingy” and all, he knows he’s conning his readers, and that he realizes that the $1.3 trillion is government spending, while the “we” in that $33 trillion is not government; it’s the American people, American businesses and government, with the latter being a rather small part of it. So adding $1.3 trillion to government spending is not quite the, “Gee whizz, it’s easy to trim 4% off our current spending to offset that” which he so disingenuously presents.
Meanwhile, single-payer, and the various hybrids of single-payer and national insurance that are used with great success by other civilized nations, are not even allowed into the discussion.
We are truly governed by idiots and are being advised by morons.
Which is an easy, cool, but inaccurate conclusion. The reality is that the discussion has been so thoroughly sidetracked by the corporate health insurance and pharmaceutical industries that any meaningful conversation in the political arena or in the corporate-owned media has become utterly impossible. And that means that any "fundamental reform" of the manner in which health care is delivered in this nation is doomed.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Window Dressing
President Obama promised to close Guantanamo and he kept that promise within days of taking office, signing an order that the facility be closed within one year. Given the policies that he has pronounced regarding the people held in that facility in the months since that announcement, I am having difficulty coming up with a label for the nature of his duplicity.
It’s not really a broken promise, because he is still closing the facility, but he talked about “restoring America’s honor” and things like “the rule of law” in making that promise. If he continues to hold the people of Guantanamo in a different facility using the same lack of accountability that was keeping them in Guantanamo, then how is he keeping the spirit of that promise?
According to the Wall Street Journal today, military tribunals are still on the table despite his promise to restore these detainees to the American justice system. These tribunals will be allowed to consider evidence obtained by torture (or as the government calls it “coerced evidence”), provided that the tribunal “deems it credible.” Even if found not guilty by the tribunal, the detainee’s release is a “policy decision” to be made by the executive.
I’m not going to make hyperbolic charges of “that sounds like Bush” or “that’s what the Soviet Union used to do.” Well, actually I am; it sounds very close to both of those things. I do know that it is a travesty. I do know that it is not something that I want my country doing. I do know that it is not what I cast my vote for.
We get an “economic stimulus” in which only 10% of jobs creation funding gets delivered in the first six months of the crisis and fully 50% is in the “planning stage” for late in the second year. We get financial reform that devotes $700 billion to taxpayers and $3 trillion to Wall Street. We get “health care reform” that consists of making every person in America purchase health insurance; merely an extension of our existing, broken system to those not presently covered by it. We get the closing of a symbolic gulag and the continuance of those policies in another location.
I voted for change, I voted for action, and I'm getting window dressing.
Update: Wednesday, 6:00pm
For an in-depth, really excellent and expert discussion of just how appalling the Obama position on "indefinite detention" really is, read today's post by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com today.
It’s not really a broken promise, because he is still closing the facility, but he talked about “restoring America’s honor” and things like “the rule of law” in making that promise. If he continues to hold the people of Guantanamo in a different facility using the same lack of accountability that was keeping them in Guantanamo, then how is he keeping the spirit of that promise?
According to the Wall Street Journal today, military tribunals are still on the table despite his promise to restore these detainees to the American justice system. These tribunals will be allowed to consider evidence obtained by torture (or as the government calls it “coerced evidence”), provided that the tribunal “deems it credible.” Even if found not guilty by the tribunal, the detainee’s release is a “policy decision” to be made by the executive.
I’m not going to make hyperbolic charges of “that sounds like Bush” or “that’s what the Soviet Union used to do.” Well, actually I am; it sounds very close to both of those things. I do know that it is a travesty. I do know that it is not something that I want my country doing. I do know that it is not what I cast my vote for.
We get an “economic stimulus” in which only 10% of jobs creation funding gets delivered in the first six months of the crisis and fully 50% is in the “planning stage” for late in the second year. We get financial reform that devotes $700 billion to taxpayers and $3 trillion to Wall Street. We get “health care reform” that consists of making every person in America purchase health insurance; merely an extension of our existing, broken system to those not presently covered by it. We get the closing of a symbolic gulag and the continuance of those policies in another location.
I voted for change, I voted for action, and I'm getting window dressing.
Update: Wednesday, 6:00pm
For an in-depth, really excellent and expert discussion of just how appalling the Obama position on "indefinite detention" really is, read today's post by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com today.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
American Priorities
The Earth stopped rotating today with the weight of the display of grief over the death of a has-been pop music star of extremely dubious character.
The deaths of seven American soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan in defense of their nation was not mentioned.
We have our priorities, you see. Freedom, and the men and women who fight and die to defend it, we take for granted. Pop music and stardom, now that is important stuff.
The deaths of seven American soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan in defense of their nation was not mentioned.
We have our priorities, you see. Freedom, and the men and women who fight and die to defend it, we take for granted. Pop music and stardom, now that is important stuff.
Light in the Cultural Darkness
New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks has a piece dated yesterday which is of little real import, but which quite appealed to me.
He talks in it about today's lack of a "dignity code;" with athletes doing self-promoting end zone dances, and governors... Well we all know about governors at this point. He speaks about society's loss of a code of dignity not in anger or condemnation but gently, and with dignity and restraint.
It's worth reading for his last paragraph in which he reminds us of our current president. He says, in part, "Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity."
Read the entire column. It's not long, and it's worth your time.
He talks in it about today's lack of a "dignity code;" with athletes doing self-promoting end zone dances, and governors... Well we all know about governors at this point. He speaks about society's loss of a code of dignity not in anger or condemnation but gently, and with dignity and restraint.
It's worth reading for his last paragraph in which he reminds us of our current president. He says, in part, "Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity."
Read the entire column. It's not long, and it's worth your time.
Monday, July 06, 2009
More Mouse in the House
After two days of "de-virusing" a computer that turned out not to have a virus but actually had a gradually failing mouse, my wife's wireless mouse failed completely on Saturday. Then on Sunday our Cox Internet went out and, while coming back on briefly several times, was out all day. So far today seems calm, although we discovered this morning that the rats in the garage have eaten into another bag of pesticide.
"Fundamental Reform"
It continues to baffle me how people can discuss the Obama health plan and talk about it being a “reform” of anything; it doesn’t really reform the health insurance industry in any fundamental way, and it certainly doesn’t reform the way we deliver health care to the citizens of this nation, the effectiveness of that health care, or the cost we pay for it.
The Obama plan is not a terrible plan, and it probably should be implemented, but it merely extends our existing insurance plan to people who presently don’t have health insurance; a worthy objective, to be sure. The more honest and optimistic proponents of the plan say that it will lead to reform as the “public option” drives the private insurance industry out of business, but that was said of Medicare (as a "dire prediction") when it was put into place many years ago, too.
Read Paul Krugman’s op-ed piece in yesterday’s NY Times. He says the plan will cost about $1 trillion and that we should not worry about that because, “it’s less than 4 percent of the $33 trillion the U.S. government predicts we’ll spend on health care over the next decade.” He goes on to say that we can “probably” offset that with savings that we can achieve by eliminating overpayments in Medicare and similar "efficiencies," and then adds in a burst of perfectly irrelevant hyperbole,
Well, the plan is a long way from a status that will “eliminate the insecurity” that he speaks of. The people who go bankrupt due to health crisis because they have no health insurance will be able to go bankrupt due to health crisis in spite of having health insurance as millions do every year now, for instance. The people who do not go to doctors because they have no insurance will, in many cases, still not go to the doctor because they cannot pay the initial deductible.
Businesses who cannot afford to provide health coverage for their employees will no longer continue doing business without providing that coverage; they will either cut back their business and hire fewer people, or they will go out of business. People who have no job cannot buy health insurance, no matter how many “health insurance tax breaks” you provide them with. They are not paying any taxes to get the break on.
Dr. Krugman is a little deceptive in tossing off that $1 trillion as being a mere "4% of the $33 trillion we’ll spend on health care." The "we" part in
that is not the federal government, it's the American people, American businesses, plus the government; with the government being a relatively small part of it. So it's not like we are adding a mere 4% to what the government is already spending on health care, and "gee whiz it's easy to trim 4% off our costs to offset that." I'm calling his bluff on that one.
Note that Dr. Krugman even says in his piece that the “fundamental reform” which he so applauds does nothing to address a reduction in the cost of our system, a cost that is wildly out of line with any other nation in the world and he doesn’t even mention the effectiveness of our health care which, when last evaluated, ranked seriously poorly among developed nations.
Yes, let’s extend health insurance to people who don’t have it. Doing that
is better than doing nothing. But please quit insulting my intelligence by calling it “fundamental reform” when it is nothing of the kind.
The Obama plan is not a terrible plan, and it probably should be implemented, but it merely extends our existing insurance plan to people who presently don’t have health insurance; a worthy objective, to be sure. The more honest and optimistic proponents of the plan say that it will lead to reform as the “public option” drives the private insurance industry out of business, but that was said of Medicare (as a "dire prediction") when it was put into place many years ago, too.
Read Paul Krugman’s op-ed piece in yesterday’s NY Times. He says the plan will cost about $1 trillion and that we should not worry about that because, “it’s less than 4 percent of the $33 trillion the U.S. government predicts we’ll spend on health care over the next decade.” He goes on to say that we can “probably” offset that with savings that we can achieve by eliminating overpayments in Medicare and similar "efficiencies," and then adds in a burst of perfectly irrelevant hyperbole,
“So fundamental health reform — reform that would eliminate the insecurity about health coverage that looms so large for many Americans — is now within reach. The “centrist” senators, most of them Democrats, who have been holding up reform can no longer claim either that universal coverage is unaffordable or that it won’t work.”
Well, the plan is a long way from a status that will “eliminate the insecurity” that he speaks of. The people who go bankrupt due to health crisis because they have no health insurance will be able to go bankrupt due to health crisis in spite of having health insurance as millions do every year now, for instance. The people who do not go to doctors because they have no insurance will, in many cases, still not go to the doctor because they cannot pay the initial deductible.
Businesses who cannot afford to provide health coverage for their employees will no longer continue doing business without providing that coverage; they will either cut back their business and hire fewer people, or they will go out of business. People who have no job cannot buy health insurance, no matter how many “health insurance tax breaks” you provide them with. They are not paying any taxes to get the break on.
Dr. Krugman is a little deceptive in tossing off that $1 trillion as being a mere "4% of the $33 trillion we’ll spend on health care." The "we" part in
that is not the federal government, it's the American people, American businesses, plus the government; with the government being a relatively small part of it. So it's not like we are adding a mere 4% to what the government is already spending on health care, and "gee whiz it's easy to trim 4% off our costs to offset that." I'm calling his bluff on that one.
Note that Dr. Krugman even says in his piece that the “fundamental reform” which he so applauds does nothing to address a reduction in the cost of our system, a cost that is wildly out of line with any other nation in the world and he doesn’t even mention the effectiveness of our health care which, when last evaluated, ranked seriously poorly among developed nations.
Yes, let’s extend health insurance to people who don’t have it. Doing that
is better than doing nothing. But please quit insulting my intelligence by calling it “fundamental reform” when it is nothing of the kind.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Pop Music Idolatry
Chuck Todd is normally one of my favorite pundits, but in this segment as guest host of Hardball he kind of gets my scuzzball of the week award. After another endless discussion of the favorite media topic of the week, the guy on the bottom, who goes by the single name of Tour tries to rhapsodize about Michael Jackson as a musical idol, passing over the “curious end of life, curious last act” issues of his life by admitting that “you have to mention that, but…” Gloria Allred breaks in to assert that charges of child molestation is more than curiosities, and Chuck Todd tries to stop her, saying words to the effect that “now is not the time” to talk about that.His previous segment was about the sexual adventures of the Governor of South Carolina, in which he discussed at length what those adventures were and what they portended for his future and the future of the Republican Party. So when an adult male has sex with a consenting adult female we must discuss at length just how damaging it is to everyone concerned. It is, of course, an act that, whatever its moral considerations in light of marriage, is wholly natural and is fully condoned by nature and by social laws as to the act itself.
But the reasonable conclusion that Michael Jackson was, for the last fifteen years of his life, in the fairly regular habit of having sex with small children must be swept under the rug because we prefer to remember him as a musical icon. We don’t want to think about the probability that he was for many years performing an act that was perverted, disgusting, and against the laws of nature and the laws of society.
He escaped the consequences of the latter with a $20 million bribe in one instance and in another by means of his celebrity status, his enormous wealth and an army of high-priced lawyers. We want to ignore the monstrous issue of his pedophilia because his status as a pop music icon is so important to us.
"Innocent until proven guilty?" Not in the American system of justice where wealth, power and a star-struck jury can, and all too often does, purchase a "not guilty" verdict.
At his best Michael Jackson was a musical genius and a self-idolizing, self-indulgent freak. At his worst he was incapable of keeping his dick in his pants in the company of small children. Why are we referring to him as an “American icon,” running endless television specials, and prating non-stop on television news shows about how “special” he was?
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Mouse In The House
We’ve been fighting an ongoing battle with rats in the garage for several years now. The problem seems to be the driveway slab, which is buckling upward in the center and preventing the garage door from closing fully. Every time I nail shims on the sides the slab buckles up a little more and the rats find their way in again. We are engaged in a dialog with the homeowners association to deal with the slab, a dialog which has also been going on for several years.
In the house, meanwhile, my computer started acting up and I went on a hunt for virus infections, as mentioned in my “Change in Sea Ice” post. (Do I need to say that the bit about porn sites was merely in jest?) That process involved two days of multiple lengthy scans with different scanners and conversations with an assortment of gurus on several forums, all to no avail. Everyone insisted that I had no malware. A few pieces of junk had been installed by Microsoft and Google that I didn’t need, and we removed them, but they were not pernicious and the problem remained.
Then someone asked, “Does the noise sound like when you plug and unplug a usb device, and is your mouse connected via usb?”
Well dog my cats; that is exactly what the noise sounds like and, yes indeedy, my mouse is connected via usb. So I hotfoot down to Best Buy
for a new mouse, a cordless one this time, and the problem is solved.
There was a broken wire in my mouse cord which was making and losing connection, just as if I was plugging and unplugging my mouse.
So, I may not have finally solved the issue of rats in my garage, but I have solved the problem regarding the mouse in the house.
In the house, meanwhile, my computer started acting up and I went on a hunt for virus infections, as mentioned in my “Change in Sea Ice” post. (Do I need to say that the bit about porn sites was merely in jest?) That process involved two days of multiple lengthy scans with different scanners and conversations with an assortment of gurus on several forums, all to no avail. Everyone insisted that I had no malware. A few pieces of junk had been installed by Microsoft and Google that I didn’t need, and we removed them, but they were not pernicious and the problem remained.
Then someone asked, “Does the noise sound like when you plug and unplug a usb device, and is your mouse connected via usb?”
Well dog my cats; that is exactly what the noise sounds like and, yes indeedy, my mouse is connected via usb. So I hotfoot down to Best Buy
for a new mouse, a cordless one this time, and the problem is solved.
There was a broken wire in my mouse cord which was making and losing connection, just as if I was plugging and unplugging my mouse.
So, I may not have finally solved the issue of rats in my garage, but I have solved the problem regarding the mouse in the house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)