In a Blue State of Mind

Delaware Masturbators March Against O’Donnell « Borowitz Report

2010-09-19T21:39:00.000-07:00

Delaware Masturbators March Against O’Donnell « Borowitz Report

It's a Crazy World When Ron Paul Starts Making Sense

2010-08-24T15:25:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!

335 Responses

By RonPaul.com on August 20, 2010

Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

Poll: Kansas Senate - Results | Polldaddy.com (poll 3627488)

2010-08-16T11:53:00.000-07:00

Poll: Kansas Senate - Results | Polldaddy.com (poll 3627488)

More Republican Negativity . . .

2010-08-13T13:50:00.000-07:00

2010-08-13T11:03:00.000-07:00

Brownback: No More Funding Increases for Education

2010-08-13T10:51:00.000-07:00

Sam Brownback says it's time to increase the performance of Kansas school children, as measured by standardized testing, of course. We'll do this, according to Brownback, while enacting a state-wide spending freeze. We are left to draw the inference then that Brownback believes Kansas educators already have all the resources they need to reach all students.

Perhaps he should visit the elementary school in Wichita where a former student of mine has taken a first-year position this year where is she required to purchase her own reams of copy paper.

Senator Brownback, you are clearly out of touch with reality.

Strategy for Republican Moderates in the 2010 Midterms or Playing Dress Up at a Tea Party

2010-08-12T22:05:00.000-07:00

First, run as far to the Right as possible. Bill yourself as an anti-Obama, anti-federal, anti-incumbent Tea Party libertarian who aligns him or herself with the likes of Kentucky’s Rand Paul, whose very name (think Atlas Shrugged) exudes extremism. Join Michele Bachman’s caucus in the House of Representatives and root for Sharron Angle to unseat Harry Reid in the Nevada senate race.

Second, once your Tea Party disguise is in place, distance yourself from the actual philosophy of the Tea Party movement. After all, what will voters think when they discover that Michele Bachman favors phasing out Social Security, or that Rand Paul opposes Medicare—saying that it’s the type of program that led to the fall of the Soviet Union? What will they think when they find out that Sharron Angle favors the elimination of the Department of Education and opposes a woman’s reproductive freedom even in the case of rape or incest?

Third, pretend that masquerading around your state or congressional district as something you’re really not is in no way hypocritical. Work on the assumption that voters understand that politicians must use polls (not personal conviction or integrity) to win races.

Be careful what you vote for; you might just get it

2010-07-29T21:59:00.000-07:00

As Republican primary candidates compete to see who can run the farthest right of the moderate values of most Kansans, it might just be time to take a pause and examine what a far-right blueprint would be like—not just for Kansas but for our nation. Voting to follow the agenda of the Tea Party would mean ending programs like social security and Medicaid of which House Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann has said: "So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system . . . but basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off.”

This might not be a position that candidates like Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt truly support, but one is left to wonder why, then, have Moran and Tiahrt joined the Tea Party Caucus in the House? Was this simply a political calculation, or do the congressmen agree with other Tea Party initiatives, following the lead of Tea Party darlings Rand Paul and Sharron Angle who hold that we should abolish the Department of Education (putting the banking industry in charge of student loans and ending federal aid to public schools entirely) and close the Department of Energy, ending not only federal investment in clean energy but also its oversight of nuclear materials?

Or, perhaps, the larger question is: “Which is worse? To take views that are not entirely in agreement with your own but are politically expedient, or to actually have such extreme views in the first place?”

An alternative to the mudslingers on the Right

2010-07-21T14:55:00.000-07:00

An Important Message from James Carville

2010-06-14T14:36:00.000-07:00

"I have a message from the Tea Party ... we've come to take our government back." - Rand Paul

Let Uncle James translate what Tea Party Republicans really mean when they say they want to "take our government back."

Kentucky's Rand Paul opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nevada's Sharron Angle is itching to dismantle Social Security. And California's Carly Fiorina dismisses climate change concerns as fretting about "the weather."

Look, we've all snickered at some of the kooky ideas these Tea Partiers espouse. But there's nothing funny about the challenge we face. And it certainly doesn't help that corporations now can spend an unlimited amount in support of candidates they like.

We have the power to keep these extremists out of Washington. We only have to seize this moment. It's time to fight back, and there's no better way than giving to the DSCC. I support the DSCC because they spend money where it's needed - to fight the Rand Pauls and Sharron Angles. Help me keep the extremists out of the Senate!

These candidates seem extreme to us, but there's a lot of people buying what they're selling. Angle raised more than $100,000 in an hour shilling for support on the Rush Limbaugh show. Paul is taking a page from his dad's playbook and using "moneybombs" to consolidate support. And Carly Fiorina - well, she hardly needs to raise any money at all with that cushy $42 million golden parachute she got after nearly driving HP into the ground.

Your gift today will make a big difference against these candidates. The DSCC uses donations from grassroots Democrats like you and me to build tough campaigns, fight Republican lies and get every last Democrat to the polls come November. We can beat them, but not without your immediate help.

Rand Paul and his radical pals say they want their country back. Well, I'm here to say that it's our country, too. And they're not going to drag us backward without one heck of a battle. Join the fight.

Sincerely,

James Carville

Democratic Senate Campaign Committee

A Spot of Tea (Party) with a Side of Crazy

2010-06-08T21:13:00.000-07:00

Straight from her Wikipedia entry (you can't make stuff like this up) comes the belief system of Orly Taitz who recently lost her bid to become the Republican nominee for California Secretary of State.

Taitz alleges that Barack Obama due to his father's nationality is not a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore not qualified to serve as its president. She furthermore claims he was born in Kenya and that he falsified his Selective Service papers and his application to the Illinois bar.Regarding Obama, Taitz has said: "I believe he is the most dangerous thing one can imagine, in that he represents radical communism and radical Islam: He was born and raised in radical Islam, all of his associations are with radical Islam, and he was groomed in the environment of the dirty Chicago mafia. Can there be anything scarier than that?"

Other Obama-related rumors Taitz has repeated include:

* A number of homosexuals from Obama's former church have died mysteriously.

* Obama has dozens of social security numbers, and his passport is inaccurate. Taitz claims that a person who was cooperating with the FBI in connection with Obama's passport died mysteriously, "shot in the head."

* A Kenyan birth certificate with the name "Barack Obama" is authentic.

* Obama's first act as president was to donate money to Hamas, which she claims will be used to build Qassam rockets.

* Obama or someone connected to him has made threats to Taitz's life, including vandalizing her car.

* Obama is having the Federal Emergency Management Agency build internment camps for "Anti-Obama dissidents."

Taitz also has supported a number of other theories not directly related to Obama, including: that Goldman Sachs runs the United States Treasury,that Baxter International has developed a bird flu vaccine that kills people,that Representative Alcee Hastings and the House of Representatives are planning to build at least six labor camps,that Hugo Chavez owns the software that runs American voting machines,that FactCheck is untrustworthy because of its links to the Annenberg Foundation,and that Fox News is partly owned by Saudi Arabia.

The irony of it all? Taitz is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.

2010-05-14T22:09:00.001-07:00

2010-05-14T22:08:00.001-07:00

Wait, I think I just discovered what an illegal alien might look like! Never mind; he has a green card.

2010-05-14T22:01:00.000-07:00

Diverse Experiences Enrich The Classroom (Great Response to Mindless Opposition of Ethnic Studies out of Arizona)

2010-05-14T21:50:00.000-07:00

In Thursday’s program, we covered the debate over a new Arizona law that targets ethnic studies programs in schools. One of our guests, Arizona state school superintendent Tom Horne, specifically called out a "La Raza" studies program in his state as racially biased, and applauded the new law for battling ethnic chauvinism in the classroom.

Well, it's about time. Where was this law when my mother "learned" in school that slavery was good? Or when I attended an elementary school named for a Confederate general? Or when my school library selected books that repeatedly referred to Native Americans as "savages"?

American schools that teach the history of this country as if it were color-blind AND free of institutionalized racism aren't just ethnically biased...they're wrong on the facts. And what this Arizona law fails to acknowledge is that many ethnic studies programs began because — for decades — people of color were ignored, slurred or misrepresented in history books.

Still, I don't buy the line that all ethnic studies teachers keep their own politics out of their lesson plans; lots of teachers don't. In my progressive, racially integrated, middle-class high school, I had one teacher —a black nationalist — who regularly spent class time railing against capitalism, denouncing the government and complaining that interracial dating threatened the survival of African Americans as a people.

But it's naïve to think that it's just teachers of color who cross that line. I had a very good white social studies teacher who once shouted down a black student for suggesting that race influenced the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan — and not Europe — during World War II. That's by no means a FACT, but it is a valid opinion, one that could have sparked an interesting discussion instead of a humiliating put down. And a very mediocre white teacher once explained to my class that affirmative action was compromising the quality of her profession. That's an interesting opinion, but not a fact to be dictated to impressionable students.

When teachers share their own prejudices with the class, administrators should tell them to stop it. But it's no reason to threaten the budget of an entire school system or the cultural education efforts of public schools statewide. Especially in these fiscally tight times, a law like this could make school administrators feel like they need to be political correctness cops. And frankly, public school teachers feel threatened enough: They worry that bad standardized test scores or budget cuts will cost them their jobs; that angry students will target them with false claims of abuse or sexual harassment; that parents will verbally — or even physically — attack them for not giving higher grades to their undeserving children.

Most educators want to influence the next generation, and that doesn't mean teaching only algebra or poetry. They've got life experiences, ideals and values that they believe will help young people better themselves. That's a good thing. Trying to legislate against abusing that influence creates another reason for good people to turn away from a profession that badly needs them.

By Alicia Montgomery

http://www.npr.org/blogs/tellmemore/2010/05/14/126826529/diverse-life-experiences-enrich-the-classroom

Hip-hop studies the latest in mindless education trend | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

2010-05-14T21:47:00.000-07:00

I've never been a fan of Tucker Carlson, and the guys from Flocabulary were probably naive thinking that they'd get a fair shake from the folks at Fox, but I felt the need to post this in defense of teachers everywhere who are using alternatives means to reach their students. It seems if we use traditional methods like lectures we are failing to recognize that brain-based studies reveal that this mode of transmission simply isn't effective. If we think outside of the box and try to be innovative, we are simply dumbing down education. I'm guessing that Mr. Carlson hasn't ever taught a class, and that if he dared, my junior high students would eat his lunch. Now that's something to rap about.

The Daily Show on Arizona Idiocy

2010-05-12T20:22:00.001-07:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Law & Border

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

The Party of No

2010-04-26T22:14:00.000-07:00

So You Want to Run on the Repeal of Health Care Reform?

2010-04-07T21:30:00.000-07:00

Robert Creamer over at the Huffington Post has provided those of us who must now defend national health care reform with some great thoughts to share with the repeal-the-bill tea-party wing nuts who will, undoubtedly, show up (very soon) on a campaign trail near you:

Because it's passed into law, Democrats are now the ones who will be in a position to demand that Republicans keep their "hands off our health care." And we can be very specific about provisions that go into effect right away.

Does Congressman Boehner really want to repeal the 35% tax credit that helps small business buy health care for their employees?

Does McConnell really want to repeal the provision that prevents insurance companies from denying benefits to children who have "pre-existing conditions?"

Does Steele really want to kick all the recent college grads off their parent's health insurance policies?

Does the Republican caucus really oppose closing the "donut hole" of coverage for senior citizen drug benefits -- or forcing seniors to send back the 250 check they will get this summer as a down payment on making drugs more affordable?

They ball is in our court now, and one thing is clear: Americans do not like to see existing benefits cut, and that is exactly what the Party of No has to offer them this fall.

Donate $25 on www.barackobama.com and Get a Cool T-shirt

2010-04-01T20:15:00.000-07:00

"Party" Contributions, Indeed!

2010-03-29T21:18:00.000-07:00

This news flash caught my attention this evening: Republican National Committee Spends Nearly $2,000 of "Party" Contributions at Lesbian-Themed Las Vegas Night Club.

Here's an article from The New York Daily News

Talk about a grand ol' party!

Records show the Republican National Committee dropped $1,946 at a West Hollywood, Calif. strip club last month, but a spokesperson insisted that RNC chairman Michael Steele was not among the ooglers.

"The chairman was never at the location in question, he had no knowledge of the expenditure, nor does he find the use of committee funds at such a location at all acceptable," said RNC spokeswoman Doug Heye, who added that the committee was investigating the expenditure.

Records filed with the Federal Election Commission show the RNC picked up the hefty tab at Voyeur West Hollywood, a high-end strip club that has hosted such notables as bad girl Lindsay Lohan and supermodel Heidi Klum.

In a review last October, the Los Angeles Times said the bar's "dark, leather-heavy interior is reminiscent of the masked orgy scene" in "Eyes Wide Shut," the 1999 Stanley Kubrick film starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.

The club features a heavy net suspended above the lounge area where topless performers - dressed in little more than masks and bikini-bottoms - writhe above the heads of clubgoers, the paper reported.

"Even more provocative scenes," the paper added, "are played out in an enclosed glass booth area adjacent to the club's dance floor area."

The kinky costs come at a time when Steele is already under fire from many within the GOP for his high-flying ways.

He recently took some heat for moving the RNC annual meeting from Washington, D.C. to Hawaii.
And one recent analysis by Politico.com found that compared with 2005, the last comparable year preceding a midterm election, RNC spending on private jets had doubled, limo trips had tripled, and meal expenses jumped from $306,000 to $599,000.

The RNC has still managed to out-raise the Democratic National Committee during most recent months, records show. But the DNC was more than happy to express a little mock outrage yesterday over the the RNC's latest expenditures.

"If limos, chartered aircraft and sex clubs are where they think their donors money should be spent - who are we to judge?" jabbed DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse. "But it shouldn't give voters much confidence in Republicans when they say they want to get back in charge of federal spending."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/29/2010-03-29_gop_family_values_michael_steeles_rnc_staffers_ran_up_almost_2k_at_strip_club.html#ixzz0jd96sSxV

So Why Hasn't the Sky Fallen on the Commies Who Passed Health Care Yet?

2010-03-26T20:36:00.000-07:00

Just before the historic vote on the House floor that would send Health Care Reform to the President's desk, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio announced that we were about 24 hours from Armageddon." Yet, it hit me this morning that the sun is still shining.

It wasn't quite as warm as the overheated rhetoric the Republicans hurled at those who wanted reform: "Today we turning back the clock," said Congressman Devin Nunes of California. "For most of the 21st century people have fled the ghosts of communists dictators, [but] with passage of this bill, they will haunt Americans for generations . . . Today Democrats in the House will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people." But, it seemed, the planet would live to see another day, perhaps another year even, before the sulfur and brimstone fell from the sky, the rivers turned to blood, and the United Socialist States of America was founded.

Perhaps this really isn't all that surprising. The Republicans' sooth-saying really isn't all that accurate. In fact, as psychics go, they kinda suck. Just look at the predictions Reagan about the passage of Medicare: "[I]f you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and children's children what it was once like in America when men were free." [1961]

This hasn't quite been the case. For even as Republicans sought to undermine Medicare, seniors began to realize its benefits. Since 1965, according to a study from Health Affairs, "the health of the elderly population has improved, as measured by both longevity and functional status." For example, life expectancy at age 65 increased from 14.3 years in 1960 to 17.8 years in 1998, and the chronically disabled elderly population declined from 24.9 percent in 1982 to 21.3 in 1994. Moreover, prior to Medicare, one in three seniors were living in poverty. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable care, and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

It is not too much to hope to see these kinds of results for ALL Americans as a result of the passage of health reform. Will the bill create a North American utopia? Probably not. But, the sky isn't going to fall either. And given the choice of the two, I'll stick with progress.

The Pro-Life Far Right at Its Finest

2010-03-25T19:39:00.000-07:00

Ok, forget about the threatening signs and the bricks that have been thrown through windows for a moment, and listen the voicemails that Congressman Bart Stupack (a pro-life Democrat) received after voting in favor of health reform.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Join Kansas Families for Education on Facebook Today

2010-03-23T21:07:00.001-07:00

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kansas-Families-for-Education/114517871843

18 Good Things about Health Care Reform

2010-03-23T20:55:00.000-07:00

1. SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDITS—Offers tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable. Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage. Effective beginning for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2014, the small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums.)

2. BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE—Provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010. Effective for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2011, institutes a 50% discount on brand‐name drugs in the donut hole; also completely closes the donut hole by 2020.)

3. FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER MEDICARE—Eliminates co‐payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program. Effective beginning January 1, 2011.

4. HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES—Creates a temporary re‐insurance program (until the Exchanges are available) to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees for health benefits for retirees age 55‐64. Effective 90 days after enactment.

5. ENDS RESCISSIONS—Bans insurance companies from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Effective 6 months after enactment.

6. NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHILDREN WITH PRE‐EXISTING CONDITIONS—Prohibits new health plans in all markets plus grandfathered group health plans from denying coverage to children with pre‐existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to all persons.)

7. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

8. BANS RESTRICTIVE ANNUAL LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Tightly restricts the use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care in all new plans and grandfathered group health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by HHS. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits would be prohibited for all new plans and grandfathered group health plans.)

9. FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER NEW PRIVATE PLANS—Requires new private plans to cover preventive services with no co‐payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles. Effective 6 months after enactment.

10. NEW, INDEPENDENT APPEALS PROCESS—Ensures consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions by their health insurance plan. Effective 6 months after enactment.

11. ENSURING VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS—Requires plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services, and plans in the large group market to spend 85 percent. Insurers that do not meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders. Effective on January 1, 2011.

12. IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED UNTIL EXCHANGE IS AVAILABLE (INTERIM HIGH‐RISK POOL)—Provides immediate access to affordable insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre‐existing condition ‐ through a temporary subsidized high‐risk pool. Effective 90 days after enactment.

13. EXTENDS COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 26TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS’ INSURANCE – Requires new health plans and certain grandfathered plans to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice. Effective 6 months after enactment.

14. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS—Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for nearly a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

15. INCREASING NUMBER OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS—Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

16. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY—Prohibits group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. Effective 6 months after enactment.

17. HEALTH INSURANCE CONSUMER INFORMATION—Provides aid to states in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals. Effective beginning in FY 2010.

18. CREATES NEW, VOLUNTARY, PUBLIC LONG‐TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM—Creates a long‐term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide home and community-based services to adults who become functionally disabled. Effective on January 1, 2011.

Tea Party America

2010-03-22T14:29:00.000-07:00

Recently, a close friend of mine who is a registered Republican, told me that she was seriously thinking about changing her party affiliation because the Right has become too mean-spirited, even hateful, in its opposition to the Democratic agenda. A glance at the campaign signs carried by Tea Party protesters seeking to "persuade" House members to vote no on comprehensive health reform would seem to bear this out.

Here's a great one that seems to indicate that if conservatives can't win with votes, that they can always shoot those with whom they disagree. Nice.

And don't forget to add a slice of racism:

Changing a party affiliation to disassociate oneself with the people who support these ideas? Makes sense to me.

Cost of Family Health Insurance Plan to Double by 2020 Without Reform

2010-03-15T18:03:00.000-07:00

Without health care reform, health insurance premiums could almost double by 2020, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a 90-year-old non-profit health care charity.

According to "Paying the Price: How Health Insurance Premiums Are Eating Up Middle-Class Incomes," employer-sponsored family plans will rise from an average cost of $12,298 in 2008 to $23,842 in 2020 (the same coverage would have cost close to $9,200 in 2003) if health-care costs continue to rise at the current rate.

The study found that:

The rapid rise in health insurance premiums has severely strained U.S. families and employers in recent years. This analysis of federal data finds that if premiums for employer-sponsored insurance grow in each state at the projected national rate of increase, then the average premium for family coverage would rise from $12,298 (the 2008 average) to $23,842 by 2020--a 94 percent increase. However, if health system reforms were able to slow premium growth by 1 percentage point in all states, by 2020 employers and families together would save $2,571 per premium for family coverage, compared with projected trends. If growth could be slowed by 1.5 percentage points--a target recently agreed to by a major industry coalition--yearly savings would equal $3,759. The analysis presents state-by-state data on premium costs for 2003 and 2008, as well as projections, using various assumptions, for costs in 2015 and 2020.

The author of the study, Cathy Shoen, senior vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, said in a news release:

"With health spending projected to double if we stay on our current path, middle- and lower-income families are at high risk of losing their coverage or facing long-term stagnant incomes. Employers and employees share premium costs, but we know that take-home pay and retirement savings are being sacrificed to maintain health benefits. Reforms that slow the growth of health-care costs could go a long way toward health and financial stability for working families."

Employer-based premiums for family coverage increased an average of 33 percent between 2003 and 2008, ranging from a low of 25 percent in Michigan, Texas and Ohio to a high of 45 percent in Indiana and North Carolina.

Click here to see charts from the study.

Healthcare Reform Now . . . Not Later . . . Not Gradually . . . Now!

2010-03-15T17:49:00.000-07:00

The Republicans favor an incremental approach--must be all that progress they made during their eight years in power.

This letter, one of thousands the White House receives, has become a speaking point for the President. At it's core is a woman who health care premiums run over $700 a month. For her (like millions of Americans) waiting simply isn't an option.

Here is the text of the letter sent by Natoma Canfield of Medina to President Barack Obama in December, as released by the White House:

Dear President Obama

I am 50 years old. I was diagnosed with carcinoma in-situ 16 years ago and following my divorce 12 years ago I became self-employed. After my Cobra ran out I was able to find costly, but affordable health insurance. As a responsible individual, I have struggled to maintain my individual coverage and have increased my deductible and out of pocket-limits in an attempt to control my cost and keep my health insurance.

Last year (2009) my insurance premium was increased over 25% even though I increased my deductible and out of pocket to the highest limits available. I paid out over $6075.24 in premiums, $2415.26 for medical care, $225 in co-pays and $1500 for prescriptions. I never reached my deductible of $2500 so the insurance company only paid out a total $935.32 to my providers.

I must repeat, in 2009 my insurance company received $6075.24 in premiums and paid out only $935.32! Incredibly I have just been notified that my premium for next year 2010 has been increased over 40% to $8496.24($708.02 per month)!!!! This is the same insurance company I have been with for over 11 cancer free years!!!
Story continues below
Advertisement

I need your Health reform bill to help me!!! I simply can no longer afford to pay for my health care costs!! Thanks to this incredible premium increase demanded by my insurance company, January will be my last month of insurance.

I live in the house my mother & father built in 1958 and I am so afraid of the possibility I might loose this family heirloom as a result of my being forced to drop my health care insurance. The health insurance industry technically has not denied me insurance directly, but indirectly they have by increasing my costs. They perceive me as becoming a higher risk factor to them despite being a loyal customer. I will never be able to obtain new health insurance due to the lack of real competition.

We are talking about Anthem who apparently has no respect for your attempts to reform the health insurance industry.

Please stay focused in your reform attempts as I and many others are in desperate need of your help.

Sincerely

Natoma Canfield

Bill Maher on Education Reform

2010-03-14T12:06:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-dont-fire-the-te_b_497554.html

New Rule: Let's not fire the teachers when students don't learn - let's fire the parents. Last week President Obama defended the firing of every single teacher in a struggling high school in a poor Rhode Island neighborhood. And the kids were outraged. They said, "Why blame our teachers?" and "Who's President Obama?" I think it was Whitney Houston who said, "I believe that children are our future - teach them well and let them lead the way." And that's the last sound piece of educational advice this country has gotten - from a crack head in the '80's.

Yes, America has found its new boogeyman to blame for our crumbling educational system. It's just too easy to blame the teachers, what with their cushy teachers' lounges, their fat-cat salaries, and their absolute authority in deciding who gets a hall pass. We all remember high school - canning the entire faculty is a nationwide revenge fantasy. Take that, Mrs. Crabtree! And guess what? We're chewing gum and no, we didn't bring enough for everybody.

But isn't it convenient that once again it turns out that the problem isn't us, and the fix is something that doesn't require us to change our behavior or spend any money. It's so simple: Fire the bad teachers, hire good ones from some undisclosed location, and hey, while we're at it let's cut taxes more. It's the kind of comprehensive educational solution that could only come from a completely ignorant people.

Firing all the teachers may feel good - we're Americans, kicking people when they're down is what we do - but it's not really their fault. Now, undeniably, there are some bad teachers out there. They don't know the material, they don't make things interesting, they have sex with the same kid every day instead of spreading the love around... But every school has crappy teachers. Yale has crappy teachers - they must, they gave us George Bush.

According to all the studies, it doesn't matter what teachers do. Although everyone appreciates foreplay. What matters is what parents do. The number one predictor of a child's academic success is parental involvement. It doesn't even matter if your kid goes to private or public school. So save the twenty grand a year and treat yourself to a nice vacation away from the little bastards.

It's also been proven that just having books in the house makes a huge difference in a child's development. If your home is adorned with nothing but Hummel dolls, DVD's, and bleeding Jesuses, congratulations, you've just given your children the gift of Duh. Sarah Palin said recently she wrote on her hand because her father used to do it. I rest my case.

When there are no books in the house, and there are no parents in the house, you know who raises the kids? That's right, the television. Kids aren't keeping up with their studies; they're keeping up with the Kardashians. We're allowing the television, as babysitter, to turn us into a nation of slutty idiots. By the way, one sign your 9-year-old may be watching too much One Tree Hill: if she has an imaginary friend with benefits.

Do Nothing Repbulicans

2010-03-14T11:55:00.000-07:00

From our friends at http://www.ksdp.org/

Kansas Republicans are setting a new bar for legislative lethargy.

First, under their failed leadership the Appropriations Committee has yet to produce any budget-balancing recommendations. Next, not content to simply do nothing some are attempting to nullify the hard work and actions of others through the Freedom From Healthcare Act.

Now, they've stopped showing up to do their job. With so little going on, it was only a matter of time before Republican legislators realized they didn't need to be there to get nothing done. The Topeka Capitol Journal is reporting on the culture of absences and tardiness that GOP leadership has allowed to develop in the state legislature:

“The average senator missed six days out of the possible 94 work days over 1 1/2 legislative sessions. … Three Democrats and 13 Republicans exceeded the Senate average.”

Don’t expect the leaders of the Kansas Republican Party to reform the negligent behavior of their fellow Republicans. During his failed Presidential campaign, Sam Brownback racked up one of the worst attendance records in the US Senate. Throughout his career, House Speaker Mike O’Neal has missed almost 100 days, more than the equivalent of an entire legislative session. With leadership like that it’s no curiosity why GOP attendance has been so bad. Don’t expect O’Neal to reform the do-nothing culture of the legislature as long as he remains speaker.

I've posted a totally hot yearbook of Senator Fro-back, I mean Brownback, for your viewing pleasure.

And by the way, you'll have to buy your own paperclips

2010-02-25T13:55:00.000-08:00

So I got on Facebook today, and I found a post from one of my former students. I've omitted her name as I don't have permission to post this here, but reading it made me angry (all over again) about the lack of commitment to education Kansas' elected officials have shown in recent months. Here it is:

is off to spend a bajillion dollars on things like glue and paper for the kiddos. Really sad. It makes me not want to also spend the money so they can make chocolate crisp bars tomorrow or the money to buy the things I need for Oobleck and an art project but I guess that's the way it goes. Oh teacher friends....Office ...Depot is having a buy 2 get one 1 free sale on things like paper clips, paper, manilla folders, etc.

It breaks my heart to see a new teacher (in her first semester of teaching) coming to the realization that today in Kansas if your students need materials (which many of them cannot possibly afford to buy themselves) you'd better be ready to head out to Wal-mart or Staples and open your wallet. Why ask every Kansan to pay an extra penny of sales tax when teachers will shoulder the burden left behind by lawmakers too spineless to invest public education? How many years can young, bright, energetic people be expected to stay in an occupation that values them so little as to ask them to buy their own paperclips?

Education: What's Right, Not What's Left

2010-02-24T21:03:00.000-08:00

Fighting Misinformation about Public Education Funding

2010-02-23T15:05:00.000-08:00

Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. You may have recently heard some lobbyists, legislators, or television commercials offering statistics claiming that spending on Kansas public schools has actually gone up over the past few years and school districts have $700 million in reserves to deal with budget cuts. The statistics they cite are, at best, partial truths.

For example, in 2005, the state legislature mandated that, instead of sending school KPERS money directly to KPERS, it would first be wired to school districts and then immediately be re-wired to KPERS. That’s about $250 million that shows up on school district budgets. At the time, the majority in the legislature said they wanted to show what the actual expenses of education were. The fact that schools can’t actually educate children with the money apparently makes no difference. Increases to KPERS are counted as increases to education and, since the legislature has been borrowing from KPERS and must soon pay it back, this statistical red herring will undoubtedly continue.

Also, funding statistics include state-wide funding for new school buildings, which is called Bond and Interest. While it’s true that the state is spending more money on recent bond issues in some school districts, it is funding for operating costs like salaries, utilities, fuel, food, and insurance that is being cut.

It would be more honest to cite statistics that relate to the General fund, which is the primary fund for operating expenses. That fund decreased 6.9% from last year to this year. According to KSDE, even when you include funding increases from KPERS, Bond and Interest, Local Option Budget, and federal funds the amount of funding to Kansas schools still decreased 3.2% from last year to this year. Meanwhile, schools have more students, more at-risk students, and higher student achievement requirements than ever before.

The other thing we hear a lot about is how school districts have $700 million sitting around in reserves. Various funds must have cash balances because, even in good economic times, money often goes out faster than it comes in. The Special Education Fund in particular must have a healthy balance (about $225 million this year) because school districts don’t receive a penny of special education funding until three and a half months after the fiscal year starts.

Lately, many school districts have needed cash balances just to make payroll due to state cash-flow problems and late funding payments. Saying that these cash balances can take care of funding cuts is like saying you can absorb a pay cut from your job right after you’ve been paid because your mortgage and car loan haven’t been deducted from your checking account yet.

The Contingency Fund (a.k.a. the rainy day fund) is the primary reserve fund but that money can only be used once. For the past two years, school funding has been cut during the school year after the vast majority of school funding is contractually committed. That’s why it’s important to have contingency money available. For school districts, keeping no reserve and, when bad times hit, telling parents we’re sorry but there isn’t any money to suitably educate their children isn’t an option.

Last year, the legislature passed a law raising the limit of how much money school districts can put into their Contingency Fund to encourage school districts to cut spending and transfer savings there. They knew more mid-year cuts were likely to come. Now, some legislators and others are pointing to that money as a reason why school districts can handle more cuts. Wow.

Are Kansans really naïve enough to believe that school districts are closing schools and laying off thousands of teachers and other employees even though we have more money than ever and just want to hoard our huge reserves? Some politicians and some people paying for television commercials are hoping so. Instead of political spin, we need an honest discussion about what’s going on so we can reach informed solutions.

Education is the best—perhaps only—solution to ignorance, intolerance, and poverty. It’s also the only way to ensure the continued success of democracy. Without public education, the quality of a child’s education would be based on the wealth of his or her parents. That’s why the state’s Founding Fathers made public education a required state expenditure in the Kansas Constitution. If we’re going to imperil their vision and our children’s education we should do so while understanding the whole truth.

Dr. Darrel Stufflebeam
Superintendent of Schools
Rock Creek USD 323

Yes, Kansas, There is an Alternative to Brownback

2010-02-17T21:19:00.003-08:00

State Sen. Tom Holland, a Baldwin City Democrat, not only threw his hat into the ring for the governor’s position Wednesday, he came out swinging against Sam Brownback, a Republican favored to win the seat.

“I’m standing here today to let Kansas know they do have a choice for governor,” said Holland, on the steps of Lowman Elementary School in Topeka to draw attention to the plight of public education with the state’s troubled economy and continued budget cuts.

“Behind me is Lowman Hills Elementary School,” he said, surrounded by his wife and family. “It’s just like hundreds of other neighborhood schools across Kansas, where dedicated men and women are teaching our children and looking to the future.”

He said it’s like the many schools across Kansas where parents, principals, teachers and students are worried what will happen if school funding is cut more.

“Because when we talk about the budget — we are talking about our schools,” said Holland. “When we talk about the budget — we are talking about providing services to those who are most vulnerable.

“When we talk about budget — we are talking about protecting public safety,” he said. “When we talk about budget — we are talking about real people, in real communities, in every corner of the state. The next Kansas governor must find solutions to these difficult problems, not repeat the mistakes of the past.”

That’s when Holland, who first won a seat in the state house of representatives in 2002 and then won his senate seat in 2008, went on the attack on Brownback, a senator for the past 16 years.

“And for the past 16 years, Sam Brownback has been part of the problem,” said Holland. “While in Washington, Brownback presided over a $5 trillion increase in our federal debt, voting against fiscal responsibility and in support of laws that created the recession we’re currently facing.

“Brownback had a front row seat in Washington while his failed policies made life worse for our families,” he said. “Now, Sam Brownback wants to put his failed Washington politics and divisive agenda to work in our state.”

Holland and his wife, Barbara, moved to rural Baldwin City in 1991. They have three sons and a daughter. He is owner and president of Holland Technologies, Inc., an information technology consulting and professional services firm.

Holland knows he faces an uphill battle against Brownback, but he’s fought those fights before. He defeated incumbent State Rep. Ralph Tanner in 2002 and incumbent State Sen. Roger Pine in 2008, both Republicans. He first ran to use his business experience to battle the ever-shrinking funding of education. That battle hasn’t stopped.

“I knew how to solve problems for businesses, and when I saw the problems facing my kids’ schools, I decided to lead,” said Holland. “I set out to share my vision with other Kansans. The critics said I had no chance. But I went on to beat the established candidate, a four-term incumbent and the chair of the House Education Committee.

“In 2008, I again answered the call and ran for the State Senate,” he said. “Again, the critics doubted me. Again, I beat an incumbent. Now our state faces an unprecedented budget crisis. Our businesses, schools, social services and public safety programs are in trouble.”

With that, he acknowledged the tough battle ahead against Brownback, but also promised to take it on.

“The people of Kansas deserve a leader who knows how to create jobs and rebuild our economy,” said Holland. “Not dig us deeper in debt, gridlock and partisanship we’ve seen in Washington. I have a proven track record in running a successful business — doing more with less, meeting a payroll and delivering solutions on time and under budget. I have a proven track record representing my district; I lead through listening and I am the only candidate who can put politics aside and bring all people together, Republican, Democrats and proud Independents.

“Now I know Sam Brownback has out-of-state money and Washington insiders supporting him,” he said. “I know the road ahead will be long. But I care so deeply about Kansans and our future that I gladly accept the challenge.”

State Rep. Tony Brown, who served as Holland’s campaign manager before winning his position when Holland ran for Senate, knows Holland is up to that challenge and more.

“I believe Tom will be a great governor for the people of Kansas,” said Brown. “His business, legislative and family experiences reflect the real-world issues that people across the state deal with every day.

“His greatest strength is that he lives among us — he is a neighbor who understands the challenges Kansans are facing during these difficult times,” he said.

Health insurers take heat for rise in profits

2010-02-15T22:10:00.000-08:00

Health insurers take heat for rise in profits

Republicans Continue Quest in Kansas to Become as Counterproductive as Possible

2010-02-15T10:47:00.001-08:00

It’s official: The hard right in Kansas has sacrificed common sense on the altar of political ideology. By refusing to consider any form of revenue generation that might be seen as a tax increase, the members majority party in Topeka have willfully chosen to turn a blind eye to the consequences of their own inability to act outside of an self-inflicted set of principles so rigid that not even facts can permeate them.
This is particularly true in terms of Kansas public education where state spending has the greatest positive economic effect. It’s no secret that quality public education raises personal income and increases local employment. The choice of the Republicans in Topeka, however, runs exactly counter to this logic.
Their plan, perhaps owing its genesis to fear of a backlash from organizations like the “Kansas Club for Growth,” is to resist any effort (other than deeper cuts) to balance the budget—a stance that, in effect, forces public schools to shed hundreds of teachers, custodians, secretaries, cooks, and bus drivers. This, of course, is compounded by school consolidations, which have increased due to cuts made to public education funding.
It seems absurd, but the idea from the Right seems to be that increased unemployment, fewer economically viable small Kansas communities, and a generation of students who are less academically well-prepared is good for the state. Without swift and direct opposition to such an absurd agenda, Kansas risks—according to the Kansas Association of School Boards—a future population who are much likely “to live in poverty” and “require public assistance.” The choice is simple: a few extra cents on purchases now or thousands spent in the future to fix problems that we all saw coming.

Christmas Humor

2009-12-17T19:19:00.001-08:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Obama's Socialist Christmas Ornament Program

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Limbaugh and the Rams? Perhaps not . . .

2009-10-13T12:32:00.001-07:00

So, Rush wants to own a professional football team. What's the big deal? Well . . . there is the fact that very, very few African-American players would play for him. Why? It seems that Rush's mouth sometimes runs ahead of his brain. Check out a few examples:

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." --on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, while working as a commentator on ESPN

Perhaps he could own an WNBA team? Maybe not . . .

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

Maybe he could give up on professional sports and take on a cause, like Parkinson's research. Wait . . .

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." --on an ad by Michael J. Fox endorsing Claire McCaskill for Senate for supporting embryonic stem cell research

Guess a career change isn't in the cards for Rush. Poor him.

They Wait

2009-10-07T21:27:00.001-07:00

More Health Care Humor

2009-10-04T21:21:00.001-07:00

A Public Service Announcement Worth Listening To

2009-09-22T19:58:00.001-07:00

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

This Makes Me Feel Better

2009-09-22T19:06:00.000-07:00

Gotta love Garrison Keillor.

Sept. 23, 2009 | The president has declined to talk about racism in connection with the carpet-chewers of the right who are suffering road rage over his existence, and he's wise to turn that one down. The country doesn't need a sermon on race or civility right now. What it needs is to believe that our leaders are trying to do the right thing, no matter how inconvenient, and if they forge ahead and fix health insurance, then the ragemeisters of the right will find other hobbies.

Mr. Obama is a Chicago guy, and he doesn't wilt if some gin-crazed cracker from South Carolina calls him a liar, so don't trouble your pretty head about civility.

It was women's suffrage that tamed politics. All through the 19th century, going back to Jefferson vs. Adams in 1800, politics was a blood sport. Hecklers followed a candidate like fleas on a dog. Newspapers were rip-snorting partisan and tore into the opposition with gay abandon. The English language is rich in invective and it all got used. When you went after your opponent, you got warmed up by calling him a horse thief, drunkard, agnostic, wife-beater, agent of Satan and tool of Wall Street, and then you got to the serious stuff. But once women appeared, in their little pinafores and corsages, we became, temporarily, a quieter, gentler people than we actually are and sat still at League of Women Voters forums on world federalism and perused the editorial page, written by silver-haired gents with distinguished jowls who penned judicious columns of On The One Hand This, On The Other Hand That, and nobody ever yelled at them except their wives.

That's sort of gone now. Now a column appears online and then the anonymous reader comments and the reader says, AW SHUT YER TRAP YA BIG FAT NOBODY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW? NUTTIN, THAT'S WHAT. GO BACK TO RUSSIA WHERE YA COME FROM. It's a loud raspy voice that was familiar to Lincoln and Mark Twain and now it's back, thanks to the cranky right, which feels disenfranchised by the election of Obama. And to their delight they've found that it drives the center-left right up the wall.

The old union guys who built the Democratic Party enjoyed public face-offs and knew how to deal with hecklers -- you get up close to them and snap their underwear -- but the party's been taken over by academics who come from a medieval world where your insignia grants you a worshipful hearing. As Shakespeare wrote, "I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips, let no dog bark." But that ain't going to happen in politics.

The right believes that if you throw enough mud, some will stick, and if you characterize healthcare reform as an evil plot by one-eyed space aliens, you can defeat the thing. The fact is that there are 40 million uninsured Americans and soon, if nothing is done, there will be more. This is a moral dilemma, the same as if habeas corpus only applied east of the Mississippi or that green-eyed children will only be educated through the sixth grade. Not acceptable in the country I live in. And it's up to people who care about the common good not to be scared off.

The right is operating in the grand old irreverent American middle-finger spirit of contrarianism. The carful of kids who drive country roads busting mailboxes with baseball bats are expressing the same freewheeling spirit and the computer hackers and graffiti artists and every conscientious rock 'n' roll band for the past 50 years.

But the price of being an angry jerk is that nobody wants to invite you over for supper except your mother, and even she feels a little uneasy. It's very simple: The anonymous bums in the bleachers can abuse the umpire, but the players can't because they have numbers on their backs. Bold contrarians get thrown out of the game. The American people, by and large, don't admire wackos. A few wacko congressmen can't do much harm, but you wouldn't want them on the County Board. You want sober people who can add and subtract. And you don't want one to marry your sister. The angry guy in a lather about Mr. Obama to the exclusion of rational thought will have to go to the weenie roast alone and nobody is going to dance with him except out of pure pity and I'm not sure he's going to enjoy that.

(Garrison Keillor is the author of "77 Love Sonnets," published by Common Good Books.)

© 2009 by Garrison Keillor. All rights reserved. Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.

No Racism Here

2009-09-21T20:27:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted for a while because the blog post that has been bouncing around inside my brain is one that questions whether hate speech can actually encourage physical violence. The problem is I can't write about the radical rhetoric of the Right without violating my own pledge of civility.

So, instead, to answer the question of whether the Tea Party gatherings have gone too far . . . perhaps even scratched the ugly scab of racism open . . . I give you these images and allow you to decide their intent.

Thanks, Extreme Right!

2009-09-09T20:13:00.000-07:00

It's official: the Right has gone so far off the deep end that their credibility is in tatters. Shouting at the President during a joint session of Congress trumps even the birthers in the quest to turn the Republican Party into a club for conspiracy theorists and paranoid schizophrenics. Obama, whose overhaul of health care really is game-changing, seems downright moderate next to the folks with the swastika posters who shout at women in wheelchairs. So tonight, I thank Rep. Joe Wilson for further perpetuating the stereotype that all Republicans are on the fringe. Of course, this stereotype is false, but who I am to tell Conservatives how to manage their image?

Obama Steers Student Down Wrong Path

2009-09-07T20:09:00.000-07:00

Well, it's out, and it's every bit as bad as we had imagined. President Obama's address to the nation's students includes some heinous and immoral ideas that are totally inappropriate for children. Read it for yourself, but I think that asking kids to work hard and take responsibility for their education is clearly something straight out of Marx. What we will say next that individuals have responsibilities beyond their own? Sacrilege I tell you!

Read this and see how much of it you can stomach!

The President: Hello everyone - how's everybody doing today? I'm here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we've got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I'm glad you all could join us today.

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it's your first day in a new school, so it's understandable if you're a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you're in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could've stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday - at 4:30 in the morning.

Now I wasn't too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I'd fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I'd complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I'm here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I'm here because I want to talk with you about your education and what's expected of all of you in this new school year.

Now I've given a lot of speeches about education. And I've talked a lot about responsibility.

I've talked about your teachers' responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.

I've talked about your parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don't spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.

I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working where students aren't getting the opportunities they deserve.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world - and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a good writer - maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper - but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor - maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine - but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life - I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You're going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can't drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You've got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And this isn't just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you're learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.

You'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You'll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You'll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don't do that - if you quit on school - you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country.

Now I know it's not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.

I get it. I know what that's like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn't always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn't fit in.

So I wasn't always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn't have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don't have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there's not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don't feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren't right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life - what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you've got going on at home - that's no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That's no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That's no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up. No one's written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

That's what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn't speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.

I'm thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who's fought brain cancer since he was three. He's endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer - hundreds of extra hours - to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he's headed to college this fall.

And then there's Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she's on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.

Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren't any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.

That's why today, I'm calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education - and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you'll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you'll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you'll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you'll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don't feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you're not going to be any of those things.

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject you study. You won't click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That's OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who've had the most failures. JK Rowling's first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understand that you can't let your failures define you - you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn't mean you're a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn't mean you're stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

No one's born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You're not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don't hit every note the first time you sing a song. You've got to practice. It's the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it's good enough to hand in.

Don't be afraid to ask questions. Don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don't know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust - a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor - and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

And even when you're struggling, even when you're discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you - don't ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It's the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.

So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you've got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down - don't let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

That German Healthcare

2009-09-05T21:12:00.001-07:00

I have been intrigued by the liberal use of Nazi imagery to deride those who champion health care reform and claim that Obama's views on the issues are somehow parallel to those of Hitler's. This got me wondering was it Hitler who brought universal health care to Germany? The answer is no. The roots of the current German health system date back to 1885 . . . just a bit before Hitler's time.

Ok, so the Germans are about 150 years ahead of us in the health care debate, but their system sucks, right? Not so much. With just a little bit of digging, I found a number of reputable websites that describe the German system in a way that make it seem, well, downright logical.

I particularly liked the question and answer format of the post I found on

http://www.healthcaretownhall.com.

Read it for yourself and see if the German system sounds like something worthy of Nazi iconography.

Inside Germany’s healthcare system

Continuing our series of interviews looking at health systems from around the world, Milliman consultant Axel Meder discusses the healthcare system in his native Germany.

Q: The healthcare system in Germany has been in place for a long time. How is it funded?

A: The system is more than 150 years old, and has remained viable through economic ups and downs—notably, two world wars and the depressions that followed. It’s a hybrid system, funded through both public and private entities. Most of the population is covered through the public system. But those who are self-employed or who earn more than 4,050 Euros per month may purchase private health insurance coverage. We call it “substitute” coverage, because it takes the place of the public insurance coverage others use.

Q: Are there differences in coverage between the public and private systems?

A: In the German healthcare system, coverage is mandatory. All citizens can see a physician or use a service as they see fit, regardless of whether they are covered by public or private insurance. It is essentially a one-tier system. About 90% of the German population is covered by the public healthcare system, with the remaining 10% covered privately. Private insurance must provide a minimum level of coverage and it also allows people to purchase additional benefits, like a single-bed hospital room, consultations with the chief doctors, and upgraded benefits for prescription drugs. But all patients have access to essentially the same treatments and options, although there are physicians and clinicians who offer their services to private patients only. There is no obligation for higher-earning people to opt out of the public system—private insurance is entirely voluntary.

Q: How is the insurance funded?

A: Financing for public health insurance is pay as you go. The premium one pays depends upon income. This year, the rate is 15.5% of gross income up to a maximum of 3,675 Euros per month. The employee pays 8.2% and the employer pays 7.3%. After retirement, the premium rates remain the same; only the basis changes from gross wages to state and private pensions. So after retirement, the state pension system pays the 7.3% instead of the employer

Private insurance premiums are initially rated based on risk factors such as gender, age at purchase, and coverage. Premiums cannot increase due to the increasing age of an individual, but can increase for inflation, changes in medical practice, and utilization, for example, if more insureds receive expensive treatments or drugs. In addition, private insurance premiums usually include a risk premium (for the underwritten health risk), lifelong aging reserves, cost loadings, and a contingency margin between 5% and 10% depending on exposure. The contingency margin ensures coverage in the event there is a major problem affecting many people, such as a pandemic or other catastrophe risk. Most years, this part of the premium is not used, and it becomes profit for the insurance company. Some of the profits are repaid to insureds; for instance, if a person doesn’t make any claims during the year he may get back 5%, 10%, or even 30% of the premiums paid.

Q: What is the purpose of lifelong aging reserves, and how do they work?

A: When a person is young, an aging reserve is added to his or her premium and is invested in an interest-bearing account. It must earn 3.5%, but often earns more. In this way, when the risk-based premium is higher later in life, the invested amounts can offset what might otherwise be an unaffordable premium, so coverage can continue. The aging reserves are tax-privileged for policy holders and insureds, and they can be used only for this purpose. The 3.5% interest earned is mandated by law and can be reduced only if there is a sustained reduction in market interest rates. If someone changes private insurance companies, he or she takes part of the aging reserves they’ve built up to their new insurer. Insurers have built up aging reserves of more than 125 billion Euros through the private system.

Q: Under what circumstances does a person lose or change coverage?

A: Everyone in Germany has to be covered, either through public or private insurance, so a person cannot lose coverage. People always have the right to cancel their policy and choose a different one. Companies have the right to cancel the policy only in the first three years. The private system tends to be more attractive for younger people, because of lower premiums and the reserve account. When someone is around age 45, the premiums in the private system may be higher than in the public system, so private insurance becomes less attractive and only a few people change from public to private insurance. If someone opts out from public insurance, he or she cannot go back into the public system.

Q: Can insurance companies change the premiums in the private system?

A: Insurers can change premiums under certain circumstances. For example, inflation, changes in the billing rates of physicians, dentists, and other service providers, or medical/technical advances. In these circumstances, insurance companies are able, and obliged, to examine their premiums to make sure they are planning adequately for their risk. When the premium increases, the increase becomes, in effect, a new layer of coverage, beginning with the age of the insured at that time.

Q: How does the availability of public insurance affect German insurance agents and companies who sell private coverage?

A: Private health policies are typically sold by independent brokers and agents. As private health insurance is a consulting-intensive product, direct sales play a lesser role. The lifelong aging reserves mean that the private insurance premiums are higher in the early years of the contract, making the policies more challenging to sell. Therefore, most of the policies are sold when the insureds are at age 25 to 40. Private insurers also offer supplemental insurance, which is not considered to be a substitute for public coverage. With these policies, one can purchase enhanced benefits like a private room in a hospital, or overseas coverage.

Q: How do private and public insurance coexist in Germany?

A: Some constituents would like to see the private insurance system abolished, but others believe its existence is critical to the system’s survival and that some physicians and providers would not survive without it. From an actuarial perspective, the private insurance system is more financially solid compared to the public pay-as-you-go system, because private premium rates include assumptions for, among other things, interest and increasing benefits. However, when interest rates are low, it can be difficult to earn the mandated 3.5% return on the reserves. In addition, as private premiums are increased, the resulting premiums are becoming unaffordable for retirees on fixed incomes. Insurers are trying to defuse this situation by using more of the surplus capital they have accumulated to mitigate increases.

Why the Death Penalty Must Be Abolished

2009-09-03T20:49:00.000-07:00

The fear that an innocent person might be executed has long haunted jurors and lawyers and judges. And, in recent years, so many men have been exonerated from the nation's death rows that some states have been forced to place moratoriums on their capital punishment systems. Death penalty proponents have invariably seen such exonerations as evidence that the system is working, as a kind of insurance that no innocent individual will ever face death.

That argument no longer holds water. After an exhaustive investigation, David Grann (a reporter for The New Yorker)has reached the conclusion--supported by voluminous research--that Texas executed a man, Cameron Todd Willingham, on forensic evidence that was so poor that arson experts who reviewed it after Willingham's conviction (following a two-day trial)called it little more than folklore. No one, however, not even the governor of Texas was willing to grant Willingham a new trial or even a stay of execution. In fact, Grann's work reveals that none of those who could have righted the scales of justice for Willingham even bothered to read the evidence of his innocence.

If you haven't heard of this case, take a moment to read it at and say a little prayer that sooner rather than later, we will come to our senses and abolish capital punishment.

Secession for Texas? Obama a Marxist?

2009-09-01T20:28:00.000-07:00

Texas Governor Rick Perry has officially out-tea-partied even the most rabid of the hard Right by suggesting that Texas might well be forced to leave the union if American continues to drift left . . . presumably into the dangerous waters of Marxist or Nazi (your choice) totalitarianism. (Never mind that those two systems of government are diametrically opposed; a gun strapped to your leg at a town meeting is enough logic for those who see no conflict with drawing swastikas on Obama while calling him a communist.)

Perry's contribution to the lunatic fringe was reported in The Huffington Post, which reported Perry's remarks late Wednesday, saying "Perry suggested [at one of three Tea Party gatherings he planned to attend] that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union. 'There's a lot of different scenarios,' Perry said. 'We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that'?"

Clearly, Texas must be a Conservative paradise. I mean, who wouldn't want to live in Rick Perry-land, which the Commonwealth Fund ranked 46th out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia in terms of the overall quality of its health care system, 50th in children's access to health care, 44th on equity, and 42nd in overall quality of children's health care?

Personally, I'd love to be an educator in a state whose students are 49th in verbal SAT scores in the nation and 46th in average math SAT scores.

I could go on and on about "utopian Texas," but the reality is that these comments were not meant to be taken seriously. They were, instead, meant to stir up the base in advance of what could be a tough Texas Republican gubernatorial primary. That Perry thinks of the Tea Party as his base speaks volumes about the state of the Republican party,not just in Texas, but across the country. Things are pretty bad for Republicans, and without the emergence of Lynne Jenkins' "Great White Hope," Perry soon may need a lifeboat to navigate the waters of Nazi-Marxist-Islamic-Pacifistic progressivism.

Name that Blog

2009-08-31T20:29:00.000-07:00

The Kansas Democratic Party is introducing a community blog feature to its website and taking suggestions as to the new blog's name. Take a moment to read the message from the state party below and suggest a name!

Do you have something to say, but no medium to say it? Well that's about to change.

We're excited to announce that as you read this, work is being done on the new website you asked from us last June. One of the signature features of our new website will be a community blog where you can write about your local party, candidates, and partner organizations.

It'll be 100% free and open to all Democrats. All we need to make it official is a new name:

Here's how it will work.

We'll be accepting your suggestions for blog names throughout the first half of this week with the contest closing Wednesday night at 11:59 PM. Thursday morning, we'll select the best five names from across the state and have you vote for the blog name you like the best. Whichever name gets the most votes by Monday, September 7th at 11:59 PM will be the winner!

We strongly encourage you to organize around your favorite name, but we'll talk more about that later. For now, if you've got a good idea for a blog name, submit it on the KSDP website, at the address below:

http://www.ksdp.org/nameourblog

It's an exciting time to be active in Kansas politics, and we can't wait to hear directly from you!

Thanks for all that you do,

Mike Nellis
Online Director -- Kansas Democratic Party

P.S. This blog is about you -- don't forget to make your suggestion before Thursday!

True Colors

2009-08-26T19:29:00.000-07:00

It all started this morning while I was in the shower. My wife was listening to NPR, as is our habit. Over the sound of the rushing water, she said, "Ted Kennedy has passed away." I stopped there and said a little prayer for a fellow human who had lost a battle with cancer.

NPR was, not surprisingly, very respectful in its coverage, and I had a sense that somehow the Right would let the family mourn before hurling their last insults at the man who came to be known as the Lion of the Senate.

That illusion was shattered when one of my colleagues emailed me before 9:00 this morning irate at a friend's facebook status that wondered what kind of country makes heroes out of "child molesters and drunk-driving murderers." Surely, this was just one person spewing venom, right?

Knowing somehow this facebook user wasn't alone, I checked the some of the right-wing websites to see if she had compatriots out there ready to pounce. Here's some of what's posted by readers of the American Spectator:

Eric Cartman| 8.26.09 @ 5:58AM

Dude,

He should have died trying to save the girl he killed driving drunk. He was and will remain a cowardly, drunken, degenerate slob! Say Hi to Hitler for me, Ted!

Solo| 8.26.09 @ 8:09AM

Well...the "Lying Liberal " is finally burning in hell!

Good riddence, you feckless bastard!!

william| 8.26.09 @ 5:45PM

All you Kennedys seek is Fame and Sex and Greed and Riches. You're all in Hell where you belong you Fair Haired Sons of Bitches!

There is much more of the same out there, but I simply too sickened to reveal more. What's been written and said about the late Senator in the last 12 hours says much more about the writers and speakers of such venom than about the man himself.

Democracy: Bush-Cheney Style

2009-08-24T20:22:00.000-07:00

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to launch an investigation into whether criminal prosecutions are warranted in connection with the torture of terror suspects during the Bush era made news headlines today as former Vice-President Cheney defended what he calls "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

These techniques, whatever euphemism that one attaches to them, are torture plain and simple; and they do not and cannot represent the values of American democracy . . . unless, of course, you think it's appropriate to threaten detainees with mock execution, imply that you are willing to rape their mothers . . . front of them, and make promises to find and kill their children.

The full report is available online at the address below, but one need not read it in it's entirety to know that these methods do not represent the best of America. We must never again allow ourselves to become monsters even as we attempt to combat the monstrous actions of others. Whether is happens at Guantanamo or in Abu Ghraib, wrong is wrong.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/IG_Report.pdf

Guns at Town Hall Meetings

2009-08-23T13:25:00.000-07:00

It's not exactly news; in fact, the national media has been reporting for a least a couple of weeks that a handful of opponents of health care reform have been attending Obama town-hall meetings armed with handguns, presumably to protect themselves in the event that a death panel appears.

Such events have gotten me thinking about just how much handguns cost our current health care system and our society as a whole.

These thoughts led me to the work of Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig whose book,Gun Violence: The Real Costs(published by Oxford University), concludes that handguns cost America 100 billion dollars a year.

Here's a snippet of the review of the book from the Oxford University Press:

"Until now researchers have assessed the burden imposed by gunshot injuries and deaths in terms of medical costs and lost productivity. Here, economists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig widen the lens, developing a framework to calculate the full costs borne by Americans in a society where both gun violence and its ever-present threat mandate responses that touch every aspect of our lives.

All of us, no matter where we reside or how we live, share the costs of gun violence. Whether waiting in line to pass through airport security or paying taxes for the protection of public officials; whether buying a transparent book bag for our children to meet their school's post-Columbine regulations or subsidizing an urban trauma center, the steps we take are many and the expenditures enormous."

Perhaps a major facet in the heath care debate has been overlooked: the connection between our obsession with guns and the high price we pay for that obsession.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

2009-08-18T20:07:00.000-07:00

This one really takes the cake. It is so bold, so outrageous that I had to fact-check it myself to see if it could even be true. Surely, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa (a man known as a moderate) didn't really say that Senator Ted Kennedy, who is battling a brain tumor while fighting for health care reform, would go untreated if he were a British citizen?

Yep, he said it. Forget for a moment that Sen. Kennedy is NOT advocating a British or Canadian-style single-payer system. Forget that that none of the plans emerging from either the House or Senate committees includes a single-payer provision. Focus instead on this, the latest of the Republican lies. I can't even write "misrepresentations" anymore.

This lie flies in the face of a simple truth: if Sen. Kennedy were a British citizen, he would receive the same care is receiving here with one major exception. His care would be cost-free, as it would be for ANY Brit who suffered from brain cancer (or any other ailment.)

Shame on you, Chuck Grassley.

So What is a Health Care Cooperative?

2009-08-17T13:37:00.000-07:00

House Democrats want a full public option; Senate Dems (at some of them) seem to be leaning toward health care cooperatives. Secretary Sebelius alluded to the Senate option on the weekend talk shows, and Republicans gleefully began predicting a civil war among Democrats that would effectively kill reform. But what exactly are health insurance cooperatives, and are they real alternatives to a full public option? We can't settle for margarine when the recipe calls for butter, but how do we know the implications of such a decision without a full understanding of our options?

Again I defer to the NYT:

August 17, 2009, 4:02 pm
So What’s a Health Insurance Co-op, Anyway?
By Anne Underwood

If a public insurance option were to be abandoned, it could be replaced by an alternative favored by some moderates like Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota: the health insurance cooperative. Legislators have not spelled out how these plans might work, but health insurance co-ops do have a history in this country. Anne Underwood, a freelance writer, quizzed Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who has written extensively on health care policy, including the feasibility of establishing health insurance co-ops.

Q.

What is a nonprofit co-op?

A.

The basic idea is that consumers get together and start a company to produce something that otherwise might not be produced or would be underproduced. Co-ops are a familiar concept in the United States, especially in rural areas. I live in western Virginia, and we belong to an electric co-op that produces our power. Farm co-ops and dairy co-ops are also common.

Q.

So co-ops can be formed to provide health insurance, too?

A.

We had them in the 1930s and 1940s, because the Farm Security Administration sponsored them before we had health insurance. There were 600,000 people in the Midwest who were insured through them. Texas was a big area for them.

Q.

What happened to them?

A.

The Farm Security Administration withdrew support in 1947, and they all collapsed. They had a hard time getting going anyway. Two have survived — Group Health Cooperative of Washington and Health Partners in Minnesota. From everything I’ve read about them, they function reasonably well. But they’ve basically become like other insurance companies with a few little added bells and whistles for their members.

But one thing that it’s important to get straight from the beginning is the difference between insurance co-ops and health insurance purchasing co-ops. There was a real movement in the 1990s to purchase insurance through co-ops. Those are similar to the exchanges that are being proposed. A few of them got going. They were not remarkably successfully, either. The idea was that consumers bargain with insurance companies to buy insurance. They’re not insurance providers themselves.

Q.

So what we’re talking about are insurance co-ops that would function as insurers themselves.

A.

The argument I make is that it’s really hard to start an insurance company. You don’t just get a bunch of people together and say, “We’re going to start an insurance co-op.” The biggest problem is coming up with a network. You have to find doctors and hospitals and negotiate contracts. Most are already locked up by the dominant insurers. They’re not going to give you — a tiny co-op — a better deal. That’s assuming they’ll deal with you at all. The alternative would be to rent a network, but you’re basically buying your product from your competitor. There’s no way you’ll get a good deal there, either.

Q.

What are some of other challenges in setting up a co-op?

A.

You need to establish a brand identity, figure out how to handle claims, develop actuarial expertise, establish reserves, meet state licensing requirements and solvency requirements.

Q.

Does it improve competition in any way?

A.

What you have in the United States now . . . is concentration of insurance markets. You hear this stuff about 1,300 insurers in the United States and all this competition. But just try to get more than one of them to bid on your contract for a health plan in the Shenandoah, where I am. One insurer controls 87 percent of the market in Harrisonburg, Va. That’s true in many places. The idea that there are 1,300 insurers and that we have access to all of them is like saying there are 10,000 produce stands in U.S. If there’s only one within 10 miles of where you live, that’s the one you have access to.

Health insurance is very local. It’s very hard to break into an insurance market. The thought that you’ll have a few businessmen get together and set up a co-op that will compete with Aetna or Cigna is just dreaming. It’s not going to happen.

Q.

So how would a public plan be superior?

A.

If you had a public plan that could use Medicare rates, the infrastructure would already be there. It could use the Medicare network. Providers could always opt out, as they do today. Some doctors won’t take Medicare patients. The Energy and Commerce bill with Blue Dog amendments allows the secretary of health and human services to negotiate rates. Any provider who didn’t want to be in the public plan could opt out.

The United States government already has brand identity. It could compete. Maybe it would be a lousy competitor and fail, or maybe it would be a great competitor and force private insurers to compete and come up with a product that was more affordable than what they’re selling now. I don’t see a problem with trying it.

The idea that the public plan will dominate the market, I don’t see that. As the president said, we have a post office, Federal Express and U.P.S. I use all three. The idea [of relying solely on private insurers] is like saying we’ll abolish the post office and give people vouchers to send letters with Federal Express. That’s what we’re doing if we don’t have a public plan.

Who knows? Maybe some consumers might put together a co-op that would survive. But the idea that co-ops will provide competition in the private market that would have effect on cost is an illusion. We’re talking about using taxpayer money to pay money to private insurers without any competition. How crazy is that?

Q.

So what’s the appeal?

A.

It’s a co-op, a consumer-run business — not the government taking over health care. Second, the idea of a co-op is familiar in the upper Midwest. They have dairy co-ops and electrical co-ops. It’s an idea familiar to constituents, and those co-ops work reasonably well for producing certain kinds of goods in certain markets. The problem is, they don’t make sense for health insurance.

The argument that we’re headed toward government-run, socialized medicine plays pretty well in a lot of conservative parts of the United States. This is an alternative. The problem is, it’s an alternative that wouldn’t work.

Q.

Would nonprofit co-ops at least help to control costs?

A.

I don’t see how it does anything to control costs. I don’t see much in the legislation outside of Medicare reforms that will control costs, except for the public plan.

I also see it as a strategy to get a bill through the Senate Finance Committee. The final bill that comes out of conference may look different. I hope so.

The other thing is, nobody has seen the co-op proposal yet.

Q.

Might health care co-ops be structured in different ways?

A.

I did a memo on how you might structure one to work, if you established a national cooperative. If the federal government set up a co-op itself, the co-op could then be set up regionally and funded adequately to get things going. You might be able to come up with a co-op that would in fact work.

But I still think it is a poor alternative to the vigorous public plan.

Q.

Should we be worried that the public plan will fare so well that we end up without private alternatives?

A.

In Germany and Australia, they have competition of public plans and private plans. In fact, what has happened is that the market stabilizes, the public plan provides things some people want, and private plans provide things other people want. What you end up with eventually is a market in which people get what they want.

The Congressional Budget Office predicted in its analysis of the House bill that about two-thirds of people who had the option would go for private market and one-third for public. The vast majority — about 160 million — would stay in employer-covered plans, because the exchange wouldn’t be available to them. Probably some people will go with the public option because it’s cheaper. Others may think private insurance will offer more care or broader coverage.

The market will sort itself out, just as the market for automobiles sorts itself out. We don’t have to all buy top-end cars. In Germany, 50 percent of people go public, and 50 percent private. I think it’s unlikely the the public plan would drive private insurers out of business.

Obama Pens NYT Op-ed on Health Care Reform

2009-08-16T07:25:00.000-07:00

If you haven't had a chance to read Obama's well written piece in the NYT, here it is. I continue to be amazed that the well reasoned and logical arguments that are being put forth by the President and Democrats in Congress are being drowned out by a discussion of conspiracy theories involving death panels and health care for undocumented workers. Of course, if your major source of news is Rush (who once imitated Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's symptoms to make the case that the actor was exaggerating the effects of his debilitating disease to make a political point)then there's really no hope for negotiation. But enough from me, here are the words of a President who actually writes his own books.

August 16, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Why We Need Health Care Reform
By BARACK OBAMA

OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.

These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.

I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.

There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.

First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.

Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.

Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.

We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.

Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.

This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.

The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.

But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.

Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.

I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.

In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.

That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.

In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.

Gotta Love Jon Stewart

2009-08-11T20:44:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Spinal Tap Performance

Palin's Facebook Status Claims Obama Death Panel Could Decide Fate of Her Child

2009-08-10T21:19:00.000-07:00

The Huffington Post, along with several other media outlets, reported this weekend that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is at it again making "extraordinary, unsupported and incendiary claims [including one] that [asserts]President Obama's health care plan will result in a 'death panel' that is fundamentally 'evil'."

In a recent Facebook posting, Palin lashed out at a scenario "in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

This, of course, is beyond wrong. It's just plain (Palin) stupid. But, worse than just being idiotic, such language actually works AGAINST children with special needs. I could write much more about this, but I found an excellent response on MOMocrats (yet another website I recommend). Here it is:

Sarah Palin, you are not my advocate. You do not speak for me. You do not speak for my child.

You do not speak for the many good friends of mine who have children with chronic medical issues far more severe than my own son's neurological disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder. You do not speak for all parents of children with Down Syndrome. You do not speak for the member of my extended family who has Down Syndrome.

What you said on your Facebook page, about mythical Obama "death panels"?

If enough people believe it — if enough people are scared by it into opposing any kind of health insurance reform — that politically motivated statement deliberately promoting a dangerous rumor that has been proven to be patently false could cause tens of thousands of children with special needs in the United States to continue to suffer without adequate health care for years to come.

In the United States, children with chronic health issues are often denied coverage by private health insurance companies that consider their health concerns to be a pre-existing condition. Some of those children denied coverage under private health insurance are, thankfully, able to qualify for public health insurance through Medicaid or SCHIP — two of our country's existing socialized medical insurance programs — but some are not. And those children who do have private insurance coverage are often forced to pay high co-pays for routine procedures, and are frequently denied authorization for recommended medical care.

Every day in the United States, children with autism or cerebral palsy are denied occupational therapy. Children with juvenile diabetes are denied insulin pumps. Children with asthma are denied inhalers. American parents of children with chronic health conditions must fight a tangled bureaucratic health insurance system constantly to make sure that their kids can get access to the care recommended by their doctors.

And that's why the National Down Syndrome Congress supports health insurance reform. That's why the Autism Society of America supports health insurance reform. That's why Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Diabetes Association, and the March of Dimes all support health care insurance reform. Because all of these organizations are advocates for children with special needs.

That's why I support health reform. Because I am a parent of a child with special needs. Because I've spent hours and hours of my life tangled up in the red tape that stands between my son and his needed health care, desperately fighting against enormous for-profit corporations who see my beautiful, beloved child not as a person who needs help but as a profit loss.

I support health insurance reform because I want exceptional children like my son — children like your son, Trig — to get the best of care. And under our current broken health care system, far too many do not.

Vocab Word of the Day: Astroturfing

2009-08-09T22:36:00.000-07:00

Here's the word in context courtesy of politicsdaily.com

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office sent out a fact sheet to reporters Tuesday afternoon, calling recent demonstrations at congressional town hall events 'Astroturf,' the Washington euphemism for a corporate public relations campaign disguised to look like a grass roots citizen movement.

Pelosi said that while Democrats are putting forth proposals to reform health care, 'those not interested in health insurance reform are disrupting public meetings and not allowing concerned constituents to ask questions and express their views. Many of these opponents who are shutting down civil discussion are organized by out-of-district, extremist political groups, and industry-supported lobbying firms.'
The statement, citing numerous media reports, linked disruptions of congressional meetings to the insurance industry and conservative organizations like FreedomWorks, which is run by former House Republican leader Dick Armey."

Manufactured dissent and heckling brought to you by the Far Right.

Eloquence Personified

2009-08-09T22:12:00.000-07:00

Rachel Maddow on Health Scare

2009-08-06T20:34:00.001-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Reagan on Health Care

2009-08-06T18:59:00.001-07:00

It was 1961 when Ronald Reagan warned his fellow Americans of a new government program that would literally spell the end of American freedom should it pass. Here are the late President's words:

“Write those letters now. Call your friends, and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day…we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this, and if I don’t do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

What monstrous socialist experiment was Reagan warning against? Medicare, the single most popular government program of all time. Medicare was the big “threat to our freedom” that Reagan was referencing. In the words of a fellow blogger on plunderbund.com, "Have you told your children and your children’s children yet that we are no longer free?"

Refuting the Birthers

2009-08-05T11:05:00.000-07:00

While you're not busy convincing the elderly that health care reform doesn't equal euthanasia, read up on this excerpted post from salon.com on how to refute the conspiracy theorists who steadfastly maintain(in spite of all the evidence to the contrary) that President Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and cannot, therefore, legally serve as President.

Myth 1: Obama wasn't born in the U.S.

This is the big one. It may also be the most easily refuted. First of all, during the presidential campaign, Obama released a certification of live birth, which is the official document you get if you ask Hawaii for a copy of your birth certificate. There are allegations that what Obama released is a forgery, but state officials have repeatedly affirmed its authenticity and said they've checked it against the original record and that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

If that wasn't enough, two Hawaiian newspapers carried announcements of Obama's birth in August 1961. (Read the Honolulu Advertiser's item from Aug. 13, 1961, nine days after Obama's birth, here.) The traditional joke that Birther debunkers make is that his grandparents must have placed those announcements because they knew that he'd want to run for president nearly five decades later. The truth, though, is that the notices are even stronger pieces of evidence than that. Obama's family didn't place them -- Hawaii did, as it does for all births. The announcements were based on official records sent to the papers by the state's Department of Health.

Myth 2: Obama can't be president because his father was a British citizen

Some of the Birthers -- like de facto leader Orly Taitz -- believe that Obama wouldn't be eligible for the presidency even if he were born in the U.S. That's because, in their infinite wisdom, the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution a fair amount of phrases they never really bothered to define. One of those is this explanation of who can be president: "No person except a natural born citizen."

The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of what "natural born citizen" means. So the Birthers have simply settled on their own definition -- someone born to two citizen parents -- and found a source,"The Law of Nations," a 1758 book by the Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel, to back them up.

There are a couple of problems with this. Most important, Obama isn't the first president with a non-citizen parent: Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president, was. His father was from Ireland and apparently did not become a U.S. citizen until more than 10 years after the future president's birth.

Plus, even if the Founding Fathers did rely on Vattel as much as the Birthers say -- always a dubious proposition -- Swiss philosophy books aren't legal precedent in the United States. British common law is. And in 1898, in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court looked into the meaning of "natural born" in the common law and concluded that a non-citizen's mere presence in the U.S. is enough to make their child, if born here, a natural-born citizen.

Myth 3: A Kenyan birth certificate for Obama, showing he was born in Mombasa, has been discovered

It's a hoax. Once Taitz released the document, purportedly a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate, it took less than two days for Internet sleuths to prove that it had been forged.
Quantcast

The first signs were a couple of small but revealing errors: The certification is dated Feb. 17, 1964, when newly independent Kenya was known as the Dominion of Kenya. It wouldn't start calling itself the Republic of Kenya until December of that year -- but the document refers to the republic. Additionally, the document's header refers to "Coast Province," but as two British professors who are experts in Kenyan history pointed out to Salon, at the time the certificate was supposedly produced, the country's provinces were referred to as regions.

For the final nail in this myth's coffin, one particularly enterprising man, Steve Eddy, located the original Australian document on which the Kenyan certificate was apparently based. The two documents share several identical numbers, including the page and the book of records in which they can be found, and minor changes were made to the names of the registrars responsible for the Australian copy. Taitz claims the Australian certificate "was created to try to discredit my efforts" but it was in fact available on the Internet as far back as 2007.

Myth 4: Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya

There's a kernel of truth to this one. In an interview with a street preacher named Ron McRae, Sarah Obama, the second wife of the president's grandfather, did say she was there, in Kenya, for her grandson's birth.

Unfortunately for the Birthers, it was the result of a miscommunication -- or perhaps a mistranslation -- and as soon as McRae started pressing the issue, Obama's family realized what had happened and corrected him. Most Birthers simply ignore the corrections, excising them from audio and transcripts of the conversation posted online. McRae just believes it's part of the conspiracy and that Obama's younger relatives were coached to hide the truth.

The full audio can be downloaded here. What follows is a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview:

MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

TRANSLATOR: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

TRANSLATOR: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

TRANSLATOR: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

TRANSLATOR: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

Myth 5: Hawaii allows parents to get birth certificates for their foreign-born children

This one is actually true -- just not in the way the Birthers think. Here's their position, as outlined by World Net Daily, a conservative news site that's become the unofficial Birther Web headquarters: "The 'Certification of Live Birth' posted online and widely touted as 'Obama's birth certificate' does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same 'short-form' document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii."

Children not born in Hawaii can get a birth document from the state. But it won't say they were born in Hawaii, as Obama's does.

"If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali," Janice Okubo, the director of communications for the state Department of Health, told the Washington Independent's David Weigel recently. "You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate."

Latest Tactic to Block Health Care Reform? Scare Senior Citizens

2009-08-05T09:06:00.001-07:00

Here's an article worth reading if you are need of a response to someone who maintains that the Obama plan for universal health care includes a euthanasia provision for senior citizens.

Michael Goforth: AARP rebuts claims of health care reform impact on seniors

If I were a senior citizen and believed some of the claims being made concerning the potential impact of health care reform on seniors, I’d be fighting against changes.

In recent weeks, particular concerns have been raised by Betsy McCaughey, a former New York lieutenant governor and self-proclaimed patient advocate. In a column and on talk shows, she has claimed that a provision in the health reform package includes a requirement that seniors on Medicare be given “end of life” counseling, essentially telling seniors how to end their lives sooner as a means of cost savings.

Some lawmakers have contended that amounts to government endorsement of euthanasia.

That would be a despicable and deplorable mandate and should anger seniors and their families if it were true.

On Saturday, the AARP, the nation’s largest advocacy organization for senior citizens, challenged McCaughey’s claim as a “gross, and even cruel, distortion.”

A statement from John Rother, the organization’s executive vice president, was posted on its Web site:

“Ms. McCaughey’s criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end-of-life care. This measure would allow Medicare to pay doctors for taking the time to talk with individuals about difficult end-of-life decisions ...

“Facing a terminal disease or debilitating accident, some people will choose to take every possible lifesaving measure in the hopes that treatment or even a cure will allow them more time with their families. Others will decide that additional treatment would impose too great a burden — emotional, physical and otherwise — on themselves and their families, declining extraordinary measures and instead choosing care to manage their discomfort. Either way, it should be their choice.”

In addition, the bill provides that doctors and patients be able to compare different types of treatments to find out which may work best for the patient.

“The main opponents of this research are those groups with a vested interest in a health are system that wastes billions of dollars each year on ineffective or unnecessary drugs, treatments or tests,” Rother said. “Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.”

There was more:

“AARP is committed to improving the quality, effectiveness and affordability of health are for our 40 million members and their families. We will fight any measure that would prevent individuals and their doctors from making their own health care decisions. We will also fight the campaign of misinformation that vested interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order to protect the status quo. Profits should never be allowed to come before people in this debate.”

This debate over what should or should not be included in a health care reform package is intense and will continue to be. And, as there are numerous complexities in trying to change such a massive system, there are certain to be differing perspectives on its aspects. And, there is some degree of misinformation being publicized by all parties involved.

Key to understanding and making personal decisions for or against reform measures is to treat each ”expert opinion” with a healthy dose of skepticism, to consider the potential motives, political or financial, that the source may have, and to weigh the levels of trust or distrust one may have in the messenger.

As we have learned too often in recent partisan debates, if misinformation spreads far enough and loudly enough, it becomes “fact.” And, when that happens, people can take positions directly opposite of their own best interests and end up losing when they think they may be winning.

michael.goforth@scripps.com

Is National Health Care on Its Deathbed?

2009-08-04T21:36:00.000-07:00

The August recess in upon us, and the right wing war machine has health care reform in the cross-hairs. Their strategy? Intelligent debate focused on our nation's need find a solution to rising health care costs . . . not quite.

How about attending town hall meetings and heckling speakers? That's more like it! Salon.com reports that, in fact, a "leaked from a volunteer with conservative group FreedomWorks entitled 'Rocking the Town Halls -- Best Practices' advises exactly this sort of behavior. (The man listed as author, Frank MacGuffie, denies having written the memo on behalf of FreedomWorks.) The memo tells protesters to spread out to appear more numerous than they are and maximize disruption, reminding them, 'Try To 'Rattle Him,' Not Have An Intelligent Debate'."

Such protesters have gone as far as hanging those members of Congress (like Rep. Frank Kratovil, D-Md.) in effigy. Others speakers have been greeted by their own images with devil horns drawn on their heads. Then there is the (dare I say it) liberal use of the Nazi swastika to degrade and deride those support reform at such meetings.

The truly tragic part of such actions is that they make headlines and may, in fact, do what the right does best: frighten people into believing that the status quo is far less frightening than change. Without significant reform, the status quo is not comforting in the least. It will, instead, give way to a stark reality. Millions of Americans can't afford their health care now; in a few more years, the cost of health care will be impossibly high.

According to www.healthcareforamericansnow.com, the full cost of employer-sponsored insurance in Kansas currently equals 25 percent of the median family income. Without meaningful health reform, that number will grow to 48 percent in 2016. Spending half of your income to insure your family simply will not work, but that's where we'll be without meaningful reform.

Those shouting down Kathleen Sebelius and Arlen Specter (among others) have blinded themselves to the fact that the current system is not sustainable. They question Obama's citizenship with such vehemence that they fail to see the 14,000 Americans who lose their health insurance every day. It's time to stop shouting and start thinking.